Wizards needs to stop making mechanics only to never bring them back again. Sometimes they only put it on less than a handful of new cards in supplemental sets like Conspiracy, Commander, Archenemy, or Planechase but even then those sets also incorporate new mechanics that they don't want to be overshadowed by known mechanics. Well, why even design new mechanics if it won't continue getting support? Eternal formats use practically all cards in Magic. Hell, even commander, which has a 99-card library, is limited to mechanic dedication simply due to the lack of cards with them. I could probably build a decent EDH deck devoted to banding before I can do one for monstrosity, for example. Vehicles are definitely something that should return. There are some equipment that look like vehicles, anyways (Chariot of Victory, Assault Suit, Copper Carapace, Kitesail, and Warmonger's Chariot).
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Wizards needs to stop making mechanics only to never bring them back again. Sometimes they only put it on less than a handful of new cards in supplemental sets like Conspiracy, Commander, Archenemy, or Planechase but even then those sets also incorporate new mechanics that they don't want to be overshadowed by known mechanics. Well, why even design new mechanics if it won't continue getting support? Eternal formats use practically all cards in Magic. Hell, even commander, which has a 99-card library, is limited to mechanic dedication simply due to the lack of cards with them. I could probably build a decent EDH deck devoted to banding before I can do one for monstrosity, for example. Vehicles are definitely something that should return. There are some equipment that look like vehicles, anyways (Chariot of Victory, Assault Suit, Copper Carapace, Kitesail, and Warmonger's Chariot).
The most obvious problem I see with your argument is that you have no idea what will never be brought back again. They are still reprinting cards and mechanics- everything is still on the table. Who says that we won't see every mechanic you think under supported see some support in the future?
My next objection would be that mechanics don't need to fulfill every function you'd like them to fulfill. Just because it would be nice if we had X doesn't mean it was a mistake for WotC not to have done X, because they can't do everything. We don't need more monstrosity cards for the ones we already have to have done their job.
And most mechanics, like your Monstrosity example, are not linear, so there's no much reason why having more of them really does anything anyway. Having more Monstrosity wouldn't make the Monstrosity cards we have any better. The same is mostly true for vehicles.
Homelands is a hard animal to beat for worst set. If I recall correctly WotC required a certain number of cards from each set their decks so everyone just playedSerrated Arrows . I also remember searching every card list trying to make Baron Sengir worthwhile.
There was a pro tour event where they required all decks to have a minimum of 5 cards from each set, Fallen empires, Fourth, ice age, alliances, chronicles, homelands and mirage. The most commonly played cards from homelands were Serrated arrows, Memory lapse, Merchant scroll, Cemetery Gate (2B, 0/5 pro black wall), Autumn Willow and Eron the relentless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Was originally doomhed, forum member since 2007.
Commander decks
Nekusar, Trostani, Horde of notions, Merieke ri beret, Talruum, Sidesi, Shattergang brothers, Shirei, Deretti, Azusa, Sigurda, Geist of st. Traft, Bw enchantments[/spoiler]
Wizards needs to stop making mechanics only to never bring them back again. Sometimes they only put it on less than a handful of new cards in supplemental sets like Conspiracy, Commander, Archenemy, or Planechase but even then those sets also incorporate new mechanics that they don't want to be overshadowed by known mechanics. Well, why even design new mechanics if it won't continue getting support? Eternal formats use practically all cards in Magic. Hell, even commander, which has a 99-card library, is limited to mechanic dedication simply due to the lack of cards with them. I could probably build a decent EDH deck devoted to banding before I can do one for monstrosity, for example. Vehicles are definitely something that should return. There are some equipment that look like vehicles, anyways (Chariot of Victory, Assault Suit, Copper Carapace, Kitesail, and Warmonger's Chariot).
The most obvious problem I see with your argument is that you have no idea what will never be brought back again. They are still reprinting cards and mechanics- everything is still on the table. Who says that we won't see every mechanic you think under supported see some support in the future?
My next objection would be that mechanics don't need to fulfill every function you'd like them to fulfill. Just because it would be nice if we had X doesn't mean it was a mistake for WotC not to have done X, because they can't do everything. We don't need more monstrosity cards for the ones we already have to have done their job.
And most mechanics, like your Monstrosity example, are not linear, so there's no much reason why having more of them really does anything anyway. Having more Monstrosity wouldn't make the Monstrosity cards we have any better. The same is mostly true for vehicles.
I get your point entirely. However, I'm not saying that not giving us X is a mistake or problem. I'm simply stating that it feels like the game is being saturated with a lot of mechanics (not complaining about that) without really given enough devotion to most of them. However, if we take fabricate as an example, only 14 out of 264 cards have it in Kaladesh. Sure, we'll get more in the next set. But, as a block, what percent of the block incorporates this new mechanic? A very small amount.
Also, I'm not saying that more cards with any given mechanic would make the mechanic any better. I'm simply saying that if one were to play around with the mechanic, more options make for more deckbuilding and playing strategies in general. It's not asking for things that don't exist yet, it's asking to revisit these mechanics more often.
Here only one mechanic truly fits your description since fabricate and vehicles do not need support. That is what makes them great also. Both are very interesting (at least in limited for fabricate, vehicles everywhere) adding good game decisions without too much complexity. To me, Fabricate is easily the best +1/+1 or token mechanic I have seen: playing on 3 build around me axis (counters, artifacts and go-wide) plus interesting board-state versatility.
Energy is different. It's easily the most parasitic mechanic since infect, and it's level of complexity is sky high, needing to keep track of many things and forcing cards to have multiple effects and triggers (producing and using energy). You can also easily forget some energy triggers on some cards and get a bad beat... It's very pleasant to play though and is part of what makes this set great and not dry up on limited, with countless Ways to play, and Johnny decks. I love it but it is certainly a mechanic that should only see print on rare occasions. Waiting for Kaladesh II or Vryn (if they want non artifact energy plane) to see it again seems obvious and we should be fine with it. Power level on most energy cards make them relevant in formats that Feat parasitic such as chaos draft (I saw dynavolt tower being good there...) so it's not a problem not to see it again for 3 to 5 years.
With about a month of Kakadesh I think that the set is great. Best sealed environment I played do far. Good draft environment (on par with excellent SOI environment...better than average) and deep limited format overall.
For value, inventions plus loads of cards relevant in EDH and at least par or slightly above number of standard cards makes it decent.
Standard seems interesting although I played way more limited so far so I am less confident on that. I Love the diversity of aggro-combo-control having good results so far, plus midrange if you count emerge decks as midrange. The Pro tour felt like Control is a little bit too strong and aggro too focused on 1 deck, i hope the metagame shift into more of a 10+ deck format later, rather than a 2+underdogs as it seems (torrential Gearhulk control vs. RWX Smuggler's Copter aggro.).
I agree on everything you said except on energy. Yet, concerning energy there are mixed feelings about it. Some love it, others hate it, and some don't even care. I'm all for it. It's something new and breathes new life into imagination and lots of possibilities. I don't see it as parasitic as some claim it to be (yet I'm one that doesn't see snow mana as parasitic since you can obtain it from basic lands and a lot of other sources). I consider something like "splice onto arcane" to be completely parasitic. However, poison counters aren't parasitic (since you mentioned infect) because it's not entirely dependent on something else. It's simple to win the game by giving an opponent 10 poison counters and be done with it - no dependence on anything. It's along the same vein as saying that commander damage is parasitic, which clearly isn't. That being said, I agree that it contains a high level of complexity. However, it opens the doors to a lot of things because it's not mana but it behaves like mana. It provides abilities with alternate costing and gives players an additional resources besides life points. I'd like it to return whenever possible to planes that are heavy into artifacts. It reminds me of charge counters only that the player is "being charged".
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
How is infect not completely parasitic? If you play a deck with a few infect creatures, get the opponent to 9 poison, and then all your infect creatures suddenly drop dead and you have none left, you are incapable of killing the opponent via poison damage with your non infect creatures. Infect isn't in cubes and such because of how parasitic it is. Phyrexian crusader is a fine card and all with great abilities, but when it's the only infect creature that's really viable in cube you can't run it because it is incapable of killing your opponent unless it somehow connects and deals 10 damage to the opposing player over an entire game.
Energy is also parasitic for the same reason. Can't use it if you run out of outlets for it. Could have a trillion energy in your pool and no outlets for it/it's useless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
How is infect not completely parasitic? If you play a deck with a few infect creatures, get the opponent to 9 poison, and then all your infect creatures suddenly drop dead and you have none left, you are incapable of killing the opponent via poison damage with your non infect creatures. Infect isn't in cubes and such because of how parasitic it is. Phyrexian crusader is a fine card and all with great abilities, but when it's the only infect creature that's really viable in cube you can't run it because it is incapable of killing your opponent unless it somehow connects and deals 10 damage to the opposing player over an entire game.
Energy is also parasitic for the same reason. Can't use it if you run out of outlets for it. Could have a trillion energy in your pool and no outlets for it/it's useless.
Honestly - and not trying to be a jackass at all or anything, but I still fail to see the complete parasitism of poison counters. If the argument is: "if all your creatures are killed off then winning with poison counters is useless" the same could also be said for combat damage because without creatures to attack with, you can't win via combat damage. Unlike splice or energy, which are completely dependent on other things - energy in particular, as you mentioned. I can understand how people could consider infect as parasitic, but I've still failed to see an argument that can show to me that it is. The wiki here considers horsemanship to be parasitic. That's beyond me, as well. Horsemanship is basically flying with another name and it's also a mechanic that should get a comeback. You might as well consider shadow to be parasitic as well. I guess I'm just attached to the biological definition of parasitism which means that a parasite cannot function or survive without its host.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
No, horsemanship and shadow should not come back. Horsemanship might as well be another name for flying that makes zero sense on creatures not on horseback. Flying creatures can block or be blocked by creatures with flying or reach as well as ground creatures. Horsemanship creatures can be blocked only by things with horsemanship and creatures with horsemanship can also block creatures without it. They are functionally the same thing from a game design perspective, it's just that P3K was a really, really stupid idea for a set overall. Shadow is at least different from a gameplay perspective as creatures with shadow cannot block creatures without shadow, but having multiple forms of unblockability other than flying is a design failure.
If you don't get why horsemanship isn't parasitic, only creatures in P3K can potentially block creatures with horsemanship. In no other set does a creature exist that can block a creature with horsemanship, so interactivity is zero just like splice onto arcane cards in kamigawa where you can't splice a spell onto another spell outside kamigawa block. That's why people have talked for years about a mechanic like splice onto arcane without the arcane part. I know I'd love a splice onto sorcery or instant mechanic, as there is tons of design space there.
Yeah you can run out of ways to deal normal damage to an opponent, I never said you couldn't. Example: Game 2 of the pro tour finals yesterday. But the big problem is that you have to go all or nothing on infect creatures basically in deckbuilding, as otherwise you have 2 different clocks for your opponent. Cystbearer has no synergy with wild leotau in terms of killing the opponent if you're bashing your opponent with both simultaneously. That is parasitic. If you don't understand I can't help you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
Well, I can understand that it's parasitic in the terms of strategy; you'd need to build your deck around it. It's not parasitic in that it depends exclusively on other cards to function (like energy counters and splice does). Horsemanship is only parasitic from an opponent's point of view because I don't need anything else to play with horsemanship in order to get it to work. I can have a single creature with horsemanship be the bane of my opponent's existence without having to design my entire deck around it. I don't need to combine it with other cards or strategies to get it to work. The reason horsemanship is parasitic is in that MtG definition of parasitic mechanic because it hasn't been printed in other sets. Had it become evergreen life flying, it wouldn't be parasitic.
In that sense, I can understand in the sense that people consider infect to be parasitic - it's dependent on overall strategy instead of particular cards. So it still has a sense of dependence in order to be totally functional.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
I told you why horsemanship will never come back. I'd rate storm as a mechanic more likely to return than horsemanship in a standard set. Having multiple forms of evasion is horrible game design. You have a creature with horsemanship and flying in play. Your opponent has a shadow creature. They are all evasive, but they can't interact with each other at all. That's why flying is evergreen and the other 2 aren't. On top of that, it makes absolutely no sense flavorwise that a tarmogoyf can't block something on a horse as though riding a horse makes you invincible in combat when that just isn't true in high fantasy. Go ahead and ask MaRo why having multiple forms of evasion in one limited/standard environment is horrible design.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
Energy counters can definitely be called parasitic: it is a mechanic that interacts only with itself, and exists only in a single block. Minor interactions like proliferate, notwithstanding. By the textbook definition, absolutely, it is parasitic. Despite this, however, energy earns its place by working well by itself: taken in isolation, Aether Hub is Tendo Ice Bridge. Nobody ever called charge counters parasitic, and Deadlock Trap looks a lot like Tumble Magnet. This demonstrates that being parasitic is not necessarily a bad thing if handled well.
Other examples abound. Allies fit the description as well, despite being a tribe rather than strictly a mechanic: they appeared only in a single block (until recently revisited,) and interacted only with other members of that block (outside of fringeinteractions). However, when the cards play well by themselves, nobody minds. If Wind Drake wasn't a problem, Umara Raptor won't be either. When any mechanic forces you to go deep with specific cards of only that mechanic to get marginal benefits, then we see problems. That's why cohort was so abysmallyawful.
Infect can also be called parasitic. It is less parasitic on its face than many others for several reasons: poison counters exist elsewhere (though most older cards featuring them are entirely unplayable,) and infect does lead to meaningful interactions outside of poison counters. Taken in isolation, infect can be seen as wither plus "prevent all damage this creature would deal to players". That is still a decent ability, considering that even if they all had defender, wither is still pretty good. The fact that infect is tied up in an alternate win-con is what makes it parasitic. A deck has to either be poison or not, and if it is poison, the pool is dramatically limited to a few cards, most of which must have the mechanic in question. That makes the mechanic pretty parasitic.
To settle an argument, flying, horsemanship, and shadow can all be considered highly parasitic, because they all relate specifically to themselves, and not cards outside of the mechanic. This goes to prove an important point about parasitism: flying is a fine mechanic because it is mentioned on 2,222 cards by my most recent search. Shadow and horsemanship together only appear on 110 cards. All are highly parasitic, but flying is a returning mechanic in every set ever, so it is simply part of the game's larger meta. Horsemanship and shadow don't need to be part of the game's larger meta in a meaningful way, so I'm against printing more of them in standard legal sets. There are plenty of other forms of evasion.
If half of every instant or sorcery card printed after Kamigawa had been given the Arcane subtype, nothing involving it could be called parasitic anymore. It's a delicate balance.
In short, parasitism in magic is more complicated than Arcane = Parasitic = Bad. Releasing a mechanic with a degree of parasitism every once in a while is fine, as long as it is handled well, and energy has been, for the most part.
I told you why horsemanship will never come back. I'd rate storm as a mechanic more likely to return than horsemanship in a standard set. Having multiple forms of evasion is horrible game design. You have a creature with horsemanship and flying in play. Your opponent has a shadow creature. They are all evasive, but they can't interact with each other at all. That's why flying is evergreen and the other 2 aren't. On top of that, it makes absolutely no sense flavorwise that a tarmogoyf can't block something on a horse as though riding a horse makes you invincible in combat when that just isn't true in high fantasy. Go ahead and ask MaRo why having multiple forms of evasion in one limited/standard environment is horrible design.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
It diminishes the claim when there's one of these threads every set. if you're not happy with the sets, then quit.
Actually, even the OP seems excited about the set, if you read the post. I've read very little honest negative chatter about Kaladesh. Probably less than any other recent set: the last set I remember being so well liked in its day was Innistrad. Expect a return to Kaladesh in five years or less.
Yep, seems that many only read the title of the thread and jump to conclusions without even reading the first post.
Anyway, Kaladesh seems very well recieved, yet with such poularity comes much risk: what if the payoff of Aether Revolt changes the set and the plane in such a way to remove everything that made the plane so loved?
For example:
- Original Zendikar was all about exploration, adventure and survival in a harsh environment and at the end of the set it all become "survive and fight against the Eldrazi".
- Original Tarkir was featuring 5 unique cultures in a constant fight with each other. Fate reforged delved deeper into those cultures and their struggle against the dragons. Then the payoff was a new watered down version of Tarkir where big bad dragons rule everything and fight against each other.
On the other hand, there are examples of things done right (in my opinion, obviously):
- Alara: they started with 5 shards with 3 colors each and after the conflux the 5 different worlds clashed into one another and while changing they retained their identity and essence (what made them unique in the first place).
Something similar happened with both Ravnica blocks and to some extent with both Innistrad blocks (the second one more then the first one, tho).
All this to say that with a first set that is so popular, much expectation is placed on the second set and migt not manage to live up to it.
All in all, I like the setting of Kaladesh and how they conveyed it through cards.
I really like how the new mechanics play and vehicles are actually growing on me (even if I only play Duels) and somehow Kalafesh is managing to be on par with Innistrad for me.
Really hope they don't screw it up with the second set.
Considering Wizards is slashing the prices by 10% on aether revolt secondary products don't get your hopes high. Wizards has rarely ever slashed prices to bulk sellers on products, and a slash of 10% is huge. The main problem with Kaladesh at the moment is that it is very much Kamigawa. It has a lot of the same signs I saw back when that set was live years ago in that there are a few named cards that are really crazy good and then a bunch of synergistic cards that will likely never make it out of standard. This is especially true of energy even though many energy cards are self sufficient. Aetherworks Marvel is just too slow without also having to use strictly worse creatures to add energy to the pool, and once it fires off once chances are there isn't going to be a second coming.
The bonkers cards in the set are Panharmonicon, Smuggler's Copter, and possibly Metalwork Colossus simply because it works well in decks that make use of large numbers of non-creature artifacts. It's much better than Titan Forge was in Scars block, that's for sure. Also, Chandra, Torch of Defiance may have puttered out and entered the anti-hype phase of her existence, but she feels potentially quite good and does give a vibe of Liliana of the Veil, who also saw a similar dip in her price post launch. I don't think she will be as valued to players as Liliana, but she's definitely a stronger walker than many we've seen in the past.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Btw speaking of parasitic mechanics, hasn't anyone noticed that that term is just confusing and wrong? I've had much better time explaining the phenomenon of things like energy/snow/soulshift as "insular" (relegated to it's own little island and isn't easily moved out of it) and stuff like poison/horsemanship/shadow as "invasive" (tends to take over environments, goes beyond it's designated scope). I don't expect anyone to change their habits because someone said something on the net, but it's been handy for me.
Yup, insular + invasive sound like useful distinctions. I've also thought the term 'parasitic' to be counter-intuitive.
Parasitic would make much more sense describing mechanics that depend on the presence of other mechanics, and which do absolutely nothing on their own.
Proliferate, Populate, Champion a (Tribe) and (Tribe) Offering are examples I would count as truly parasitic, as they are all entirely useless if you do not have at least one other card in the deck for them to work off.
Anyway, I think insular and invasive mechanics are perfectly fine, providing they are supported to the point of being frequently revisited mechanics.
An island can be large, with a lot of space. A large enough island makes for a continent.
The question is, what kinds of land masses, or 'mechanical masses' do players and R&D want to see in the game?
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
It's completely trash. They are garbage and pretty well unplayable with any other cads from other sets. I wasted around $400 buying packs to get one of the descent cards like a nice looking mana vault or or one of the such few cards in the set that are any good. But still have only gotten trash cards I would never find a use for if i was not to play it with this block which is total garbage. I think I've had it with buying new cards they have really gone down hill over the past few years. Going to keep my money spent on real cards back from the old sets when they still had style to them.
It's completely trash. They are garbage and pretty well unplayable with any other cads from other sets. I wasted around $400 buying packs to get one of the descent cards like a nice looking mana vault or or one of the such few cards in the set that are any good. But still have only gotten trash cards I would never find a use for if i was not to play it with this block which is total garbage. I think I've had it with buying new cards they have really gone down hill over the past few years. Going to keep my money spent on real cards back from the old sets when they still had style to them.
I'll give you $10 for all the "trash" you're not going to use
lmao imagine being so inept with money that you would spend that much on a product that you don't like to get a $50 card you don't need
kaladesh is the first good set since Khans
As a long time player (1994) who's been out of Standard since RTR, I can honestly say that there has been nothing in the sets since RTR that has made me even remotely want to return to playing Standard Magic.
Kaladesh is no different.
Where are powerful spell effects? Are players such babies now that they can't handle getting permanents removed or countered easily?
Magic the "creaturing" in full effect. I'll come back when standard can handle cards like "Wrath of God", "Counterspell" and "Pox".
As a long time player (1994) who's been out of Standard since RTR, I can honestly say that there has been nothing in the sets since RTR that has made me even remotely want to return to playing Standard Magic.
Kaladesh is no different.
Where are powerful spell effects? Are players such babies now that they can't handle getting permanents removed or countered easily?
Magic the "creaturing" in full effect. I'll come back when standard can handle cards like "Wrath of God", "Counterspell" and "Pox".
I guess this is good bye then. You will be missed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
There are good things coming out of the last few sets in design land that make me happy, though. The fact they are finally fixing an integral problem with dual lands in magic and making basics matter again is a good thing.
On the subject of Kaladesh, though, I don't think Kaladesh is a bad set. I really like Vehicles as under the surface it's really just another form of equip. Only instead of having to pay mana to enhance an existing creature they pilot the gear and get a pseudo totem armor protection from destruction as the vehicle dies instead of the pilot. Energy is something I'm not quite a fan of. It's going to be stuck in Kaladesh and that's it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I decided, for my decks, to stop buying new cards. I'm spending my money on collecting cards from the original border. Mirrodin was the end of "classic" magic and the new card types and rarities that followed have been a total failure for myself as an older player.
I fine it hilarious that my teenage sons notice how much better the older sets were compared to the cash grab that has been going on. There was a point in time where you could build competitive decks out of mostly commons and uncommons. Now to be close to tier 1 you need $500 for your decks. With this being a game I can't see why or how it's justified to spend that kind of money. THis set only confirmed my doubt in Wizards ability to make a decent product anymore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
The most obvious problem I see with your argument is that you have no idea what will never be brought back again. They are still reprinting cards and mechanics- everything is still on the table. Who says that we won't see every mechanic you think under supported see some support in the future?
My next objection would be that mechanics don't need to fulfill every function you'd like them to fulfill. Just because it would be nice if we had X doesn't mean it was a mistake for WotC not to have done X, because they can't do everything. We don't need more monstrosity cards for the ones we already have to have done their job.
And most mechanics, like your Monstrosity example, are not linear, so there's no much reason why having more of them really does anything anyway. Having more Monstrosity wouldn't make the Monstrosity cards we have any better. The same is mostly true for vehicles.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
There was a pro tour event where they required all decks to have a minimum of 5 cards from each set, Fallen empires, Fourth, ice age, alliances, chronicles, homelands and mirage. The most commonly played cards from homelands were Serrated arrows, Memory lapse, Merchant scroll, Cemetery Gate (2B, 0/5 pro black wall), Autumn Willow and Eron the relentless.
Commander decks
Nekusar, Trostani, Horde of notions, Merieke ri beret, Talruum, Sidesi, Shattergang brothers, Shirei, Deretti, Azusa, Sigurda, Geist of st. Traft, Bw enchantments[/spoiler]
-And others under construction
I get your point entirely. However, I'm not saying that not giving us X is a mistake or problem. I'm simply stating that it feels like the game is being saturated with a lot of mechanics (not complaining about that) without really given enough devotion to most of them. However, if we take fabricate as an example, only 14 out of 264 cards have it in Kaladesh. Sure, we'll get more in the next set. But, as a block, what percent of the block incorporates this new mechanic? A very small amount.
Also, I'm not saying that more cards with any given mechanic would make the mechanic any better. I'm simply saying that if one were to play around with the mechanic, more options make for more deckbuilding and playing strategies in general. It's not asking for things that don't exist yet, it's asking to revisit these mechanics more often.
I agree on everything you said except on energy. Yet, concerning energy there are mixed feelings about it. Some love it, others hate it, and some don't even care. I'm all for it. It's something new and breathes new life into imagination and lots of possibilities. I don't see it as parasitic as some claim it to be (yet I'm one that doesn't see snow mana as parasitic since you can obtain it from basic lands and a lot of other sources). I consider something like "splice onto arcane" to be completely parasitic. However, poison counters aren't parasitic (since you mentioned infect) because it's not entirely dependent on something else. It's simple to win the game by giving an opponent 10 poison counters and be done with it - no dependence on anything. It's along the same vein as saying that commander damage is parasitic, which clearly isn't. That being said, I agree that it contains a high level of complexity. However, it opens the doors to a lot of things because it's not mana but it behaves like mana. It provides abilities with alternate costing and gives players an additional resources besides life points. I'd like it to return whenever possible to planes that are heavy into artifacts. It reminds me of charge counters only that the player is "being charged".
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Energy is also parasitic for the same reason. Can't use it if you run out of outlets for it. Could have a trillion energy in your pool and no outlets for it/it's useless.
Currently Playing:
Retired
Honestly - and not trying to be a jackass at all or anything, but I still fail to see the complete parasitism of poison counters. If the argument is: "if all your creatures are killed off then winning with poison counters is useless" the same could also be said for combat damage because without creatures to attack with, you can't win via combat damage. Unlike splice or energy, which are completely dependent on other things - energy in particular, as you mentioned. I can understand how people could consider infect as parasitic, but I've still failed to see an argument that can show to me that it is. The wiki here considers horsemanship to be parasitic. That's beyond me, as well. Horsemanship is basically flying with another name and it's also a mechanic that should get a comeback. You might as well consider shadow to be parasitic as well. I guess I'm just attached to the biological definition of parasitism which means that a parasite cannot function or survive without its host.
Here's MaRo's take on parasitic mechanics as well:
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/135071129868/it-seems-like-people-constantly-misunderstand-what
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
If you don't get why horsemanship isn't parasitic, only creatures in P3K can potentially block creatures with horsemanship. In no other set does a creature exist that can block a creature with horsemanship, so interactivity is zero just like splice onto arcane cards in kamigawa where you can't splice a spell onto another spell outside kamigawa block. That's why people have talked for years about a mechanic like splice onto arcane without the arcane part. I know I'd love a splice onto sorcery or instant mechanic, as there is tons of design space there.
Yeah you can run out of ways to deal normal damage to an opponent, I never said you couldn't. Example: Game 2 of the pro tour finals yesterday. But the big problem is that you have to go all or nothing on infect creatures basically in deckbuilding, as otherwise you have 2 different clocks for your opponent. Cystbearer has no synergy with wild leotau in terms of killing the opponent if you're bashing your opponent with both simultaneously. That is parasitic. If you don't understand I can't help you.
Currently Playing:
Retired
In that sense, I can understand in the sense that people consider infect to be parasitic - it's dependent on overall strategy instead of particular cards. So it still has a sense of dependence in order to be totally functional.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Currently Playing:
Retired
Other examples abound. Allies fit the description as well, despite being a tribe rather than strictly a mechanic: they appeared only in a single block (until recently revisited,) and interacted only with other members of that block (outside of fringe interactions). However, when the cards play well by themselves, nobody minds. If Wind Drake wasn't a problem, Umara Raptor won't be either. When any mechanic forces you to go deep with specific cards of only that mechanic to get marginal benefits, then we see problems. That's why cohort was so abysmally awful.
This was the great problem with arcane. It asked you to go deep on mediocre cards for mediocre benefits.
Infect can also be called parasitic. It is less parasitic on its face than many others for several reasons: poison counters exist elsewhere (though most older cards featuring them are entirely unplayable,) and infect does lead to meaningful interactions outside of poison counters. Taken in isolation, infect can be seen as wither plus "prevent all damage this creature would deal to players". That is still a decent ability, considering that even if they all had defender, wither is still pretty good. The fact that infect is tied up in an alternate win-con is what makes it parasitic. A deck has to either be poison or not, and if it is poison, the pool is dramatically limited to a few cards, most of which must have the mechanic in question. That makes the mechanic pretty parasitic.
To settle an argument, flying, horsemanship, and shadow can all be considered highly parasitic, because they all relate specifically to themselves, and not cards outside of the mechanic. This goes to prove an important point about parasitism: flying is a fine mechanic because it is mentioned on 2,222 cards by my most recent search. Shadow and horsemanship together only appear on 110 cards. All are highly parasitic, but flying is a returning mechanic in every set ever, so it is simply part of the game's larger meta. Horsemanship and shadow don't need to be part of the game's larger meta in a meaningful way, so I'm against printing more of them in standard legal sets. There are plenty of other forms of evasion.
If half of every instant or sorcery card printed after Kamigawa had been given the Arcane subtype, nothing involving it could be called parasitic anymore. It's a delicate balance.
In short, parasitism in magic is more complicated than Arcane = Parasitic = Bad. Releasing a mechanic with a degree of parasitism every once in a while is fine, as long as it is handled well, and energy has been, for the most part.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Yeah, I see your point.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
"Hey, Jim. Let's make a set that focuses on enchantments and a new way to make auras playable."
"That sounds like a great idea! Enchantment creatures is something people-"
"Now reprint Back to Nature."
"Er I thought you wanted people to play enchantments?"
"Oh no I just want them to WANT to play them. Not actually use them. Well I'm off to my second job as head DLC guy for Activision"
GGo Elf YourselfG
WThat Cat Has A Knife!W
BUGWhip your assBUG
"What does MtheW stand for? The world may never know."
Actually, even the OP seems excited about the set, if you read the post. I've read very little honest negative chatter about Kaladesh. Probably less than any other recent set: the last set I remember being so well liked in its day was Innistrad. Expect a return to Kaladesh in five years or less.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Considering Wizards is slashing the prices by 10% on aether revolt secondary products don't get your hopes high. Wizards has rarely ever slashed prices to bulk sellers on products, and a slash of 10% is huge. The main problem with Kaladesh at the moment is that it is very much Kamigawa. It has a lot of the same signs I saw back when that set was live years ago in that there are a few named cards that are really crazy good and then a bunch of synergistic cards that will likely never make it out of standard. This is especially true of energy even though many energy cards are self sufficient. Aetherworks Marvel is just too slow without also having to use strictly worse creatures to add energy to the pool, and once it fires off once chances are there isn't going to be a second coming.
The bonkers cards in the set are Panharmonicon, Smuggler's Copter, and possibly Metalwork Colossus simply because it works well in decks that make use of large numbers of non-creature artifacts. It's much better than Titan Forge was in Scars block, that's for sure. Also, Chandra, Torch of Defiance may have puttered out and entered the anti-hype phase of her existence, but she feels potentially quite good and does give a vibe of Liliana of the Veil, who also saw a similar dip in her price post launch. I don't think she will be as valued to players as Liliana, but she's definitely a stronger walker than many we've seen in the past.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Parasitic would make much more sense describing mechanics that depend on the presence of other mechanics, and which do absolutely nothing on their own.
Proliferate, Populate, Champion a (Tribe) and (Tribe) Offering are examples I would count as truly parasitic, as they are all entirely useless if you do not have at least one other card in the deck for them to work off.
Anyway, I think insular and invasive mechanics are perfectly fine, providing they are supported to the point of being frequently revisited mechanics.
An island can be large, with a lot of space. A large enough island makes for a continent.
The question is, what kinds of land masses, or 'mechanical masses' do players and R&D want to see in the game?
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.
I'll give you $10 for all the "trash" you're not going to use
lmao imagine being so inept with money that you would spend that much on a product that you don't like to get a $50 card you don't need
kaladesh is the first good set since Khans
Bfz was disappointing too, idk which one is worst.
Expeditions on every set was a good call for sell those crap collections.
Kaladesh is no different.
Where are powerful spell effects? Are players such babies now that they can't handle getting permanents removed or countered easily?
Magic the "creaturing" in full effect. I'll come back when standard can handle cards like "Wrath of God", "Counterspell" and "Pox".
My Kamigawa cube.
My Mirage Cube
I guess this is good bye then. You will be missed.
On the subject of Kaladesh, though, I don't think Kaladesh is a bad set. I really like Vehicles as under the surface it's really just another form of equip. Only instead of having to pay mana to enhance an existing creature they pilot the gear and get a pseudo totem armor protection from destruction as the vehicle dies instead of the pilot. Energy is something I'm not quite a fan of. It's going to be stuck in Kaladesh and that's it.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I fine it hilarious that my teenage sons notice how much better the older sets were compared to the cash grab that has been going on. There was a point in time where you could build competitive decks out of mostly commons and uncommons. Now to be close to tier 1 you need $500 for your decks. With this being a game I can't see why or how it's justified to spend that kind of money. THis set only confirmed my doubt in Wizards ability to make a decent product anymore.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77