WoW, I never knew this. Thanks for this new and exciting bit on information. /sarcasm off
Ego strikes again, ladies and gentlemen. Do yourself a favor and never play poker; if you can't even keep your cool in a forum thread discussion, I'd hate to see your poker face during a tense hand.
Cycling has seen 3 incarnations from what I recall. Urza Block, Onslaught block, and the little bit of landcycling in Alara. The fact that it's power is drawn from the exact type of card you seem to hate is my point. If trigger cards are done correctly, they can be very strong outside of their block. Also, you bring up the fact that cycling has appeared multiple times. Who's to say that traps won't?
For the moment, the calendar, and math...
You have 249 cards in Zendikar, of which (and I'm wildly speculating here) you can expect 40 to be Trap cards, after accounting for lands, creatures, knowing from the spoiled cards that not every instant/sorcery will be a Trap, and assuming enchantments and artifacts don't have a Trap subtype. Add roughly 40 more from the rest of the set, and an educated guess that they won't be repeating themes in next block and Traps won't be an evergreen mechanic.
80 cards, out of which you need to separate narrow and overcosted spells, and take into account that you will probably not play every color in your deck. That will leave you with, optimistically, 4-8 playable Traps for any given color pair for the next four or so years.
Does it make sense to devote an entire block to parasitic mechanics that, according to Charlequin, are known to be ill-received, for such measly returns?
I'm not sure what world you lived in when Mirrodin and Onslaught blocks were out, but they were insanely popular.
I live in a region where, along with most other parts of the world, Affinity, Slide and Goblins (two examples of linear decks gone wrong) were extremely unpopular and dragged down their entire blocks with them despite having plenty of virtues. In the end, interesting modular mechanics like Sunburst, Entwine and Equipment got smothered by linear mechanics like Cycling triggers, tribal and Affinity for Artifacts.
But that's the whole point. You aren't supposed to be able to fit every card into every deck. Part of playing magic is figuring out card interactions. A player will play a "trap interactive" card only so many times before he realizes that traps aren't in every deck. That's part of growing as a player is knowing when certain cards apply. If you feel like you're leaving something out, maybe you're not the non-linear deck builder you seem to think you are.
You might want to review yesterday's Mike Flores article at dailyMTG; I recall seeing a 2-of Wild Nacatl in a RG build that was later replaced by a more linearly oriented Twinblade Slasher. I'm definitely not the one trying to pull these sort of things off. And you know what? Sometimes they succeed; 5cc is winning big and it challenges even the most fundamental guidelines of linear deck construction: colors!
The problem is not whether newbies play with narrow cards in constructed events or not; the problem is that every slot devoted to a card that parasites off Traps is one less deckbuilding opportunity, in the context of a previous set with a heavy focus on especially narrow mutlicolored cards, and the smallest Standard card pool, uh, ever!
Every card you named at the end here is limited fodder. Everyone knows that and this tells me everything I need to know about your argument. You don't like limited. You want every card to be constructed worthy. Well, guess what. A lot of the player base loves limited (especially pros) and find it more skill intesive (not base sets, M10 just proved that once again) than constructed BECAUSE of strange card interactions.
I know my Magic well enough to know not every card can be an all-star, thank you very much. For the record, I do love my Limited and I enjoy the role of linear mechanics within a relatively small environment. I also know enough about things in general to realize that LEGOs are more fun than jigsaw puzzles when you start mixing disparate boxes. Just take a look at Coldsnap: when an entire set brings nothing into the constructed mix other than Skred and Ohran Viper, something's clearly wrong. And that was a stand-alone small set built with a focus in LIMITED for crying out loud! Remember drafting the 10-ripple cards deck? I do, and it wasn't really that fun to play, all things considered.
Quote from lord_dralnu »
Honestly, are you really so full of yourself to talk down to people like this? You're insulting people's intelligence and attention span based on a friggin magic forum? You're right, clearly being an engineer that designs infrastructure systems for a living, I don't have the attention span to read a book on game design. Get over yourself.
Also, please link to some of these awesome games you've designed. I would love to see them.
Edit: After reading a number of the reviews for that book, I'll pass. I'll stick to talking to the people in biz that work in R&D for another successful TCG company.
Well, seeing as you in fact read someone else's comments for less than ten minutes and then disregarded a book as useful without as much as reading the introduction, I guess I rest my case on the attention span argument (even though it was directed at ludd_gand instead of you). A Theory of Fun is, in fact, one of the easiest to digest game design books out there and it is a great starting point for realizing how games actually work and why and how humans enjoy playing.
As for my games, CP has just entered its Beta Survey stage at Big Fish Games and is expected to release on early september. I'm afraid I cannot disclose any specific information at the moment, but I'll be glad to send you a link to the trial version as soon as it launches, provided you remind me. I do warn you, it's a casual downloadable game aimed at soccer moms (aren't all casual games! XD), so don't expect anything fancy from a graphics or story standpoint. The gameplay, on the other hand, is quite nice according to everyone who's tested it recently.
Spa Mania is available from http:\\www.bigfishgames.com, although it's not good at all and definitely not a testament to my ability as a game designer; it was our first project right after the founding of Blue Lizard Games, so the goals were modest and we were not allowed to take any risks. The end result, as you can expect, wasn't all that great. It'd be nice if you play it and then compare to the game that's coming out in a few weeks, where I had the chance to be much more innovative.
@mods: Please forgive the off-topic and alleged spamming; in my defense, I was asked to quote my game projects. Please delete if appropriate. Truth is, though, I do enjoy my job enough to talk about it =)
Sure, but making trap a Spell Type is actually a more elegant way of doing it than that, because Types already exist specifically for the purpose of letting other cards reference entire categories of cards with shared characteristics.
The concept of "Traps" has a top-down, cohesive flavor: every Trap card will share a specific theme, that of being a trick that the opponent has walked into, and their design will innately reflect that.
By this reasoning, Bathe in Light should've been printed like this:
Bathe in Light
Instant - Radiance 1W
Choose a color. Target creature and all creatures that share a color with it gain protection from the chosen color until end of turn.
Radiance reflects the cohesive flavor of the Boros Legion's mechanic: spells that affect the caster and all those that have an affinity towards him. Sure, it works, but if they've chosen to do it that way then and another way now there's some explaining to do (especially seeing how controversial said choices were during their time).
The later down the chain reactive effects are played, the more different strategies can be used to play around them. If someone can start destroying my land on turn two, I'm pretty much just stuck playing one-drops or conceding. If someone's running a thick wall of counters against me, I have more options -- uncounterable spells, or trying to bait them out with powerful but cheap spells, or using trigger-on-cast mechanics like Cascade and Storm, or playing land-creatures. Dark Banishing, which has to wait until the creature's already in play, has even more ways to "play around"-- you can "beat" it by playing Broodmate Dragon or other token generators, or creatures with Protection, or with powerful CIP abilities, etc. Cheap LD is a bad mechanic because a deck that isn't purposely tuned against it has none of the necessary resources to play around it.
(But I've raised this point before and you've ignored it, so I don't know that this time will be any different. ;))
A trap card is really only as dangerous as whatever its textbox mechanic is. Traps that bounce are still just bounce spells, etc. I doubt we'll see an LD trap and I imagine the counterspell trap(s) will be designed in a way that makes them relatively non-dangerous.
Land Destruction is in its own category here, seeing as it is a preemptive strategy more akin to discard than to countermagic: you're investing resources in making sure your opponent can't use his own to beat me. Personally, I think preemptive strategies are annoying and dangerous when left unchecked and I have no quarrel against limiting those, especially when the format lends itself so that the small dosage that does come out has its uses.
I really don't see any difference between countering a threat as it is being cast and playing a spell to kill it before it has a chance to impact the board on any other way. Countermagic is close enough to more socially accepted answers that I think the whole prejudice against countermagic has much more to do with perception than with actual power level. It will be very interesting to watch player reactions to Traps; my gut tells me counterspell haters will also hate these.
But again you're leaving out the key distinction here.
Arcane doesn't do anything. It has no meaning (except a flavor meaning that has no connection to the individual cards' mechanics.) The only ways that it ever becomes relevant is through two parasitic block mechanics -- splice, which only works on these arbitrarily selected spells, and spiritcraft, which pushes you into a heavily parasitic spirit-based deck theme. If you pull the type Arcane off of the cards, hand a spoiler with no art and playtest names to someone, and ask them to figure out which cards were supposed to be arcane and which weren't, they'd never be able to tell you. In other words: Arcane is not only parasitic, but it has only parasitic elements.
Compare to Traps. These cards already do something interesting on their own, something that's unique to them and (that should be) easily distinguishable as having a shared mechanical identity to someone perusing the set. You could print a whole set filled with Traps, but no cards that refer to the type, and Traps would still prove to be an interesting addition to the set and a cool mechanical element.
Since Traps are already interesting on their own, it's not the end of the world to have a few cards that interact with them by name.
I do agree that Traps have a clear identity, and the mechanic seems quite interesting. However, tying Trap cards together with a subtype, seeing as their flavor, mechanic, and possibly naming and art already accomplish this seems awfully unnecessary. That is, unless your goal is to spoon-feed players a parasitic linear mechanic while you're at it.
Like you mentioned, a set with Traps but no cards that refer to the type would be interesting all on its own, so let's hope that's just what they did. However, if that is the case, why add proverbial Jaya-goggles to the damn cards?
Look at Time Counters as an example here. When cards like Fury Charm and Dust of Moments are printed, they are parasitic -- they only work with Time Spiral's Suspend and Vanishing cards. But is it the end of the world? No, they cover a few interesting niches that might not otherwise be covered, they can be costed aggressively if R&D want to since they only affect a limited sphere of cards (as opposed to spells that just affect "counters," which might have unexpected interactions somewhere else), and they don't take up too much space in the set.
Because (unlike Arcane) Traps are inherently interesting even without parasitic references to them, I would fully expect them to get only a small smattering of other cards referencing them (like time counters) rather than a whole bunch.
Ultimately this fear is irrational association -- "Traps are a spell type like Arcane, they'll be terrible... just like Arcane!" -- rather than a reasonable extrapolation. Every Magic set is filled with signifiers -- keywords, ability words, creature types, counter types, names, etc. -- that can be used to pick out individual sets of cards for reference, but parasitic mechanics built off of them are fairly rare specifically because it's well-known that such mechanics aren't awesome. There's nothing about Traps that somehow makes this more likely that it is in every other set where such signifiers exist.
Ah, but here's the problem: Suspend is such a complex and deep mechanic that including linear cards provides an interesting set of decisions. I am particularly fond of a Restore Balance deck that used Greater Gargadon and Fury Charm to force a surprise, and often deadly, board reset. Suspend would've worked perfectly fine without parasitic cards, and Traps as a mechanic works the same way.
In contrast, the Trap subtype has EXACTLY the same design space as the Arcane subtype; the unifying rules of trap cards are self-contained, work just like normal spells do, don't depend on any special triggers or game events and for all intents and purposes are just straightforward, undercosted spells regardless of whether they have a subtype or not.
I can't think of any elegant ways to interact with Trap spells in a meaningful way by not referencing the subtype, which would basically turn any parasitic mechanic into Spiritcraft 2.0 or a specialized form of protection. Don't take my word for it; just take this list of possible interactions and expand it to your heart's content:
Permanents with effects that trigger off of Trap spells.
Effects that make Trap spells cost more/less.
Protection from Traps.
Tutoring for Trap cards.
Regrowing Trap cards.
Countering Trap cards.
Duressing Trap cards.
Copying Trap cards on the stack.
Preventing Trap cards from being played.
Splicing onto Traps.
Capping Traps from library (searching and exiling them)
Trap storm.
P/T equal to number of Trap cards in each graveyard/other game zone.
Wishing for Traps.
Additional static abilities as long as a Trap card is in a graveyard.
As you can see, all of these are narrow, cookie-cutter effects that won't have any further applications outside Zendikar block. If anyone can think of any interesting mechanics that could parasite off Traps without referring to the subtype, please add them to the list cause I'm HIGHLY interested.
I honestly hope you're right, and I'll be quite happy if Wizards pull off the entire Zendikar block without more than ten parasitic cards. However, if Trap interactions turn out to be the main focus of Zendikar block, I do honestly fear for its overall quality.
Then again, I won't jump to any conclusions until I see a fairly complete spoiler.
Quote from ludd_gang »
Oh my... Just... Uh... Yeah.
I do so happen to design games for a living, so it is my JOB to know and apply design theory (Hint: I'm VERY good at my job). I am also a fan of Rosewater's column and I have enough of a brain to know how to separate the chaff from the jewels. In case you're interested in having a productive discussion about game design, I recommend you read this sigh, flame removed, warning issued:
I said block, not set. Homelands was before sets were designed as blocks. The first true 3-set block was tempest-stronghold-exodus (Mirage and Visions were designed as a pair with Weatherlight added after the fact). So no, Homelands does not have a voice in this.
Again, it all comes down to the power level of the key word involved. Cycling triggers have proven to be a very strong deck based on two cards that read "when you cycle a card." Are you telling me that if they printed a card like:
Ancestral Trap
Enchantment
Whenever you play a blue trap spell, draw 3 cards.
...it wouldn't be played? Someone out there would find a way to abuse it and we'd have the next dredge deck or slide deck on our hands.
It's all a question of power level, I cannot say that enough. If they print bad cards like the clash triggers, then yes it's a waste of space. But, if they print powerful triggers like Lightning Rift or Astral Slide, it is totally relevant.
You seem to have a serious confusion on the role of linearity in Magic design. Although certain themes in the game lend themselves to lineal interactions, those interactions are only interesting if there is enough of the linear focus that players actually care.
Dredge works well outside of Block Constructed because there are enough cards that care about the graveyard throughout the entire game. Wizards and Elves tribal decks work in Extended because every block needs creatures, and those creatures happen to have subtypes often enough that some are bound to have powerful interactions. Cycling has had multiple revisits throughout the game's history, and still most of the deck's power is based around two specific enchantments from Onslaught block. If every single block had Arcane cards, you can bet Splice would have a very different player response.
Although linear design has its uses (not the least of which is to guide new players through card and strategy synergy), too much linearity makes players feel as though the developers are building their decks for them (one of the main reasons I don't like tribal-themed blocks). Modular design allows players to experiment and discover interactions on their own, sometimes even in ways the game designers didn't even plan for, and to a degree ensures the replay value of individual cards. Basing an entire BLOCK around a visibly linear mechanic has proven to be unpopular in the long term, as Mirrodin, Kamigawa and Onslaught blocks can attest.
Cards that interact with a narrow, block-specific tag(the Trap subtype isn't a mechanic by itself any more than Sorcery is) are as linear as you can get: the only pieces of the puzzle you can interact with are all known and contained within an extremely limited pool. Moreover, they create a weird and very unsatisfying tension during deckbuilding, making you feel as if you're leaving something out; people who have tried to play Wild Nacatl in a two-color deck, or any Tribal land in a deck with too few of the relevant creature cards can attest to this.
Don't get me wrong: extreme modularity can be as detrimental to the game as extreme linearity; if you don't believe me, look up Necropotence and Tarmogoyf. However, those cards will have relevance on so many scenarios that will hardly ever leave you feeling cheated, especially not the way that Tel-Jilad Chosen, Rend Spirit and Exploding Borders often do.
Finally, two clarifications:
To say that Zendikar sucks because of this is certainly a blatant exaggeration, and this is definitely not what I am doing. I am -once again- futilely trying to discuss game design principles with people who don't understand them, and making a few educated guesses. Where those guesses lead to is cause for concern, but I wouldn't advice people to jump ship before we have a good portion of the spoiler.
To those saying that linear cards based on Traps do not exist: I am willing to concede there's a slim chance that's true. However, it makes no sense to add additional information with implied rules baggage to cards if you're not going to use it somehow. It would be akin to adding ice skates to an adventure game and then leaving out the ice level altogether. Otherwise, you can BET my signature for the upcoming year will have the following line:
Since I think complaining about potential problems is so ludicrous, I will bet you my foil Umbral Mantle that traps have potential use in ALL formats of MTG. Even the Eternals.
I am so certain this will be the case, I won't even ask you to wager anything.
BTW, Kodama's Reach is one of the top cards in EDH.
Well, seeing as you haven't disclosed country, name or contact info, I'd say your bet makes no sense as there's no way I can collect. Too bad, tho, as I would have potentially wagered my foil Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund against it. (Seeing as you're betting a worthless card that makes no sense whatsoever, I thought I'd one-up you on that.)
As for the "potential" in my previous post, it is there because I am not a stuck-up moron and I'm willing to admit that WoTC designers have enough brains to figure out the issue and make amendments (especially since MaRo has brought it up on several occasions).
Then again, you wouldn't know anything about being wrong, ever, would you?
Quote from lord_dralnu »
People will remember the cards you mentioned because of their power level, not because of the block mechanic. You're drawing examples from what is possibly the worst contructed block ever to defend your argument.
Which is exactly my point; the design space of nonpermanent subtypes is too shallow to have any lasting effects. Also, Homelands would like a word with you...
Quote from lord_dralnu »
Having niche cards is a neccessity for a block. Without them its just a higher powered base set with different names. The problem with Kamigawa was that the block mechanic was overdone and occupied too many card slots. But, those block mechanic and "anti-mechanic" cards are needed. They make limited interesting (M10 is still just as bad for limited as EVERY other base set, it's just got flashier cards) and tend to provide a springboard for new decks and archetypes.
Having limited chaff like Shadowfeed in an environment with Unearth is a necessity. Having discard outlets in a set with Madness is a necessity. Tacking on a needless subtype that does virtually nothing, and then spoon-feeding players narrow cards that only interact with said subtype is lazy design. Why make the subtype in the first place? Flavor reasons? By all means, make it an ability word and call it a day...
Remember Nix, from Future Sight? The card was clearly meant to be a narrow answer to Suspended spells, yet it still had enough depth to be used as a potential out against copied spells, Hideaway freebies, pitch spells, moxen, etc. You tell me if you can get the same mileage out of, say, Hisoka's Defiance.
The main difference between a card like One with Nothing and cards like "Counter target Trap spell" or a bear with Protection from Traps is that you'll still be finding ways to abuse the former long after you've explored every possible application of the latter.
Wait, are you complaining because the cards within a block interacted with the block mechanic? Isn't that the point of blocks?
I mean, between spirit triggers, arcane triggers, and splice I actually thought the block had a lot of synergy. The problem was that the overall mechanics of it were weak compared to Mirrodin block before it and Ravnica block after it.
Having niche cards that relate to block only mechanics are what make blocks interesting and unique.
Having niche cards that ONLY interact with other niche cards from the same block is not interesting outside of Block Constructed. Even MaRo has repeatedly said how he thinks Splice into Arcane was a mistake, and if he had a chance to fix it he would make it into Splice into Sorceries or Splice into Instants.
I really don't see why you are complaining, sure they could probably do it some other way but why bother, this way takes up less space in the text box and it opens up some extra design space. It really doesn't effect the card any by having it there so I don't see any reason to complain about it.
I'm complaining because it will potentially affect the entire BLOCK by giving us narrow, unimaginative cards that interact with Traps and Traps alone. Just ask anyone playing during CHK about just how deep the pond of Spiritcraft and Splice into Arcane was...
The situation isn't really comparable to Arcane at all. The only notable thing about Arcane spells was that they were Arcane, so the only way to use them was with heavily parasitic decks that only cared about Arcane-ness. Trap cards, OTOH, are mostly notable for having a specific mechanic (triggered APCs) and the type is just there to let you identify cards that have the mechanic.
Granted, but is it absolutely necessary to state the spell is a trap on its type line? Trap could've easily been an ability word tacked onto the card's rules text and, clunky themed-interaction cards notwithstanding, the end result would've been exactly the same.
I find it ironic that some of the above posts defending Trap as a subtype quote flavor as a reason despite the fact that Arcane was deeply rooted in flavor, being spells cast by spirit-world entities. The entire design space of nonpermanents with subtypes can be defined as a tag for other cards to look for (see Spiritcraft and Splice mechanics). That, in my opinion, is lazy design: what does a card get from having a "when a Trap spell is played" trigger, instead of a "when an Instant spell is played" one?
Sure, it's flavorful, but when push comes to shove games are about abstract systems; we could skin Tetris so that pieces resembled concentration camp prisoners being pushed into a communal grave by nazis, and people would get the same kick out of it (save for the usual hypocrites trying to make it into the newspapers; and NO, before you ask I have no sympathy for nazis or anti-semitic movements, so move along now).
But the aspect of countermagic people don't like is the way that it precludes the other player achieving any results from their spellcasting. The more a control strategy prevents the other player from ever actually accomplishing anything, the less desirable it is -- land destruction is way over the line, stasis/lockdown is pretty clearly over it, countermagic is right on the line, and permanent destruction pretty much doesn't ever actually cross the line. Traps are only as annoying as the effects they can produce.
From a strict mechanical viewpoint, if I cast Dark Banishing on your Enormous Baloth before you can attack or block with it, I'm precluding you from achieving any results from your spellcasting. Dark Banishing is balanced by the fact that it cannot hit black creatures, lands, green permanents or sorceries. Countermagic is balanced by the fact it can't hit lands or resolved spells. Everything else is just cards trading with cards.
The true problem with countermagic and LD is player ego. There is no mechanical difference between Dark Banishing and Counterspell beyond the perceived notion some players have of their opponents saying "NO" to their proverbial faces. This is all happenning in said player's head, and I'm not saying it's good or bad, only this is a general reaction that's been studied to death, and as a consequence we don't see too many good counterspells or LD anymore...
Player ego is the main reason why I think any efficient and widely played Trap cards will be hated by newbies, grievers and the "casual" crowd (note the quote marks). People will perceive any "mistake" that caused them to be "punished" by a Trap as an attack on their ego, and as such will reject it right away.
This is also the reason why I think you'll be able to spring at least a subset of your own Traps; there's no ego involved when you're simply exploiting a loophole (though there are those that'll call it non-interactive). But then again, getting a beneficial effect out of springing a trap kinda defeats its flavor...
All in all, I think this is a VERY dangerous design space that should be treaded carefully or not treaded at all. We do not want a repeat of the Untap mechanic fiasco, where the potential for accidentally creating engine cards was so great that most of the effects had to be overcosted, underwhelming or both...
Quote from Visitor_Spider »
the whole whiplash trap/bloodbraid elf thing has been clarified by me and others. you DO NOT bounce the elf, you bounce the creature it brought and another creature in play that was already in play. it does not have to be the bloodbraid elf that bounces it merely allows the trap cost to be played.
You mean you bounce something like Anathemancer instead? Why wouldn't I just use Agony Warp instead?
I think this just shows that you haven't put any thought at all into your reaction.
Presuming, of course, that we see a wide variety of trap triggers (and I don't think there's any chance that we won't), do you have any idea the new levels of interactivity these cards will bring? These cards aren't nearly as lazy and simple as taking existing cards and slapping alternate play costs on them. Environments that include Zendikar (Limited and Block in particular) will likely have players on constant watch of the game state, forcing them to always consider what traps they may be walking into. And that sort of enhanced thinking during play is a very complex, good thing. Putting players on their toes and making them think and play better means that these cards are nowhere near as lazy or simple as you're making them out to be.
Of course this assumes that Traps are the main focus of the expansion and distributed evenly among all colors, rarities and card types. Alternate casting costs add a LOT of complexity to cards, especially if the trap conditions are complex, narrow and/or not readily apparent, so don't expect to see too many fancy effects at common or uncommon. I don't really expect to see Trap Creatures either, so that cuts the supply of Traps by a HUGE amount.
While I do agree that a well-thought application of traps will greatly increase the level of interactivity of the game, I completely disagree with the execution. Does making it a subtype really adds a lot to the game? I thought R&D learned its lesson with Splice and Arcane, yet here they are repeating the mistake. Expect to see a lot of narrow, chaff cards with things like Protection from Traps and triggers on players playing Traps.
Speaking of narrow applications, note how Whiplash Trap feels almost like a forced answer against Bloodbraid Elf aggro, yet fails miserably by providing the BBE player another free spell on his next turn. The same could be said of Captain of the Watch, Broodmate Dragon and other token producing creatures. Conversely, weenie and midrange are almost unaffected by the Trap's condition, and trying to use it against them will lead to a lot of "did you play that this turn or last turn?" awkwardness.
Also interestingly, Traps seem to share a lot with countermagic: powerful effects with a timing restriction. If there's anything we've discussed in these forums to exhaustion is that new players (and some older ones) do not like the mechanics of countermagic. Considering we're still knee-deep in 'acquisition year', making a mechanic that punishes careless players the apparent focus of an entire expansion sends a very contradicting signal. Basically, WoTC is telling us it's willing to hose down a powerful mechanic that's useless in all but very specific conditions (countermagic), yet it's willing to push a mechanic that's allegedly less powerful and broad, in exchange being borderline useless the rest of the time.
So aside from clunky, block-specific interactions like "Protection from Traps," is there ANY reason AT ALL why the subtype should exist, other than to lure in YuGiOh players on pretenses of false familiarity?
At least Whiplash Trap looks like a decent tempo equalizer for control decks, and is likely to see a good deal of play even in constructed formats. It scares the bejeezus out of me to think that they had to recur to conditional casting costs to keep spells on par with creatures. Expect to see the usual assortment of spells, including:
3 damage sorcery speed for 2R, with an alternate trap cost of R and an easily attainable condition (probably the opponent having less than 15-20 life).
Draw two cards sorcery for 2U, with an alternate trap cost of U under the condition of you having few cards in hand.
Destroy all creatures for 3WW-4WW, with an alternate trap cost of 2WW under the condition of an opponent having more than two/less than three creatures in play.
Undercosted 3/3 green beast creature token maker, possibly with a G trap cost.
Undercosted Coercion or Mind Rot black sorcery for B or 1B trap cost, under the condition your opponent's hand is full or there's a significant difference in hand size.
Now what I would REALLY like to see, but am not getting any hopes for:
Instant-speed Zombify/Rise from the Grave for a Trap cost of three or less, under the condition there are more creatures in an opponent's graveyard than yours.
Really overcosted Armageddon with a 3W Trap cost under the condition an opponent controls more creatures than you do. Creates a very interesting tension as you're racing with less guys, though they're likely larger, exalted, etc.
Cycle of Trap instants with larger Kicker costs that are quite beneficial, but hard to attain with regular mana.
Concentrate for 3UU, with a Trap cost of 1U and a condition that doesn't make it completely suck in control decks.
Cycle of non-rare, single-colored mana stones for 2-3 with a Trap cost of 0.
As for Kicker, here's to hoping for off-color Kicker costs to support Alara's crazy tricolored cards, and even non-mana Kicker costs. Having a new cycle of Volvers would be awesome, but highly unlikely.
Is anyone else excited about the prospects of the Kor redirection mechanic returning? I can think of one or three powerful interactions in that regard, no the least powerful of which is Exalted.
Above all, PLEASE WIZARDS MAKE CONTROL NOT SUCK. I won't ask the usual kids not to post two pages' worth of "but 5cc is winning everywhere" since they will regardless, even after reminding them that it's rotating when Zendikar comes, it's pretty much the only viable control archetype right now, etc. etc. etc.
I wasn't particularly thrilled about buying M10 boosters before, but after reading this thread I'll make sure to get all the cards I need on the secondary market. At least the fact that online stores open a high volume of product somewhat protects them from the crappy card distribution. Also, while it may seem thrilling at first, I wouldn't want to participate on a draft where half the packs turn up with two rares and seven uncommons... especially if half said cards turn out to be blue.
Hey, I mean, as long as no one ends up pulling an M10 Wrath of God...
Ok, I'll give a shot at defining Power Creep as I see it.
I think the last page's worth of postings proves a good indication of just how subjective defining the problem actually is. Regardless, since this is the closest we'll probably get to an attempt at defining power creep, let's analyze your points one by one:
Power Creep (for MtG specifically) is the process by which cards continually gets more and more powerful as new sets are released, such that the majority of the new sets and the new decks can completely trounce the old sets and the old decks.
Like other posters have pointed out, a card may be overpowered when compared to last block, yet seem completely fair when taken into the context of, say, Legacy. If you define power creep within the boundaries of a specific format (say, Standard), you run into another problem since power levels vary constantly as cards rotate in and out of the format. This has some serious repercussions on some of the further points.
However, we have to add a few caveats to that:
1) Cards and decks that were banned for power reasons need to be excluded for discussions of Power Creep. For example, the broken combo decks from the Urza days are excluded because R&D did a horrible job and made very powerful decks that would render nearly all comparisons difficult. However, Affinity is not excluded for comparison because it was not banned for power reasons, but to remove an extremely unpopular deck from Standard (as stated in the article that banned the artifact lands, Arcbound Ravager and other cards from that deck).
Why? A mistake impacts all environments into which it is legal, and players still feel their warping effects. Moreover, even banned and restricted cards are constantly reevaluated within their new contexts, and the very fact that this happens is indicative of a slow, general state of power creep. Why else would a banned card be considered fair game after a few years? Moreover, if something proves too powerful in the past, why is it not a fair basis of comparison for new cards? All this does is prove the importance of context.
Unpopularity is fairly subjective, too, and has more to do with how the game is marketed, or even with the preceptions of whoever develops the game, than with power level. I believe much of the powering down of countermagic, land destruction and combos has to do with Magic going through an acquisition phase rather than with developers making an effort to balance these elements into the game. The same could be said about Affinity's banning: marketing said it was bad for the game, so it was uprooted without taking a second look to whether the artifact lands, Ravager, or any of the other cards created an interesting environment when taken individually. Rest assured that if Magic's marketing goal was to squeeze more money out of torunament players, we'd get a set with a healthy dosage of Counterspell, drawback-laden cards, mass removal, and combo elements.
2) Creatures have suffered from an incredible mis-judgment of their strength through most of game's history. This has to be kept in mid when evaluating current creatures and creature related effects to cards more than a few years old (pre-Ravnica).
Not to sound racist, and let me state beforehand that I'm happy that it turned out like this, but this is analog to saying that it's ok for Obama to be the President of the United States because of all the abuses committed throughout history to the black population. Whatever happened to electing people on their merits and qualification for office?
Rampant abuse of creature power levels can be as detrimental to the game as rampant abuse of combo or control elements. We do not need to be more lenient with creature-based power creep because those guys never had their day in the sun. If historical context is not relevant, creatures can still be judged on the effectiveness and availability of removal in the set, on how much they swing the game one way or another, and on how they deter players from trying other strategies (hence lessening the overall depth of the game).
Reprints and function reprints have no part in Power Creep since all cards previously printed in the game are in fact already part of the game. Reprinting a card could result in a bad Standard environment and might not be good for the game, but it is not a sign of Power Creep.
Oh, but here's the funny thing: you just defined above that power creep is to be a comparison between new cards and old cards! In the context of a relatively small format, like, say, Standard, reprints are effectively NEW CARDS, since they haven't been around or impacted that particular environment before. If the environment is ill-prepared to deal with the card in question, other cards in the format will look weak by comparison to this "newcomer." Moreover, where do you draw the line with functional reprints? If I print a functional Dark Ritual it's power creep (because it's new) but if I reprint the original, it's not?
Hence, if Zendikar brought us reprints of Dark Ritual, Moat and Fact or Fiction, these new additions to the Standard (and Extended) environment would impact the game in much the same way as if these cards didn't exist in older formats.
Comparisons to previous sets should not be made except to evaluate how successfully they delivered on their themes, which isn't really part of power creep. Instead people should compare environments. For example, a valid comparison could be between Ons-8th-Mir and 10-Lor-Sha-Ala as opposed to between Scourge and Morningtide.
Completely agreed, but your definition should also take into consideration that some formats (probably those most relevant) rotate, making cards go out as others go in. This dramatically changes the power level of cards perceived to be "too powerful." Remember Ohran Viper, Vesuvan Shapeshifter, Oona, Queen of the Fae or Firespout? By that token, remember maindeck Anathemancer?
Short term effects can only generally be properly evaluated when they end or simply trusted as a short-term effect. For example, with a tribal block in the Standard environment, we should expect a short term increase in the viability of aggro decks. If this is expected and happens, we shouldn't be surprised, and if it ends or swings downwards when the tribal set leaves Standard, we should also not be surprised. If the aggro decks simply get faster and/or better or stay the same with similarly powerful cards while control decks simply get stronger, than that would be a sign of Power Creep.
The problem is, you realize the effects were short-term between one or two years after you actually had to suffer through them! Expecting a hurricane, or a recession, or realizing later that it was only a short-term deal, do little for the people affected. Those most affected WILL react emotionally. Hence you cannot completely ignore the short and mid-term repercussions of constantly fluctuating formats.
This is why you hear all these crazy complaints about Power Creep in the first place! Most people jumping one way or another are angry without stopping to identify the problem and see whether the other side's claims have any merit.
This game has proven it can be fun and balanced at extremely high power levels, and I for one don't care about power creep as much as I care about diversity, depth and power balance. Power creep may or may not exist within a specific and highly subjective context, but the power levels introduced by the last two years' worth of expansions are having serious repercussions over Standard that cannot be overlooked, and shouldn't be sustained, for long.
This is just degenerating into subjective discussion about what constitutes power creep. Without a well-defined basis of objective analysis, discussing this subject is pointless. I would suggest anyone willing to continue this debacle to start by defining power creep, how it relates to reprints and functional reprints, how should the comparison to previous sets be established, and whether it counts as power creep if it affects the game in the short term.
Seeing as, even if someone goes through the trouble of defining these constraints, this thread will STILL be plagued by kids yelling one way or the other, I, for one, pass...
Well, we have to use something as a basis for comparison in order to claim power creep.
As for Necropotence, Phyrexian Negator, and Bitterblossom, what exactly, are we going to compare them to? Besides, I wouldn't even play Negator in limited and it wouldn't cross my mind in standard. It was only good because of Dark Ritual, just like a boat load of other cards. Bitterblossom is nothing amazing outside of the Faeries deck. Necropotence is broken because it costs no mana to activate, not because it costs 1 less than Greed.
So, why should Honor of the Pure cost WW? I'm have doubts that tokens will even play it unless they go mono white. It's already suboptimal outside of mono white decks.
Finally, while we could say that aggro has gone up in power relatively, it's still a 4 turn clock like normal, which is slower than affinity from what I've been told. That's not really power creep. That just means other strategies are degrading a bit. It's really looking like a tough sell for power creep for cards in general, too, since there's serveral cards being weakened as well as the few pushed examples.
Unless you're planning on playing a constructed format with M10 cards alone, I don't think previous core sets by themselves are a valid basis for comparison outside of limited. M10 should be taken into the context of what it boosts and what it hoses within a particular format. By this logic, Ball Lightning may be a balanced card in formats defined by cheap removal, but when taken in the context of aggro decks boosted by Unearth and Cascade, it becomes MUCH more of a hassle. Take Wildfire as an example: the card went from staple to unplayable to staple in each of its incarnations. Is it the card alone that is powerful?
Honor of the Pure has a direct comparison in Crusade: it costs the same, with less color commitment and without a drawback. Yet you're comparing it to Glorious Anthem as a card that costs one W less and has a drawback. I can understand your dilemma since Anthem is a much closer point of comparison, but I'd hardly say pumping white creatures only is a drawback significant enough for the cost WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a format where a significant number of powerful creatures are white, multicolored or otherwise.
Power creep, like any other analysis subjective to historical progression, should be taken within its context. Saying that aggro is still slower than the fastest aggro deck in the last 10 years tells us little; comparing it to last season, or 2 years ago, gives us a much more accurate way to analyze power movements.
Also, by saying things like "it's still a 4 turn clock as normal" is both subjective and inaccurate, since you fail to take into consideration the context. If my opponent beats me in four turns, but I only have 20% chances to topdeck the necessary answer, and my board situation degrades progressively every turn that I don't, is a lot different from having answers aplenty, deck manipulation, or my opponent going all-in.
I suggest you take a look at the list of questions I stated on my first post, and try to answer all of them, considering the progression of the last two years, before jumping the gun and going into useless card-by-card analysis.
Firstly, M10 is not the sole responsible source of power creep; it's a tendency that's been building up gradually for two years now, and M10 continues the build-up. You cannot conclude that there is/isn't power creep by looking at M10 outside its context.
Secondly, you're being subjective in your analysis. A lot of people could easily say that Honor of the Pure is more powerful than Crusade for an easier cost, yet you conclude that it feels reasonably costed when compared to Glorious Anthem. If there's anything that Necropotence, Bitterblossom, Phyrexian Negator and a host of other cards have shown us is that a reasonable drawback is not necessarily a counterbalance for making a card cost less. Considering the environment, Honor of the Pure should've probably costed WW to at least make its viability in G/x tokens decks a bit more limited.
Thirdly, power creep on certain strategies and card types is a result of weakening and card availability in relation to other strategies. Aggro hasn't built up power creep over the last years solely because powerful creatures have been printed; its power creep is perceived when compared to the viability and strength of control and combo strategies.
Fourthly, reprinting a card may or may not be conductive to power creep. By your logic, I could reprint Dark Ritual right now and it wouldn't qualify as power creep in your analysis.
Fifthly, you need to check the historical progression. R/G Gruul was annoyingly fast by its standards, yet it conceded card advantage in favor of speed. G/W Tokens and Jund Aggro are potentially faster than Gruul without committing as many resources to the board. Those two decks are a result of two years of card build-up, which remain fast and viable once M10 becomes legal.
Finally, I don't like the spiteful tone of your initial posting, or the fact that you're so intent on crushing this argument instead of opening room for discussion. I for one am tired of bringing up the same points over and over again, and will let the results from the upcoming tournaments speak for themselves.
EDIT: As a means of generating some objective discussion, here are some questions that can help people evaluate the power level of a given set/environment. Do note that if you want to talk about power creep or toning down, you need to consider the historical progression.
- How many creatures with power greater than their mana costs exist in the format? For three or less mana? With drawbacks? With bonuses? Token producing spells should be considered as part of this equation.
- How many creature answers with cost less than or equal to the aforementioned creatures exist in the format? What percentage of said creatures do these answers nullify? Can these answers generate card and/or tempo advantage?
- How many cards in the format (creature or otherwise) generate card advantage? For four or less mana? With drawbacks? At instant speed?
- How many cards in the format (creature or otherwise) help you produce additional mana, or play other cards for less than their regular costs? For two or less mana?
- How many cards in the format lend themselves to infinite loops, or synergize strongly enough to end the game in one turn?
- How many tutor and other library manipulation cards are available in the format? For four or less mana? With drawbacks?
- How many resources (cards, turns and mana) does it take in average for aggro players to win?
- How many resources does it take for control players to stabilize? How many resources does it take for control players to win the game once they've stabilized?
- How many resources does it take for combo players to go off?
- Is aggro dependant on any particular card(s) to win? How many? What are their costs? How do these cards compare to other aggro cards?
- Is control dependant on any particular card(s) to win? How many? What are their costs? How do these cards compare to other control cards?
When I asked what decks Thoctar is in I was thinking of standard. Anything else has things that make a vanilla creature far less powerful (control decks, raffinity's ability to chump block, combos...), even if they are useful.
I also don't get where everyone is talking about turn 4 or 5 wins. Any deck can get a perfect game, but the current standard is far less capable of doing this than other standards have been. The major decks such as tokens and RGBx blood are more midrange decks that try to win turns 6-9 than decks that try for the initial sprint.
Sigh... I sometimes wonder why I bother posting paragraphs and paragraphs of explanations on the nature of creature-based power creep. Like all those posting before you, I suggest you check the previous pages so you understand what we're discussing on this thread. I won't ask you to think before you post, because I think asking that of the average MTGS poster is akin to a godhand in Type 2: a lucky accident.
Ego strikes again, ladies and gentlemen. Do yourself a favor and never play poker; if you can't even keep your cool in a forum thread discussion, I'd hate to see your poker face during a tense hand.
For the moment, the calendar, and math...
You have 249 cards in Zendikar, of which (and I'm wildly speculating here) you can expect 40 to be Trap cards, after accounting for lands, creatures, knowing from the spoiled cards that not every instant/sorcery will be a Trap, and assuming enchantments and artifacts don't have a Trap subtype. Add roughly 40 more from the rest of the set, and an educated guess that they won't be repeating themes in next block and Traps won't be an evergreen mechanic.
80 cards, out of which you need to separate narrow and overcosted spells, and take into account that you will probably not play every color in your deck. That will leave you with, optimistically, 4-8 playable Traps for any given color pair for the next four or so years.
Does it make sense to devote an entire block to parasitic mechanics that, according to Charlequin, are known to be ill-received, for such measly returns?
I live in a region where, along with most other parts of the world, Affinity, Slide and Goblins (two examples of linear decks gone wrong) were extremely unpopular and dragged down their entire blocks with them despite having plenty of virtues. In the end, interesting modular mechanics like Sunburst, Entwine and Equipment got smothered by linear mechanics like Cycling triggers, tribal and Affinity for Artifacts.
You might want to review yesterday's Mike Flores article at dailyMTG; I recall seeing a 2-of Wild Nacatl in a RG build that was later replaced by a more linearly oriented Twinblade Slasher. I'm definitely not the one trying to pull these sort of things off. And you know what? Sometimes they succeed; 5cc is winning big and it challenges even the most fundamental guidelines of linear deck construction: colors!
The problem is not whether newbies play with narrow cards in constructed events or not; the problem is that every slot devoted to a card that parasites off Traps is one less deckbuilding opportunity, in the context of a previous set with a heavy focus on especially narrow mutlicolored cards, and the smallest Standard card pool, uh, ever!
I know my Magic well enough to know not every card can be an all-star, thank you very much. For the record, I do love my Limited and I enjoy the role of linear mechanics within a relatively small environment. I also know enough about things in general to realize that LEGOs are more fun than jigsaw puzzles when you start mixing disparate boxes. Just take a look at Coldsnap: when an entire set brings nothing into the constructed mix other than Skred and Ohran Viper, something's clearly wrong. And that was a stand-alone small set built with a focus in LIMITED for crying out loud! Remember drafting the 10-ripple cards deck? I do, and it wasn't really that fun to play, all things considered.
Well, seeing as you in fact read someone else's comments for less than ten minutes and then disregarded a book as useful without as much as reading the introduction, I guess I rest my case on the attention span argument (even though it was directed at ludd_gand instead of you). A Theory of Fun is, in fact, one of the easiest to digest game design books out there and it is a great starting point for realizing how games actually work and why and how humans enjoy playing.
As for my games, CP has just entered its Beta Survey stage at Big Fish Games and is expected to release on early september. I'm afraid I cannot disclose any specific information at the moment, but I'll be glad to send you a link to the trial version as soon as it launches, provided you remind me. I do warn you, it's a casual downloadable game aimed at soccer moms (aren't all casual games! XD), so don't expect anything fancy from a graphics or story standpoint. The gameplay, on the other hand, is quite nice according to everyone who's tested it recently.
Spa Mania is available from http:\\www.bigfishgames.com, although it's not good at all and definitely not a testament to my ability as a game designer; it was our first project right after the founding of Blue Lizard Games, so the goals were modest and we were not allowed to take any risks. The end result, as you can expect, wasn't all that great. It'd be nice if you play it and then compare to the game that's coming out in a few weeks, where I had the chance to be much more innovative.
@mods: Please forgive the off-topic and alleged spamming; in my defense, I was asked to quote my game projects. Please delete if appropriate. Truth is, though, I do enjoy my job enough to talk about it =)
By this reasoning, Bathe in Light should've been printed like this:
Radiance reflects the cohesive flavor of the Boros Legion's mechanic: spells that affect the caster and all those that have an affinity towards him. Sure, it works, but if they've chosen to do it that way then and another way now there's some explaining to do (especially seeing how controversial said choices were during their time).
Land Destruction is in its own category here, seeing as it is a preemptive strategy more akin to discard than to countermagic: you're investing resources in making sure your opponent can't use his own to beat me. Personally, I think preemptive strategies are annoying and dangerous when left unchecked and I have no quarrel against limiting those, especially when the format lends itself so that the small dosage that does come out has its uses.
I really don't see any difference between countering a threat as it is being cast and playing a spell to kill it before it has a chance to impact the board on any other way. Countermagic is close enough to more socially accepted answers that I think the whole prejudice against countermagic has much more to do with perception than with actual power level. It will be very interesting to watch player reactions to Traps; my gut tells me counterspell haters will also hate these.
I do agree that Traps have a clear identity, and the mechanic seems quite interesting. However, tying Trap cards together with a subtype, seeing as their flavor, mechanic, and possibly naming and art already accomplish this seems awfully unnecessary. That is, unless your goal is to spoon-feed players a parasitic linear mechanic while you're at it.
Like you mentioned, a set with Traps but no cards that refer to the type would be interesting all on its own, so let's hope that's just what they did. However, if that is the case, why add proverbial Jaya-goggles to the damn cards?
Ah, but here's the problem: Suspend is such a complex and deep mechanic that including linear cards provides an interesting set of decisions. I am particularly fond of a Restore Balance deck that used Greater Gargadon and Fury Charm to force a surprise, and often deadly, board reset. Suspend would've worked perfectly fine without parasitic cards, and Traps as a mechanic works the same way.
In contrast, the Trap subtype has EXACTLY the same design space as the Arcane subtype; the unifying rules of trap cards are self-contained, work just like normal spells do, don't depend on any special triggers or game events and for all intents and purposes are just straightforward, undercosted spells regardless of whether they have a subtype or not.
I can't think of any elegant ways to interact with Trap spells in a meaningful way by not referencing the subtype, which would basically turn any parasitic mechanic into Spiritcraft 2.0 or a specialized form of protection. Don't take my word for it; just take this list of possible interactions and expand it to your heart's content:
- Permanents with effects that trigger off of Trap spells.
- Effects that make Trap spells cost more/less.
- Protection from Traps.
- Tutoring for Trap cards.
- Regrowing Trap cards.
- Countering Trap cards.
- Duressing Trap cards.
- Copying Trap cards on the stack.
- Preventing Trap cards from being played.
- Splicing onto Traps.
- Capping Traps from library (searching and exiling them)
- Trap storm.
- P/T equal to number of Trap cards in each graveyard/other game zone.
- Wishing for Traps.
- Additional static abilities as long as a Trap card is in a graveyard.
As you can see, all of these are narrow, cookie-cutter effects that won't have any further applications outside Zendikar block. If anyone can think of any interesting mechanics that could parasite off Traps without referring to the subtype, please add them to the list cause I'm HIGHLY interested.I honestly hope you're right, and I'll be quite happy if Wizards pull off the entire Zendikar block without more than ten parasitic cards. However, if Trap interactions turn out to be the main focus of Zendikar block, I do honestly fear for its overall quality.
Then again, I won't jump to any conclusions until I see a fairly complete spoiler.
I do so happen to design games for a living, so it is my JOB to know and apply design theory (Hint: I'm VERY good at my job). I am also a fan of Rosewater's column and I have enough of a brain to know how to separate the chaff from the jewels. In case you're interested in having a productive discussion about game design, I recommend you read this sigh, flame removed, warning issued:
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Game-Design-Raph-Koster/dp/1932111972/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1250293712&sr=8-7
You seem to have a serious confusion on the role of linearity in Magic design. Although certain themes in the game lend themselves to lineal interactions, those interactions are only interesting if there is enough of the linear focus that players actually care.
Dredge works well outside of Block Constructed because there are enough cards that care about the graveyard throughout the entire game. Wizards and Elves tribal decks work in Extended because every block needs creatures, and those creatures happen to have subtypes often enough that some are bound to have powerful interactions. Cycling has had multiple revisits throughout the game's history, and still most of the deck's power is based around two specific enchantments from Onslaught block. If every single block had Arcane cards, you can bet Splice would have a very different player response.
Although linear design has its uses (not the least of which is to guide new players through card and strategy synergy), too much linearity makes players feel as though the developers are building their decks for them (one of the main reasons I don't like tribal-themed blocks). Modular design allows players to experiment and discover interactions on their own, sometimes even in ways the game designers didn't even plan for, and to a degree ensures the replay value of individual cards. Basing an entire BLOCK around a visibly linear mechanic has proven to be unpopular in the long term, as Mirrodin, Kamigawa and Onslaught blocks can attest.
Cards that interact with a narrow, block-specific tag (the Trap subtype isn't a mechanic by itself any more than Sorcery is) are as linear as you can get: the only pieces of the puzzle you can interact with are all known and contained within an extremely limited pool. Moreover, they create a weird and very unsatisfying tension during deckbuilding, making you feel as if you're leaving something out; people who have tried to play Wild Nacatl in a two-color deck, or any Tribal land in a deck with too few of the relevant creature cards can attest to this.
Don't get me wrong: extreme modularity can be as detrimental to the game as extreme linearity; if you don't believe me, look up Necropotence and Tarmogoyf. However, those cards will have relevance on so many scenarios that will hardly ever leave you feeling cheated, especially not the way that Tel-Jilad Chosen, Rend Spirit and Exploding Borders often do.
Finally, two clarifications:
To say that Zendikar sucks because of this is certainly a blatant exaggeration, and this is definitely not what I am doing. I am -once again- futilely trying to discuss game design principles with people who don't understand them, and making a few educated guesses. Where those guesses lead to is cause for concern, but I wouldn't advice people to jump ship before we have a good portion of the spoiler.
To those saying that linear cards based on Traps do not exist: I am willing to concede there's a slim chance that's true. However, it makes no sense to add additional information with implied rules baggage to cards if you're not going to use it somehow. It would be akin to adding ice skates to an adventure game and then leaving out the ice level altogether. Otherwise, you can BET my signature for the upcoming year will have the following line:
Well, seeing as you haven't disclosed country, name or contact info, I'd say your bet makes no sense as there's no way I can collect. Too bad, tho, as I would have potentially wagered my foil Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund against it. (Seeing as you're betting a worthless card that makes no sense whatsoever, I thought I'd one-up you on that.)
As for the "potential" in my previous post, it is there because I am not a stuck-up moron and I'm willing to admit that WoTC designers have enough brains to figure out the issue and make amendments (especially since MaRo has brought it up on several occasions).
Then again, you wouldn't know anything about being wrong, ever, would you?
Which is exactly my point; the design space of nonpermanent subtypes is too shallow to have any lasting effects. Also, Homelands would like a word with you...
Having limited chaff like Shadowfeed in an environment with Unearth is a necessity. Having discard outlets in a set with Madness is a necessity. Tacking on a needless subtype that does virtually nothing, and then spoon-feeding players narrow cards that only interact with said subtype is lazy design. Why make the subtype in the first place? Flavor reasons? By all means, make it an ability word and call it a day...
Remember Nix, from Future Sight? The card was clearly meant to be a narrow answer to Suspended spells, yet it still had enough depth to be used as a potential out against copied spells, Hideaway freebies, pitch spells, moxen, etc. You tell me if you can get the same mileage out of, say, Hisoka's Defiance.
The main difference between a card like One with Nothing and cards like "Counter target Trap spell" or a bear with Protection from Traps is that you'll still be finding ways to abuse the former long after you've explored every possible application of the latter.
Having niche cards that ONLY interact with other niche cards from the same block is not interesting outside of Block Constructed. Even MaRo has repeatedly said how he thinks Splice into Arcane was a mistake, and if he had a chance to fix it he would make it into Splice into Sorceries or Splice into Instants.
As for niche cards making blocks memorable and unique, I'm willing to bet that people will remember Gifts Ungiven, Sakura-Tribe Elder and Yosei, the Morning Star waaaay long after they've forgotten Horobi's Whisper, Kodama's Reach and even Cranial Extraction ever existed. Heck, even Ninjutsu is more unique, flavorful and mechanically interesting than Arcane.
Do please tell me with a straight face you won't feel cheated if a good percentage of the rares in a 249-block set end up being like Infernal Kirin, Hikari, Twilight Guardian, Kodama of the South Tree or Kyoki, Sanity's Eclipse.
I'm complaining because it will potentially affect the entire BLOCK by giving us narrow, unimaginative cards that interact with Traps and Traps alone. Just ask anyone playing during CHK about just how deep the pond of Spiritcraft and Splice into Arcane was...
Granted, but is it absolutely necessary to state the spell is a trap on its type line? Trap could've easily been an ability word tacked onto the card's rules text and, clunky themed-interaction cards notwithstanding, the end result would've been exactly the same.
I find it ironic that some of the above posts defending Trap as a subtype quote flavor as a reason despite the fact that Arcane was deeply rooted in flavor, being spells cast by spirit-world entities. The entire design space of nonpermanents with subtypes can be defined as a tag for other cards to look for (see Spiritcraft and Splice mechanics). That, in my opinion, is lazy design: what does a card get from having a "when a Trap spell is played" trigger, instead of a "when an Instant spell is played" one?
Sure, it's flavorful, but when push comes to shove games are about abstract systems; we could skin Tetris so that pieces resembled concentration camp prisoners being pushed into a communal grave by nazis, and people would get the same kick out of it (save for the usual hypocrites trying to make it into the newspapers; and NO, before you ask I have no sympathy for nazis or anti-semitic movements, so move along now).
From a strict mechanical viewpoint, if I cast Dark Banishing on your Enormous Baloth before you can attack or block with it, I'm precluding you from achieving any results from your spellcasting. Dark Banishing is balanced by the fact that it cannot hit black creatures, lands, green permanents or sorceries. Countermagic is balanced by the fact it can't hit lands or resolved spells. Everything else is just cards trading with cards.
The true problem with countermagic and LD is player ego. There is no mechanical difference between Dark Banishing and Counterspell beyond the perceived notion some players have of their opponents saying "NO" to their proverbial faces. This is all happenning in said player's head, and I'm not saying it's good or bad, only this is a general reaction that's been studied to death, and as a consequence we don't see too many good counterspells or LD anymore...
Player ego is the main reason why I think any efficient and widely played Trap cards will be hated by newbies, grievers and the "casual" crowd (note the quote marks). People will perceive any "mistake" that caused them to be "punished" by a Trap as an attack on their ego, and as such will reject it right away.
This is also the reason why I think you'll be able to spring at least a subset of your own Traps; there's no ego involved when you're simply exploiting a loophole (though there are those that'll call it non-interactive). But then again, getting a beneficial effect out of springing a trap kinda defeats its flavor...
All in all, I think this is a VERY dangerous design space that should be treaded carefully or not treaded at all. We do not want a repeat of the Untap mechanic fiasco, where the potential for accidentally creating engine cards was so great that most of the effects had to be overcosted, underwhelming or both...
You mean you bounce something like Anathemancer instead? Why wouldn't I just use Agony Warp instead?
Of course this assumes that Traps are the main focus of the expansion and distributed evenly among all colors, rarities and card types. Alternate casting costs add a LOT of complexity to cards, especially if the trap conditions are complex, narrow and/or not readily apparent, so don't expect to see too many fancy effects at common or uncommon. I don't really expect to see Trap Creatures either, so that cuts the supply of Traps by a HUGE amount.
While I do agree that a well-thought application of traps will greatly increase the level of interactivity of the game, I completely disagree with the execution. Does making it a subtype really adds a lot to the game? I thought R&D learned its lesson with Splice and Arcane, yet here they are repeating the mistake. Expect to see a lot of narrow, chaff cards with things like Protection from Traps and triggers on players playing Traps.
Speaking of narrow applications, note how Whiplash Trap feels almost like a forced answer against Bloodbraid Elf aggro, yet fails miserably by providing the BBE player another free spell on his next turn. The same could be said of Captain of the Watch, Broodmate Dragon and other token producing creatures. Conversely, weenie and midrange are almost unaffected by the Trap's condition, and trying to use it against them will lead to a lot of "did you play that this turn or last turn?" awkwardness.
Also interestingly, Traps seem to share a lot with countermagic: powerful effects with a timing restriction. If there's anything we've discussed in these forums to exhaustion is that new players (and some older ones) do not like the mechanics of countermagic. Considering we're still knee-deep in 'acquisition year', making a mechanic that punishes careless players the apparent focus of an entire expansion sends a very contradicting signal. Basically, WoTC is telling us it's willing to hose down a powerful mechanic that's useless in all but very specific conditions (countermagic), yet it's willing to push a mechanic that's allegedly less powerful and broad, in exchange being borderline useless the rest of the time.
At least Whiplash Trap looks like a decent tempo equalizer for control decks, and is likely to see a good deal of play even in constructed formats. It scares the bejeezus out of me to think that they had to recur to conditional casting costs to keep spells on par with creatures. Expect to see the usual assortment of spells, including:
- 3 damage sorcery speed for 2R, with an alternate trap cost of R and an easily attainable condition (probably the opponent having less than 15-20 life).
- Draw two cards sorcery for 2U, with an alternate trap cost of U under the condition of you having few cards in hand.
- Destroy all creatures for 3WW-4WW, with an alternate trap cost of 2WW under the condition of an opponent having more than two/less than three creatures in play.
- Undercosted 3/3 green beast creature token maker, possibly with a G trap cost.
- Undercosted Coercion or Mind Rot black sorcery for B or 1B trap cost, under the condition your opponent's hand is full or there's a significant difference in hand size.
Now what I would REALLY like to see, but am not getting any hopes for:- Instant-speed Zombify/Rise from the Grave for a Trap cost of three or less, under the condition there are more creatures in an opponent's graveyard than yours.
- Really overcosted Armageddon with a 3W Trap cost under the condition an opponent controls more creatures than you do. Creates a very interesting tension as you're racing with less guys, though they're likely larger, exalted, etc.
- Cycle of Trap instants with larger Kicker costs that are quite beneficial, but hard to attain with regular mana.
- Concentrate for 3UU, with a Trap cost of 1U and a condition that doesn't make it completely suck in control decks.
- Cycle of non-rare, single-colored mana stones for 2-3 with a Trap cost of 0.
- Red Dark Ritual Trap.
As for Kicker, here's to hoping for off-color Kicker costs to support Alara's crazy tricolored cards, and even non-mana Kicker costs. Having a new cycle of Volvers would be awesome, but highly unlikely.Is anyone else excited about the prospects of the Kor redirection mechanic returning? I can think of one or three powerful interactions in that regard, no the least powerful of which is Exalted.
Above all, PLEASE WIZARDS MAKE CONTROL NOT SUCK. I won't ask the usual kids not to post two pages' worth of "but 5cc is winning everywhere" since they will regardless, even after reminding them that it's rotating when Zendikar comes, it's pretty much the only viable control archetype right now, etc. etc. etc.
Hey, I mean, as long as no one ends up pulling an M10 Wrath of God...
I think the last page's worth of postings proves a good indication of just how subjective defining the problem actually is. Regardless, since this is the closest we'll probably get to an attempt at defining power creep, let's analyze your points one by one:
Like other posters have pointed out, a card may be overpowered when compared to last block, yet seem completely fair when taken into the context of, say, Legacy. If you define power creep within the boundaries of a specific format (say, Standard), you run into another problem since power levels vary constantly as cards rotate in and out of the format. This has some serious repercussions on some of the further points.
Why? A mistake impacts all environments into which it is legal, and players still feel their warping effects. Moreover, even banned and restricted cards are constantly reevaluated within their new contexts, and the very fact that this happens is indicative of a slow, general state of power creep. Why else would a banned card be considered fair game after a few years? Moreover, if something proves too powerful in the past, why is it not a fair basis of comparison for new cards? All this does is prove the importance of context.
Unpopularity is fairly subjective, too, and has more to do with how the game is marketed, or even with the preceptions of whoever develops the game, than with power level. I believe much of the powering down of countermagic, land destruction and combos has to do with Magic going through an acquisition phase rather than with developers making an effort to balance these elements into the game. The same could be said about Affinity's banning: marketing said it was bad for the game, so it was uprooted without taking a second look to whether the artifact lands, Ravager, or any of the other cards created an interesting environment when taken individually. Rest assured that if Magic's marketing goal was to squeeze more money out of torunament players, we'd get a set with a healthy dosage of Counterspell, drawback-laden cards, mass removal, and combo elements.
Not to sound racist, and let me state beforehand that I'm happy that it turned out like this, but this is analog to saying that it's ok for Obama to be the President of the United States because of all the abuses committed throughout history to the black population. Whatever happened to electing people on their merits and qualification for office?
Rampant abuse of creature power levels can be as detrimental to the game as rampant abuse of combo or control elements. We do not need to be more lenient with creature-based power creep because those guys never had their day in the sun. If historical context is not relevant, creatures can still be judged on the effectiveness and availability of removal in the set, on how much they swing the game one way or another, and on how they deter players from trying other strategies (hence lessening the overall depth of the game).
Oh, but here's the funny thing: you just defined above that power creep is to be a comparison between new cards and old cards! In the context of a relatively small format, like, say, Standard, reprints are effectively NEW CARDS, since they haven't been around or impacted that particular environment before. If the environment is ill-prepared to deal with the card in question, other cards in the format will look weak by comparison to this "newcomer." Moreover, where do you draw the line with functional reprints? If I print a functional Dark Ritual it's power creep (because it's new) but if I reprint the original, it's not?
Hence, if Zendikar brought us reprints of Dark Ritual, Moat and Fact or Fiction, these new additions to the Standard (and Extended) environment would impact the game in much the same way as if these cards didn't exist in older formats.
Completely agreed, but your definition should also take into consideration that some formats (probably those most relevant) rotate, making cards go out as others go in. This dramatically changes the power level of cards perceived to be "too powerful." Remember Ohran Viper, Vesuvan Shapeshifter, Oona, Queen of the Fae or Firespout? By that token, remember maindeck Anathemancer?
The problem is, you realize the effects were short-term between one or two years after you actually had to suffer through them! Expecting a hurricane, or a recession, or realizing later that it was only a short-term deal, do little for the people affected. Those most affected WILL react emotionally. Hence you cannot completely ignore the short and mid-term repercussions of constantly fluctuating formats.
This is why you hear all these crazy complaints about Power Creep in the first place! Most people jumping one way or another are angry without stopping to identify the problem and see whether the other side's claims have any merit.
This game has proven it can be fun and balanced at extremely high power levels, and I for one don't care about power creep as much as I care about diversity, depth and power balance. Power creep may or may not exist within a specific and highly subjective context, but the power levels introduced by the last two years' worth of expansions are having serious repercussions over Standard that cannot be overlooked, and shouldn't be sustained, for long.
Seeing as, even if someone goes through the trouble of defining these constraints, this thread will STILL be plagued by kids yelling one way or the other, I, for one, pass...
Unless you're planning on playing a constructed format with M10 cards alone, I don't think previous core sets by themselves are a valid basis for comparison outside of limited. M10 should be taken into the context of what it boosts and what it hoses within a particular format. By this logic, Ball Lightning may be a balanced card in formats defined by cheap removal, but when taken in the context of aggro decks boosted by Unearth and Cascade, it becomes MUCH more of a hassle. Take Wildfire as an example: the card went from staple to unplayable to staple in each of its incarnations. Is it the card alone that is powerful?
Honor of the Pure has a direct comparison in Crusade: it costs the same, with less color commitment and without a drawback. Yet you're comparing it to Glorious Anthem as a card that costs one W less and has a drawback. I can understand your dilemma since Anthem is a much closer point of comparison, but I'd hardly say pumping white creatures only is a drawback significant enough for the cost WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a format where a significant number of powerful creatures are white, multicolored or otherwise.
Power creep, like any other analysis subjective to historical progression, should be taken within its context. Saying that aggro is still slower than the fastest aggro deck in the last 10 years tells us little; comparing it to last season, or 2 years ago, gives us a much more accurate way to analyze power movements.
Also, by saying things like "it's still a 4 turn clock as normal" is both subjective and inaccurate, since you fail to take into consideration the context. If my opponent beats me in four turns, but I only have 20% chances to topdeck the necessary answer, and my board situation degrades progressively every turn that I don't, is a lot different from having answers aplenty, deck manipulation, or my opponent going all-in.
I suggest you take a look at the list of questions I stated on my first post, and try to answer all of them, considering the progression of the last two years, before jumping the gun and going into useless card-by-card analysis.
Firstly, M10 is not the sole responsible source of power creep; it's a tendency that's been building up gradually for two years now, and M10 continues the build-up. You cannot conclude that there is/isn't power creep by looking at M10 outside its context.
Secondly, you're being subjective in your analysis. A lot of people could easily say that Honor of the Pure is more powerful than Crusade for an easier cost, yet you conclude that it feels reasonably costed when compared to Glorious Anthem. If there's anything that Necropotence, Bitterblossom, Phyrexian Negator and a host of other cards have shown us is that a reasonable drawback is not necessarily a counterbalance for making a card cost less. Considering the environment, Honor of the Pure should've probably costed WW to at least make its viability in G/x tokens decks a bit more limited.
Thirdly, power creep on certain strategies and card types is a result of weakening and card availability in relation to other strategies. Aggro hasn't built up power creep over the last years solely because powerful creatures have been printed; its power creep is perceived when compared to the viability and strength of control and combo strategies.
Fourthly, reprinting a card may or may not be conductive to power creep. By your logic, I could reprint Dark Ritual right now and it wouldn't qualify as power creep in your analysis.
Fifthly, you need to check the historical progression. R/G Gruul was annoyingly fast by its standards, yet it conceded card advantage in favor of speed. G/W Tokens and Jund Aggro are potentially faster than Gruul without committing as many resources to the board. Those two decks are a result of two years of card build-up, which remain fast and viable once M10 becomes legal.
Finally, I don't like the spiteful tone of your initial posting, or the fact that you're so intent on crushing this argument instead of opening room for discussion. I for one am tired of bringing up the same points over and over again, and will let the results from the upcoming tournaments speak for themselves.
EDIT: As a means of generating some objective discussion, here are some questions that can help people evaluate the power level of a given set/environment. Do note that if you want to talk about power creep or toning down, you need to consider the historical progression.
Sigh... I sometimes wonder why I bother posting paragraphs and paragraphs of explanations on the nature of creature-based power creep. Like all those posting before you, I suggest you check the previous pages so you understand what we're discussing on this thread. I won't ask you to think before you post, because I think asking that of the average MTGS poster is akin to a godhand in Type 2: a lucky accident.