"Why is it a huge problem to have a bomb doom bladed?"
Because that promotes everyone to just use less expensive creatures. If my opponent can just unconditionally 2-mana a 6-mana creature (whether or not it is a bomb) away and still cast another creature with the remaining mana, why on earth did I bother having 6-mana creatures in my deck in the first place?
I am not okay with everyone being incentivized to just play a rush of small creatures. I like having a curve and different valid play styles for different people, whether control, aggro, mid-range, or whatever.
By contrast, if the low-mana removal was conditional so that it was hit or miss, then I am okay with that (although I agree that is swing-y) or if the removal cost a good amount such as 5-mana Flesh to Dust, then I am okay with that.
If your opponent has removal saved to kill your bomb, you haven't been playing a strong enough game. The game isn't just played on the battlefield, it's in the cards in each player's hand as well. If you're dropping your expensive "win now" card when it's unsafe, that's a bad play. If you like having different valid playstyles, you have to recognize that the control deck with nothing but removal and one game-ending threat is just as valid as rushing your opponent down with creatures.
If your opponent has removal saved to kill your bomb, you haven't been playing a strong enough game. The game isn't just played on the battlefield, it's in the cards in each player's hand as well. If you're dropping your expensive "win now" card when it's unsafe, that's a bad play. If you like having different valid playstyles, you have to recognize that the control deck with nothing but removal and one game-ending threat is just as valid as rushing your opponent down with creatures.
I don't think it's that simple, particularly in Limited. First, because your opponent is likely saving quality removal for your bomb as long as possible, but second, because removal at common but bombs are rare means there's going to be more removal in any given Limited pool than there are bombs; while you might have been lucky enough to draft a Soul of Theros, your opponent could very easily have picked up two Pillars of Light at the same table.
If the common removal isn't situational like Pillar, but instead quality, like Doom Blade, then your opponent is probably going to be running all of it. Which means they could very easily be using their removal on your bait creatures while still holding a piece for the bomb that your smart play is building towards. On the other hand, if the common removal is situational, they're not likely to have put three Pillars into their main deck, which means they're as likely to have their removal as your are your bomb, and it's possible that your smart play could have forced them to use it too early.
Quality removal at common makes control decks like you've described less likely, not more. Game-ending threats are rare or mythic. Beaters that a Limited control deck might have to settle for tend to be just large without much in the way of being hard-to-remove or hard-to-block. If most players can expect quality, unconditional removal at common in a draft environment, it would be foolish to draft a deck that relies on a single threat. Limited control decks are reduced only to decks able to draft an Aetherling and not the M15 control decks that don't have the advantage of such a strong curve-topper. M15 control, where is exists, relies as much upon the removal answers to its threats being less commonly main-decked as it does on its central threat. Those sorts of decks couldn't exist if every player could have access to something like Pacifism or Doom Blade at common.
Quality removal at common makes control decks like you've described less likely, not more. Game-ending threats are rare or mythic. Beaters that a Limited control deck might have to settle for tend to be just large without much in the way of being hard-to-remove or hard-to-block. If most players can expect quality, unconditional removal at common in a draft environment, it would be foolish to draft a deck that relies on a single threat. Limited control decks are reduced only to decks able to draft an Aetherling and not the M15 control decks that don't have the advantage of such a strong curve-topper. M15 control, where is exists, relies as much upon the removal answers to its threats being less commonly main-decked as it does on its central threat. Those sorts of decks couldn't exist if every player could have access to something like Pacifism or Doom Blade at common.
That seems to be the opposite of what we learned in M14, where there was a lot of common, cheap removal (Pacify, Claustrophobia, Burning Spear, Shock), as well as Doomblade at uncommon and control decks absolutely owned that format.
So... the fact that you built your deck/kept a hand without two or three drops is apparently somehow the fault of wizards for making removal cost more? Because that's the scenario you're describing when you say "you just lose without doing anything."
And the point they're making is that you do still have cards that can deal with anything, like Flesh to Dust. They're not cheap, efficient answers to anything like doom blade, but they certainly kill that thing you reeeeeally need to kill. The only difference now is that, instead of losing your bomb while your opponent advances their board at the same time, you're losing your bomb to an equivalent investment from your opponent.
Again, I'm saying that formats where curving out is far and away the most important thing to do arent' particularly fun, and are made even worse when efficient removal isn't present. IT overemphasizes the opening hand, allows you to see less of your deck, and exacerbates mana issues immensely (you don't have time to draw out of it).
You can't paly a lot of copies of stuff like Flesh to Dust because it's too expensive and clunky. Meaning your'e less likely to even have removal to deal with teh bombs.
Yes, but they weren't predicated on a single threat, either.
Control decks predicated on a single threat have never really been a thing in limited, except in formats like ROE where non-creature win conditiosn were used (Sphinx Bone Wand, Keening Stone).
"Butthurt"? No. Don't enjoy the game as much and therefore don't spend as much money on it, yes.
And don't misinterpret "don't enjoy the format" with "don't do well at it." I hated Theros block limited with a passion, but didn't have a problem succeeding.
Why is it a huge problem to have a bomb doom bladed? Seems like more of a problem to have your opponent play a spell that you can't possibly deal with. Or to have your opponent go two drop, three drop, pump spell plus two drop on the play and you just lose without doing anything.[/quote]
Why is the solution to every bomb a simple cheap removal spell?
The biggest change in NWO has been changes to rares and mythics
The BIGGEST (and really only) focus of nwo is commons. At common R&D have to limit the types of complexity that make the game inaccessible for new players. This has had side effects outside of common - as mentioned in the articles uncommons have ticked up in complexity, but the focus is on keeping the commons simple and easy to understand.
This is just one part of the New World Order philosophy that has been the driving factor in set design for the last several years.
The essential point of this philosophy is to reduce the complexity of the game, particularly at the lower rarities.
The goal is to make the game more accessible to new players.
Good removal being shifted to uncommon/rare is just one small part of this.
Huh? What part of New World Order leads to "make removal worse?" If anything more expensive removal leads to more complicated board states since you get more board stalls.
nwo also has nothing to do with the power of cards printed - it has to do with the perceived complexity of the card. For instance the following card:
"Better than Swords"
W
Instant - Common
Exile target creature.
Would be a perfectly acceptable common under nwo. Board complexity has more to do with cards and mechanics that make the board state hard to process - things like Samite Healer and mechanics like Threshold can overwhelm new players by asking them to focus on too many variables.
Wow, what a depressing article. we're going to sacrifice the quality of our game and our existing player base to appease new players. Great strategy for growth, but not sustained growth.
They point out Time Spiral as the problem block, despite the fact that Time Spiral is probably the best block they've ever created from a game play stand point. Easily one of the best limited formats of all time. Easily one of the best standard environments ever when combined with Rav. Yet that's their glaring example of what not to do.
There shoudl be products for new players. Duels of the Planeswalkers is the best of these, as well as the core set. Recognizing that experienced players also play and spend money is something they need to do, though.
I love it when some poster on a forum claims he knows best how to run a business
You want super sweet and super complex sets that help you deal with the fact that you've been playing the game for a while are are very likely to be quitting soon (as almost everybody does at some point) since clearly you are too good for the game? Well we got Modern Masters last year and that was a blast and it sold very well.
Those beginner products you seem to think you are the first to think about? Well they tried them before and they didn't sell.
But yeah, Wizards should totally listen to people like you, ignore market research and forget the lessons learned from past mistakes!
The biggest change in NWO has been changes to rares and mythics
The BIGGEST (and really only) focus of nwo is commons. At common R&D have to limit the types of complexity that make the game inaccessible for new players. This has had side effects outside of common - as mentioned in the articles uncommons have ticked up in complexity, but the focus is on keeping the commons simple and easy to understand.
This is just one part of the New World Order philosophy that has been the driving factor in set design for the last several years.
The essential point of this philosophy is to reduce the complexity of the game, particularly at the lower rarities.
The goal is to make the game more accessible to new players.
Good removal being shifted to uncommon/rare is just one small part of this.
Huh? What part of New World Order leads to "make removal worse?" If anything more expensive removal leads to more complicated board states since you get more board stalls.
nwo also has nothing to do with the power of cards printed - it has to do with the perceived complexity of the card. For instance the following card:
"Better than Swords"
W
Instant - Common
Exile target creature.
Would be a perfectly acceptable common under nwo. Board complexity has more to do with cards and mechanics that make the board state hard to process - things like Samite Healer and mechanics like Threshold can overwhelm new players by asking them to focus on too many variables.
Wow, what a depressing article. we're going to sacrifice the quality of our game and our existing player base to appease new players. Great strategy for growth, but not sustained growth.
They point out Time Spiral as the problem block, despite the fact that Time Spiral is probably the best block they've ever created from a game play stand point. Easily one of the best limited formats of all time. Easily one of the best standard environments ever when combined with Rav. Yet that's their glaring example of what not to do.
There shoudl be products for new players. Duels of the Planeswalkers is the best of these, as well as the core set. Recognizing that experienced players also play and spend money is something they need to do, though.
I love it when some poster on a forum claims he knows best how to run a business
You want super sweet and super complex sets that help you deal with the fact that you've been playing the game for a while are are very likely to be quitting soon (as almost everybody does at some point) since clearly you are too good for the game? Well we got Modern Masters last year and that was a blast and it sold very well.
Those beginner products you seem to think you are the first to think about? Well they tried them before and they didn't sell.
But yeah, Wizards should totally listen to people like you, ignore market research and forget the lessons learned from past mistakes!
Oh, you mean like Duals of the Planeswalkers, one of the most successful products WOTC has ever produced by any metric?
Look, if you're going to attack my opinions, at least get your facts right.
The biggest change in NWO has been changes to rares and mythics
The BIGGEST (and really only) focus of nwo is commons. At common R&D have to limit the types of complexity that make the game inaccessible for new players. This has had side effects outside of common - as mentioned in the articles uncommons have ticked up in complexity, but the focus is on keeping the commons simple and easy to understand.
Huh? What part of New World Order leads to "make removal worse?" If anything more expensive removal leads to more complicated board states since you get more board stalls.
nwo also has nothing to do with the power of cards printed - it has to do with the perceived complexity of the card. For instance the following card:
"Better than Swords"
W
Instant - Common
Exile target creature.
Would be a perfectly acceptable common under nwo. Board complexity has more to do with cards and mechanics that make the board state hard to process - things like Samite Healer and mechanics like Threshold can overwhelm new players by asking them to focus on too many variables.
Wow, what a depressing article. we're going to sacrifice the quality of our game and our existing player base to appease new players. Great strategy for growth, but not sustained growth.
They point out Time Spiral as the problem block, despite the fact that Time Spiral is probably the best block they've ever created from a game play stand point. Easily one of the best limited formats of all time. Easily one of the best standard environments ever when combined with Rav. Yet that's their glaring example of what not to do.
There shoudl be products for new players. Duels of the Planeswalkers is the best of these, as well as the core set. Recognizing that experienced players also play and spend money is something they need to do, though.
I love it when some poster on a forum claims he knows best how to run a business
You want super sweet and super complex sets that help you deal with the fact that you've been playing the game for a while are are very likely to be quitting soon (as almost everybody does at some point) since clearly you are too good for the game? Well we got Modern Masters last year and that was a blast and it sold very well.
Those beginner products you seem to think you are the first to think about? Well they tried them before and they didn't sell.
But yeah, Wizards should totally listen to people like you, ignore market research and forget the lessons learned from past mistakes!
Oh, you mean like Duals of the Planeswalkers, one of the most successful products WOTC has ever produced by any metric?
Look, if you're going to attack my opinions, at least get your facts right.
Digital products are different. He's talking about actual sets, like pre M11 core sets or any of the paper intro to magic stuff - it was all pretty unpopular. That niche is currently covered by the Dual Decks, which let people have a "just pull out cards and play it" experience, but that's a totally different thing than making an actual environment with paper production costs that only caters to the very slim niche of "people who are just getting started".
I'm talking about stuff like the Starter Decks. If he had bothered doing even a little bit of research he'd have found out that what he's asking for has been tried and it didn't work.
But hey! Why research? When you run a business or design a game it's all about doing what you think is right! Who's got time to actually spend learning when you could be patronising!
Well they do still have the starter decks, and they are made up of existing cards from the newest sets, and they do what they are supposed to do - give beginning players a way to just sit down and play without having to build a deck or draft, or whatever. He's asking for an entirely different environment for new players to play limited in so that we can also have more complex limited environments for "experts". It's pretty clear this would not be a financially viable strategy, and I'm not even sure that it's what "experts" really want - the move to 'New World Order' was as much a reaction to how much trouble many (not all) long term, experienced Magic players had to Lorwyn/Morningtide.
Enough with the hostile tones. That's not how we do things around here. -Hardened
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My helpy helpdesk of helpfulness.
My Decks: EDH: Sygg, River Cutthroat , Road to Scion
Grimgrin, Corpseborn Modern: Polytokes IRL: Progenitus Polymorph , Goblins
I personally don't like the new direction of neutering removal so it makes the game more "fun".
Wizards has done lots of research and ideas for progression, but it doesn't mean it gets the results they want. With the previous research they did, Theros was taken into the direction of making things too bland and removal overcosted to compensate for an Aura push. Most seem to agree it wasn't that great of a set and limited wasn't as good as compared to other sets and I'm inclined to agree. One of the larger problems is when removal is too overcosted, you can't have that much removal in your deck because it will make it clunky and ruin a curve thus increasing the chances for what magic players despite more than anything, mana screw.
I will concede having too many premium removal spells can be bad, but that's an easy fix. Doom Blade at uncommon was a great idea and creatures are becoming ever more powerful, more resistant to removal and at least provide an effect despite having removal used on them (Siege Rhino).
I think premium removal spells prevent the spill out your hand and/or lose to fast creatures or a bomb which is more frustrating than having your bomb Doom Bladed. Increasing protection combat tricks is way to combat it (which are getting better and I like that). Once again increasing the cost of removal means less in your deck unless you want a very high clunky curve.
Another problem is the playability of black. When all colors basically have equally good removal, black basically gets the shaft. One of the reasons to play black or splash it is because of excellent creature removal. When white, red and even green with the strong creep of power level in "fighting removal" and even blue is on par with black, black seems to lose more of its identity.
Removal in Khans is right around where I'd like removal to be in all sets. What's really nice about it is that the specific cards interact well with the creatures of the set. Debilitating Injury may just be fair in a typical set, but in Khans it is better because of morphs. Smite the Monstrous and Suspension Field are worse than Reprisal and Journey to Nowhere but there are enough fatties that they are still good. Throttle manages to be good somehow despite the abundance of fatties, probably because you can get people who tap out to unmorph in combat. Bring Low and Burn Away have relevant mechanics for this set that justify their costs. Savage Punch is not strictly better than Prey Upon but in this set I'd much rather pay an extra mana for the Ferocious line. The only removal spells I think they made wrong, which is debatable because weak cards are skill testers, are Rite of the Serpent/Arrow Storm for having double mana CCs that are difficult to fix in sealed and Swift Kick which is just terrible and probably an intentional skill tester.
Designing removal with the creatures of the format in mind is great for block constructed too.
I do think black could have used a little push for some of the more controlling cards. Black is a valuable component of aggro decks in the format, but I would love to draft a more controlling version of Abzan, for example, without getting punished so hard for sacrificing tempo. Cards like Rite of the Serpent are sadly not a great help to that sort of deck. I remember Violet Pall being a little hard to use sometimes and that was about 1000x better than Rite. Maybe if it made a Warrior token (or two Snakes, maybe?) I'd feel better about it.
That said, I have no actual complaints about a philosophy that led to the removal suite in Khans. I think having Debilitating Injury be the core removal spell for black is fantastic design, and I absolutely love the axis of interaction that is introduced by cards like Feat of Resistance. I only wish they had done more with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If your opponent has removal saved to kill your bomb, you haven't been playing a strong enough game. The game isn't just played on the battlefield, it's in the cards in each player's hand as well. If you're dropping your expensive "win now" card when it's unsafe, that's a bad play. If you like having different valid playstyles, you have to recognize that the control deck with nothing but removal and one game-ending threat is just as valid as rushing your opponent down with creatures.
I don't think it's that simple, particularly in Limited. First, because your opponent is likely saving quality removal for your bomb as long as possible, but second, because removal at common but bombs are rare means there's going to be more removal in any given Limited pool than there are bombs; while you might have been lucky enough to draft a Soul of Theros, your opponent could very easily have picked up two Pillars of Light at the same table.
If the common removal isn't situational like Pillar, but instead quality, like Doom Blade, then your opponent is probably going to be running all of it. Which means they could very easily be using their removal on your bait creatures while still holding a piece for the bomb that your smart play is building towards. On the other hand, if the common removal is situational, they're not likely to have put three Pillars into their main deck, which means they're as likely to have their removal as your are your bomb, and it's possible that your smart play could have forced them to use it too early.
Quality removal at common makes control decks like you've described less likely, not more. Game-ending threats are rare or mythic. Beaters that a Limited control deck might have to settle for tend to be just large without much in the way of being hard-to-remove or hard-to-block. If most players can expect quality, unconditional removal at common in a draft environment, it would be foolish to draft a deck that relies on a single threat. Limited control decks are reduced only to decks able to draft an Aetherling and not the M15 control decks that don't have the advantage of such a strong curve-topper. M15 control, where is exists, relies as much upon the removal answers to its threats being less commonly main-decked as it does on its central threat. Those sorts of decks couldn't exist if every player could have access to something like Pacifism or Doom Blade at common.
That seems to be the opposite of what we learned in M14, where there was a lot of common, cheap removal (Pacify, Claustrophobia, Burning Spear, Shock), as well as Doomblade at uncommon and control decks absolutely owned that format.
Again, I'm saying that formats where curving out is far and away the most important thing to do arent' particularly fun, and are made even worse when efficient removal isn't present. IT overemphasizes the opening hand, allows you to see less of your deck, and exacerbates mana issues immensely (you don't have time to draw out of it).
You can't paly a lot of copies of stuff like Flesh to Dust because it's too expensive and clunky. Meaning your'e less likely to even have removal to deal with teh bombs.
Control decks predicated on a single threat have never really been a thing in limited, except in formats like ROE where non-creature win conditiosn were used (Sphinx Bone Wand, Keening Stone).
[/quote]
This is a pretty bizarre rant.
"Butthurt"? No. Don't enjoy the game as much and therefore don't spend as much money on it, yes.
And don't misinterpret "don't enjoy the format" with "don't do well at it." I hated Theros block limited with a passion, but didn't have a problem succeeding.
Why is it a huge problem to have a bomb doom bladed? Seems like more of a problem to have your opponent play a spell that you can't possibly deal with. Or to have your opponent go two drop, three drop, pump spell plus two drop on the play and you just lose without doing anything.[/quote]
Why is the solution to every bomb a simple cheap removal spell?
Anyway, let me ask you a question.
What are your favorite limited formats of all time?
I love it when some poster on a forum claims he knows best how to run a business
You want super sweet and super complex sets that help you deal with the fact that you've been playing the game for a while are are very likely to be quitting soon (as almost everybody does at some point) since clearly you are too good for the game? Well we got Modern Masters last year and that was a blast and it sold very well.
Those beginner products you seem to think you are the first to think about? Well they tried them before and they didn't sell.
But yeah, Wizards should totally listen to people like you, ignore market research and forget the lessons learned from past mistakes!
Oh, you mean like Duals of the Planeswalkers, one of the most successful products WOTC has ever produced by any metric?
Look, if you're going to attack my opinions, at least get your facts right.
Digital products are different. He's talking about actual sets, like pre M11 core sets or any of the paper intro to magic stuff - it was all pretty unpopular. That niche is currently covered by the Dual Decks, which let people have a "just pull out cards and play it" experience, but that's a totally different thing than making an actual environment with paper production costs that only caters to the very slim niche of "people who are just getting started".
But hey! Why research? When you run a business or design a game it's all about doing what you think is right! Who's got time to actually spend learning when you could be patronising!
My Decks:
EDH: Sygg, River Cutthroat , Road to Scion
Grimgrin, Corpseborn
Modern: Polytokes
IRL: Progenitus Polymorph , Goblins
Just a friendly reminder that I will drive this car off a bridge
Wizards has done lots of research and ideas for progression, but it doesn't mean it gets the results they want. With the previous research they did, Theros was taken into the direction of making things too bland and removal overcosted to compensate for an Aura push. Most seem to agree it wasn't that great of a set and limited wasn't as good as compared to other sets and I'm inclined to agree. One of the larger problems is when removal is too overcosted, you can't have that much removal in your deck because it will make it clunky and ruin a curve thus increasing the chances for what magic players despite more than anything, mana screw.
I will concede having too many premium removal spells can be bad, but that's an easy fix. Doom Blade at uncommon was a great idea and creatures are becoming ever more powerful, more resistant to removal and at least provide an effect despite having removal used on them (Siege Rhino).
I think premium removal spells prevent the spill out your hand and/or lose to fast creatures or a bomb which is more frustrating than having your bomb Doom Bladed. Increasing protection combat tricks is way to combat it (which are getting better and I like that). Once again increasing the cost of removal means less in your deck unless you want a very high clunky curve.
Another problem is the playability of black. When all colors basically have equally good removal, black basically gets the shaft. One of the reasons to play black or splash it is because of excellent creature removal. When white, red and even green with the strong creep of power level in "fighting removal" and even blue is on par with black, black seems to lose more of its identity.
Designing removal with the creatures of the format in mind is great for block constructed too.
That said, I have no actual complaints about a philosophy that led to the removal suite in Khans. I think having Debilitating Injury be the core removal spell for black is fantastic design, and I absolutely love the axis of interaction that is introduced by cards like Feat of Resistance. I only wish they had done more with it.