After the reserve list was strengthened, there were some suggestions of something like this from the community, but nothing that got much attention. Then, in the middle of 2010, there was a post on this forum claiming that Wizards was going to create such a format that year. This got the community's attention and there was much discussion about it. Someone (I think it may have been Evan Erwin) coined the name Overextended.
Is that how it went down? I was on hiatus from Magic for most of 2010, so I was going on secondhand info.
I also really don't get what's up with all the conspiracy theories about how he was actually fired for Modern bannings or something? Seriously, guys, is it really that hard to imagine he actually just decided he'd prefer to work on D&D? I get the impression that moving around like that is pretty common at Wizards anyway; Aaron Forsythe wasn't even working for R&D when he first joined Wizards, for example.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you peer long enough through the depths, the depths peer also through you.
Also, who says that Tom LaPille won't be working on Magic: The Gathering anymore? There have been people from other parts of Wizards of the Coast on design teams before...
So he admits that however illogical it is that people don't like their spells being countered vs destroyed (even though it's actually the same thing), R&D will continue to pander to this notion. Wouldn't it be better to correct people's understandings that in fact your card did the same amount of work being Essence Scattered as it would have being Doom Bladed?
There's a culture of casual players on MTGO who concede to every Discard, Land Destruction, Counter, or "expensive card" that is played against them. This isn't every player on there (I am a casual player and I only concede when I have lost), but it is a large number. Pandering to those people is just wrong. They have their own sense of how Magic should be played, and that's fine. But to force their own arbitrary ban list onto other people is unreasonable.
Counter and destroyed are not the same.
Also I agree with anti-fun "culture" bull****, happens in every game from magic, MW, TF2, etc and annoys me to no need.
Bye Tom, don't let the door hit you on the way out...
I haven't been involved in the eternal meta for very long, but I could never figure out why someone as ignorant as him was ever allowed to come within 10 feet of any ban list, anywhere. Obviously there is a limit to how much empirical testing you can do in a given format, but consider that in the last 3 months, Mr. LaPille has:
1) Nuked Modern from orbit, then wondered why control is still dead and nobody cares about the format
2) Banned Mental Misstep, then whined about how Dredge and Storm are 'un-fun and not-Magic'
I can foresee a future where Brainstorm is banned in Legacy, even though the real problem is putting Snapcaster Mage and Delver of Secrets in the same color, i.e. blue. If you want to blame the Innistrad design team for that mistake, consider that LaPille's name is front-and-center there too.
Is this incompetence or trolling? Good riddance I say.
This 1000 times.......Tom does not belong at WOTC.
Awww ill miss you tom, always seemed like a cool cat to me. Not always right buut he will be missed
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The true mind can weather all the lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can tough the poison of hatred without being harmed. Since beginning-less time, darkness thrives in the void but always yields to purifying light.
I invision a future where one is not mighty when he can silence a crowd with brutality,
but when he leaves them speechless with wisdom.
Not to mention countering bypasses shroud, hexproof, protection, and regen
That's more than enough reasons why counterspells shouldn't be nerfed. Hexproof is an abomination since day one it became an evergreen mechanic in M12. Talk about uninteractive and game skewing.
Also, counterspells do the same thing as REMOVAL. Sure, you can't Doom Blade a Geist of Saint Traft, but if you only have that out, me Mana Leak-ing it or using Slagstorm or Tribute to Hunger to kill it -- the result is the same. You don't have to use Doom Blade as the sole type of removal available to players in a format. If they use one card to kill your creature, it's the same thing as if they use one card to counter it. The removal spell or the counterspell can be interchangeable in the example. . .
Your just giving examples as to why counterspells should remain relevant and in development in Standard. With the increase in power creep for creatures -- essentially making casting a creature like casting a noncreature spell attached to a body -- without counterspells, Magic becomes a game of checks and balances between bombs. Creatures ARE NOT the most interactive way to play in Magic.
The reason why this is a big issue is with the growth of Magic over the last 5-10 years, and power creep amongst creatures growing, Magic has attracted a ton of new(er) players who are accustomed to creatures being good in the game. In the 90s, creatures were slow and inefficient, with little to no effect on the game as compared to a non-creature spell. While it may burst some players' bubbles, playing mostly creatures in your deck is not the only way to play Magic. There can be a balance between that and playing a mostly non-creature spell-based deck. Just look at the diversity in Legacy: Zoo/GW Maverick/Goblins/etc vs. any RUG tempo deck or UW control deck or combo deck, etc.
I also really don't get what's up with all the conspiracy theories about how he was actually fired for Modern bannings or something?
Like every previous member of R&D to write a weekly column on the mothership, people have created a phantasmagorical bogeyman out of Mr. LaPille to vent their frustration at, and now that he's leaving they'll grasp at any straw to retroactively justify that venting.
In reality, if Tom was actually getting blamed for something significant about the state of development over the last few years, he'd be leaving the company, not transferring to go work on their second-most-important product.
There can be a balance between that and playing a mostly non-creature spell-based deck.
Never gonna happen again. Anyone who feels that this is somehow important to their ongoing enjoyment of Magic should just quit now; there is literally not a single person in Magic R&D who feels that creatureless decks have a significant place in the game and unless R&D gets hit by a bus they're not going to hire anyone new who feels that way either.
So the developer article has gone from Randy Buehler and Aaron Forsythe to Tom LaPille and now Zac Hill. The apple has fallen quite far from the tree. I will reserve judgment, as I recall Forsythe too being inexperienced when he started, but my limited exposure to Hill’s writing on MTG.com doesn’t leave me overconfident.
Buehler was actually a terrible columnist who usually wrote short, perfunctory articles and rarely delved into anything interesting or made any serious effort to explain the role of development in a more in-depth way, IMO. Forsythe was probably a better columnist than anyone else who's written a mothership column in an official WotC capacity, just for his candor and willingness to delve into less positive elements of the game, so it's certainly hard to find someone to replace that.
Personally, I thought LaPille was a much better writer for the column overall than Devin Low (even if he did a number of things that personally irritated me) and I'm hopeful Zac will do a decent job as well.
Never gonna happen again. Anyone who feels that this is somehow important to their ongoing enjoyment of Magic should just quit now; there is literally not a single person in Magic R&D who feels that creatureless decks have a significant place in the game and unless R&D gets hit by a bus they're not going to hire anyone new who feels that way either.
Huh? First, he said "mostly non-creature", not creatureless.
Many U/x control decks in Standard run only 2-3 creatures. (For example, Andrew Cuneo's undefeated Day 1 deck at Worlds, which had just 2 Snapcaster Mage). In addition, they keep printing cards which enable creatureless or creature-light strategies, such as Pyromancer's Ascension and Burning Vengeance.
Creature-light strategies are alive, well, and actively supported.
Planeswalkers = creatures in that argument, I.E. highly interactive permanents. They still largely replace the piles of counterspells and spell combo decks of old.
Planeswalkers = creatures in that argument, I.E. highly interactive permanents. They still largely replace the piles of counterspells and spell combo decks of old.
Doesn't really change much. Even if we count PWs, these decks are very creature light.
I just can't forgive him when he wrote that "Zen-Scars" was the best Standard magic ever had to him, He has great understanding of mechanics but seems to be a more spike focused player, wish him the best.
Note: I don't outright hate him I just can't forgive that 1 comment since he seems to be one of the main guys that holds Maro back.
And now we are all doomed to sorcery's and the red zone... Awesome. We can't have everyone in R&D developing like a timmy. Cause maybe contrary to popular belief on this site but there is a huge amount of spikes in Magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: Esper Spirits-WUB
Modern: Bant Geist-WUG
Legacy: Reanimator-UB-WRG
EDH:
Ramirez DePietro: Pirate Themed-UB
Riku of Two Reflections: "Oops I Win"-URG
You guys are completely misunderstanding the point. Of course there are differences with these cards and other specific scenarios. That's NOT what they are talking about. They are talking about the situation IN A VACUUM. Not with ETB triggers, hexproof, etc. They're talking about how players feel in 2 different situations that lead to the exact same thing.
Why is it so hard to understand when someone is illustrating a point in a general sense that specific counterexamples have little to no bearing on the argument? If you want to argue otherwise you should discuss examples where players don't feel any different in these scenarios.
Some of Tom's ideas were unpopular, but Magic players really dont understand what it is they want or how things work 99% of the time.
At worst he's just another squirt in the crap bucket of D&D R&D. At best he might actually drag some of the better aspects of Magic design over to D&D kicking and screaming.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You've got a rat in your walls, and cheese won't solve anything.
How is this any different from trying to correct people's understandings that counterspells are "in fact" no more fun than playing creatures?
Hint: neither are actually facts.
I never said anything about what is more fun. That's completely subjective, whereas what I am saying about Essence Scatter vs. Doom Blade and people's illogical responses is objective. Granted, that part may be more relevant to MTGO (where it is easier to just concede at the beginning of a game and be rude with no repercussions), but R&D seems to think it's true in paper as well.
Since your only reply to me was that I took Tom Lapille out of context (in your opinion), and you had no real argument, I have no further reply to you.
Hint: nothing that I quoted from Lapille's article was taken out of context.
Yeah, you guys are right. The comparison breaks down because Essence Scatter is actually a much worse card than Doom Blade; while there are a small percentage of creatures in all of Magic that removal can't stop, Essence Scatter can only hit creatures if you A) have mana untapped as they cast it B) have Essence Scatter in your hand as they cast it. Those are two costs that are incredibly prohibitive.
Yeah, you guys are right. The comparison breaks down because Essence Scatter is actually a much worse card than Doom Blade; while there are a small percentage of creatures in all of Magic that removal can't stop, Essence Scatter can only hit creatures if you A) have mana untapped as they cast it B) have Essence Scatter in your hand as they cast it. Those are two costs that are incredibly prohibitive.
It's alright people just complain that their opponent might want to tell them "No, I'm not going to allow you to play a spell that can be game winning." Cause damn me if I want to let my opponent win right? Just because saying "No" is a better game plan than saying "Yea play whatever you want I can only interact with creatures" doesn't make the game less fun. People just need to calm down and learn to play the game and know that the deck choices they make will directly effect their outcomes.
Not the mention that magic is all confuzzled anyway right now, so I'm not surprised that people are moving or leaving I would hope that there are people in WotC that are leaving *or at least showing distaste* because of the companies recent affairs.
It's alright people just complain that their opponent might want to tell them "No, I'm not going to allow you to play a spell that can be game winning." Cause damn me if I want to let my opponent win right? Just because saying "No" is a better game plan than saying "Yea play whatever you want I can only interact with creatures" doesn't make the game less fun. People just need to calm down and learn to play the game and know that the deck choices they make will directly effect their outcomes.
Yeah, one thing I never understood about people's conceding patterns on MTGO is that they don't seem to be in any way related to losing. When I concede, it's because I have lost the game. When other's concede, it's often because their opponent played a card they believe to be unfair or unfun in some way, and they concede when it is either still very likely that they would have won, or very possible that they would have won.
Is that how it went down? I was on hiatus from Magic for most of 2010, so I was going on secondhand info.
I also really don't get what's up with all the conspiracy theories about how he was actually fired for Modern bannings or something? Seriously, guys, is it really that hard to imagine he actually just decided he'd prefer to work on D&D? I get the impression that moving around like that is pretty common at Wizards anyway; Aaron Forsythe wasn't even working for R&D when he first joined Wizards, for example.
Not to mention countering bypasses shroud, hexproof, protection, and regen
Counter and destroyed are not the same.
Also I agree with anti-fun "culture" bull****, happens in every game from magic, MW, TF2, etc and annoys me to no need.
This 1000 times.......Tom does not belong at WOTC.
I invision a future where one is not mighty when he can silence a crowd with brutality,
but when he leaves them speechless with wisdom.
That's more than enough reasons why counterspells shouldn't be nerfed. Hexproof is an abomination since day one it became an evergreen mechanic in M12. Talk about uninteractive and game skewing.
Also, counterspells do the same thing as REMOVAL. Sure, you can't Doom Blade a Geist of Saint Traft, but if you only have that out, me Mana Leak-ing it or using Slagstorm or Tribute to Hunger to kill it -- the result is the same. You don't have to use Doom Blade as the sole type of removal available to players in a format. If they use one card to kill your creature, it's the same thing as if they use one card to counter it. The removal spell or the counterspell can be interchangeable in the example. . .
Your just giving examples as to why counterspells should remain relevant and in development in Standard. With the increase in power creep for creatures -- essentially making casting a creature like casting a noncreature spell attached to a body -- without counterspells, Magic becomes a game of checks and balances between bombs. Creatures ARE NOT the most interactive way to play in Magic.
The reason why this is a big issue is with the growth of Magic over the last 5-10 years, and power creep amongst creatures growing, Magic has attracted a ton of new(er) players who are accustomed to creatures being good in the game. In the 90s, creatures were slow and inefficient, with little to no effect on the game as compared to a non-creature spell. While it may burst some players' bubbles, playing mostly creatures in your deck is not the only way to play Magic. There can be a balance between that and playing a mostly non-creature spell-based deck. Just look at the diversity in Legacy: Zoo/GW Maverick/Goblins/etc vs. any RUG tempo deck or UW control deck or combo deck, etc.
Like every previous member of R&D to write a weekly column on the mothership, people have created a phantasmagorical bogeyman out of Mr. LaPille to vent their frustration at, and now that he's leaving they'll grasp at any straw to retroactively justify that venting.
In reality, if Tom was actually getting blamed for something significant about the state of development over the last few years, he'd be leaving the company, not transferring to go work on their second-most-important product.
Never gonna happen again. Anyone who feels that this is somehow important to their ongoing enjoyment of Magic should just quit now; there is literally not a single person in Magic R&D who feels that creatureless decks have a significant place in the game and unless R&D gets hit by a bus they're not going to hire anyone new who feels that way either.
Buehler was actually a terrible columnist who usually wrote short, perfunctory articles and rarely delved into anything interesting or made any serious effort to explain the role of development in a more in-depth way, IMO. Forsythe was probably a better columnist than anyone else who's written a mothership column in an official WotC capacity, just for his candor and willingness to delve into less positive elements of the game, so it's certainly hard to find someone to replace that.
Personally, I thought LaPille was a much better writer for the column overall than Devin Low (even if he did a number of things that personally irritated me) and I'm hopeful Zac will do a decent job as well.
Huh? First, he said "mostly non-creature", not creatureless.
Many U/x control decks in Standard run only 2-3 creatures. (For example, Andrew Cuneo's undefeated Day 1 deck at Worlds, which had just 2 Snapcaster Mage). In addition, they keep printing cards which enable creatureless or creature-light strategies, such as Pyromancer's Ascension and Burning Vengeance.
Creature-light strategies are alive, well, and actively supported.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Doesn't really change much. Even if we count PWs, these decks are very creature light.
And we still have decks like Ascension/Vengeance.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
<----Patiently waits for Balance to be legal in Legacy.
no he didn't. gavin verhey did.
My have/wants trade list.
And now we are all doomed to sorcery's and the red zone... Awesome. We can't have everyone in R&D developing like a timmy. Cause maybe contrary to popular belief on this site but there is a huge amount of spikes in Magic.
Modern: Bant Geist-WUG
Legacy: Reanimator-UB-WRG
EDH:
Ramirez DePietro: Pirate Themed-UB
Riku of Two Reflections: "Oops I Win"-URG
You guys are completely misunderstanding the point. Of course there are differences with these cards and other specific scenarios. That's NOT what they are talking about. They are talking about the situation IN A VACUUM. Not with ETB triggers, hexproof, etc. They're talking about how players feel in 2 different situations that lead to the exact same thing.
Why is it so hard to understand when someone is illustrating a point in a general sense that specific counterexamples have little to no bearing on the argument? If you want to argue otherwise you should discuss examples where players don't feel any different in these scenarios.
Some of Tom's ideas were unpopular, but Magic players really dont understand what it is they want or how things work 99% of the time.
At worst he's just another squirt in the crap bucket of D&D R&D. At best he might actually drag some of the better aspects of Magic design over to D&D kicking and screaming.
I never said anything about what is more fun. That's completely subjective, whereas what I am saying about Essence Scatter vs. Doom Blade and people's illogical responses is objective. Granted, that part may be more relevant to MTGO (where it is easier to just concede at the beginning of a game and be rude with no repercussions), but R&D seems to think it's true in paper as well.
Since your only reply to me was that I took Tom Lapille out of context (in your opinion), and you had no real argument, I have no further reply to you.
Hint: nothing that I quoted from Lapille's article was taken out of context.
Yeah, you guys are right. The comparison breaks down because Essence Scatter is actually a much worse card than Doom Blade; while there are a small percentage of creatures in all of Magic that removal can't stop, Essence Scatter can only hit creatures if you A) have mana untapped as they cast it B) have Essence Scatter in your hand as they cast it. Those are two costs that are incredibly prohibitive.
Thanks to Spiderboy4 of [High~Light Studios] for the awesome sig.
It's alright people just complain that their opponent might want to tell them "No, I'm not going to allow you to play a spell that can be game winning." Cause damn me if I want to let my opponent win right? Just because saying "No" is a better game plan than saying "Yea play whatever you want I can only interact with creatures" doesn't make the game less fun. People just need to calm down and learn to play the game and know that the deck choices they make will directly effect their outcomes.
Not the mention that magic is all confuzzled anyway right now, so I'm not surprised that people are moving or leaving I would hope that there are people in WotC that are leaving *or at least showing distaste* because of the companies recent affairs.
Modern: Bant Geist-WUG
Legacy: Reanimator-UB-WRG
EDH:
Ramirez DePietro: Pirate Themed-UB
Riku of Two Reflections: "Oops I Win"-URG
Yeah, one thing I never understood about people's conceding patterns on MTGO is that they don't seem to be in any way related to losing. When I concede, it's because I have lost the game. When other's concede, it's often because their opponent played a card they believe to be unfair or unfun in some way, and they concede when it is either still very likely that they would have won, or very possible that they would have won.
Thanks to Spiderboy4 of [High~Light Studios] for the awesome sig.
Who has officially started working for Wotc hope he doesn't get tainted.
Yeah, my hope is he will be a positive addition to R&D - and maybe a more permanent one after the initial internship.
I certainly have more faith in Gavin than I do in Tom Lapille.
Thanks to Spiderboy4 of [High~Light Studios] for the awesome sig.
Fixed.
No one knows except R & D. They only spoon feed us what they want to be fed.
G-Bye Tom.
Brain: Thank you.
Me: You're welcome, Brain!
Some people just love Jace a little too much
Great sig, haha. Too bad Lapille probably won't see it.
Thanks to Spiderboy4 of [High~Light Studios] for the awesome sig.