All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Lineage 2 Revolution DB
Eleventh Annual Holiday Exchange
Jaya Ballard Returns
  • posted a message on Ixalan Draft and Card Design
    Quote from harlannowick »
    Innistrad was less interactive because it was more diverse and interesting.

    I can partly agree with that statement. Naturally, if you have a mirror match of decks full with unblockable creatures, that wouldn't be interactive, so it's only a soft correlation.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ixalan Draft and Card Design
    It seems that you had bad luck in Innistrad and I had bad luck in Ixalan. But I can't imagine that over a larger sample size you wouldn't find that non-interactive games involving One with the Wind are far more common than non-interactive games involving Invisible Stalker. The latter is an uncommon and requires another uncommon to be really broken. One with the Wind just requires any early creature - it doesn't have to be a Jade Guardian. The removal is so bad that every creature might as well have hexproof (exaggerating of course).

    Regarding your second and third paragraphs, you're making it out to be as though "sweet-deck" mirrors in Innistrad are like combo mirrors in Eternal. What I was trying to say was that games with decks that occupy vastly different points on the aggro-control axis tend to be uninteractive. So, if you're drafting a tribal aggro or midrange deck more often than not, you might find that your games against control players are not very interactive. You can't deal with the opponent creating 10 spider tokens, so you just have to kill him before he does that and the game becomes very one-dimensional. But if you're playing any deck that can do powerful things in the late game, you can interact and deal with your opponent's army of spider tokens. Those games tend to be among the most interactive games in Magic.

    "Too often games of Innistrad are determined [...] by which broken strategy trumps the other guy's broken strategy."
    This sentence doesn't mean anything. Shouldn't Magic games be determined by which strategy trumps the other guy's strategy? If you include in-game strategy, not just deckbuilding strategy? I find the word broken also misplaced because what you're describing are just strategies that scale very well into the late-game, not one-turn kill combos or similar.

    Again, I don't get where your notion comes from that control mirrors in Innistrad were uninteractive. Is this only specific to Innistrad or would you say that about any format where you can draft similar decks? Was, say, Rise of the Eldrazi interactive?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ixalan Draft and Card Design
    I think you're using a bit of a one-sided representation of both Innistrad and Ixalan to make your comparison. You're only focusing on the good aspects of Ixalan, and only on the bad aspects of Innistrad. I'm not going to comment about the drafting part of your post, because I agree with a lot that you said there, and I don't have the necessary in-depth knowledge of Ixalan drafting to make a qualified response to it. I'm fine with accepting that there's a different skill set that Ixalan and Innistrad drafting cater to, and both are equally skill-intensive.

    But I find it ludicrous to make the same claim regarding the gameplay.

    First of all, the games that you described - the ones where you make hard, skill-based decisions about playing around tricks, the ones where you wonder why your opponent played their cards in the order that he did and not in a different order, the ones where you bluff a trick to keep your opponent from attacking - these are the extreme minority of games.

    Most Ixalan games are completely non-interactive - not anymore interactive than the bad Innistrad games you described. If you count up the number of games that are decided by one player utterly outcurving and stomping the other player, and the games that devolve into simple mindless racing because you can't deal with your opponent's One with the Wind or other unblockable creature, you aren't left with room for much else. And even these games are often decided merely by topdecks, because after the dust has settled in an even match, there's no mana sinks or anything else to do but hope for good draws.

    The last two drafts I did, I can think of maybe one or two games where I had interesting decisions to make. The other ones I lost to One with the Wind, by being mana screwed, or by flooding out after the initial exchange, or I won in a similar manner.

    Compare that to Innistrad draft. You're again painting a very one-sided picture of the format. The lack of interactivity that you described is not a problem of Innistrad, but a problem in any match where the two decks operate on completely different axes. The same is true in most formats - aggro vs. aggro is interactive and skill-intensive, control vs. control is even more interactive and skill-intensive, and aggro vs. control isn't skill-intensive at all. So, you're right in so far that there are some games in Innistrad that aren't very interactive - Green-white humans vs. Burning Vengeance certainly isn't. But aggro vs. aggro surely isn't any less interactive than in Ixalan, and control mirrors can be the most interactive and skill-demanding games of all. Your description of these games as two players just doing their own thing is just completely wrong. You can interact with what your opponent is doing on many more levels - with counterspells, with creature removal, with graveyard hate etc. You have to protect your win condition and make a judgment call whether you use your removal on that filler creature or hold it for your opponent's win condition. You have to sometimes change gears completely and adapt to the situation. Your opponent gained 50 life from Gnaw to the Bone? Then you'll have to try and mill him out.

    This way, Innistrad gameplay demands the same skills that Ixalan does, but then even more.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on I'm having a heck of a time printing
    I recommend printing on adhesive paper and sticking it onto junk Magic cards. No need to print a back side.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [AMP] Ampelos: The Overgrown Plane (101/275) RED COMMONS
    Owl's Crime: If I can pick up a few of these in a draft, I'll just play these and only lands. I can mill out the opponent on turn 5 on the play, and on turn 4 on the draw. You should reduce it to three cards.
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • posted a message on This forum absolutely blows me away.
    Which is the other image board you mentioned?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [DMS] Dreamscape - (255/255) - FINISHED
    MTGsalvation changed how the links to forum threads are formatted at some point, so none of the older links work anymore.

    Set creators are constantly getting screwed by these jerks Slant
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • posted a message on This forum absolutely blows me away.
    I asked a moderator just last week whether I can post about my non-Magic related card game on the Custom Set Creation forum and I got green light. I understand that your game still has some relevance to Magic design, so I see no problem at all.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Making Embalm Great Again!
    Quote from Creedmoor »

    Sutkun, Master Embalmer 1WU
    Legendary Creature - Human Cleric
    Creature cards in your graveyard have Embalm. Their Embalm cost is equal to their mana cost.
    Embalm 3WU
    This! So much this! I demand that this card exists!

    Wizards has been oppressing the people of Amonkek for far too long.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Uzo, the Dragonsoul
    If you compare this to Ætherling, you'll notice many similarities, but it has less stats and can still be handled by a large flyer. Still, I wouldn't say those disadvantages justify dropping the cost from six to three. You said yourself it's a control finisher. Which control finisher costs three mana (outside of Eternal Tongue )?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Draconian Knight [A Reprise]
    As for the design, do you see how my version strives to be more intuitive with the dynamics of the mana cost/turn exchange/playability factor?
    I'll go with No. Confused
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Draconian Knight [A Reprise]
    Could you add the original design to your post and translate your excerpt into English?

    That would definitely help.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on 6/22 Mothership Spoilers - Rhonas's last stand
    Quote from EasyLover »
    Of course you dont need mana elves to make this card viable. Its damn powerful already.
    But there is this lil synergy:
    If you cast turn 1 Elvish Mystique & turn 2 this card by spending 1 mana from a land & 1 Mana from the mana elf, your turn 3 will only have 1 land, that stays tapped. If you now play your 3rd land, youd have 2 untapped lands & a mana elf = 3 Mana turn 3.
    Thats a damn nice trick to evade the Snakes disadvantage & also consisting of already playable cards d:)
    You make your land unusable in one turn so that it isn't unusable on another turn.

    What a damn nice trick. Really impressive!
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Combat Tricks
    I just want to kindly say that Mark Rosewater's opinions have almost no authority with me whatsoever.

    I personally believe that the man has been designing Magic: the Gathering entirely blind for years, and fails to possess any dynamic understanding of game and its scientific dynamics. This belief majorly extends to Richard Garfield as well, although I'd say he seems to have a keener sense of theoretical understanding towards certain fun factors of gaming, and this gives him the edge to blindly implement something beneficial now and again. Yet from the very beginning, it's clear to me that the man himself also designed Magic entirely blind, and to this day has achieved no greater understanding towards the scientific details of aspects such as the flow of the cards, the nature of effects based on how they specifically interact with the game, the balance of power based on that principal understanding, and the need for equality (balanced by flavor) which should be the aspect that ties the entire game together and brings it full circle.

    Mark Rosewater is just the same, he rambles on a lot about color restrictions, and speaks vaguely on power-level, but never does he articulate upon the intricacies of the game and its scientific dynamics. In fact, he goes so far into the blind devotion of his color separation theories, that his design schematics produce lopsided balances of power between colors set and set (extending all the way to the legacy and vintage formats themselves).

    With that said, I hope you can bear with me when my design (which embodies the understanding of these scientific details) attempts to correct and restore the balance of power and interactivity to where it should be.
    After digging through this postmodern gibberish, I got from your post that you think Mark Rosewater is too much of a color pie absolutist - which I guess is a critique one could make. But I don't know for sure if that's what you're saying, because I don't fully understand a single sentence of what you wrote.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on We make videos of custom Magic sets, let us know which to play next!
    Here you are!

    Images should go into "/downloadedPics/OVW/".
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.