While I completely agree with the mods that discussion about the gold border on certain lands is totally pointless, I don't think discussion about the possibility of a land or lands being in the set should be dismissed. Given that there exists a land with actual color (Dryad Arbor) and a card with a characteristic setting ability giving it more than one color (Transguild Courier), lands that are genuine multicolor cards are not unreasonable speculation.
Wizards prints tons of unplayable chaff in every set. Doesn't matter if it's reprinted cards or new stuff. If you weren't complaining every time you opened a bloody Chimney Imp, Takeno's Cavalry, or Zephyr Spirit, why are you so outraged by seeing these cards (not all of which are a waste of cardboard) in Conflux now?
Funny you should mention Zephyr Spirit, I actually quite enjoyed playing a deck that was in an article on mtg.com designed around taking advantage of it as a high CMC spirit you could replay to trigger Cloudhoof Kirin, the dragon auras from Scourge as well as being able to pitch it to Disrupting Shoal to counter the popular legendary dragons like Kokusho, which all cost 6 mana. Fun times. But I digress...
IMHO, they should at least make an attempt to design new stuff, and let the players decide what's worth playing. Bundling in old material with "new" products is lazy, and the fact that they're asking us to pay money for the (ever decreasing) amount of new stuff, makes it borderline dishonest.
Not everyone is a long time player like yourself. New people who build their collection by cracking packs open don't exactly have access to Invasion booster boxes, and probably don't even know those cards existed. Just trade reprints you don't want to them.
I haven't checked the prices of Invasion singles lately, but I doubt these are very pricey. It's quite easy to pickup any old singles from online vendors, both paper and MTGO.
And functional reprints definitely aren't cards that "already exist". Now you can build a deck with 4 Gaea's Might and 4 Might of Alara. If you hate white now you can make a deck with 8 Shivan Zombies.
This is a fair point, although I don't know how many functional reprints this applies to in practice.
It seems you missed the memo. Wizards is doing this because from 11th Edition onwards, they're changing the structure of core sets, from weak introductory sets with a few decent cards, to competitive sets. In exchange, however, they decided to raise the amount of "introductory" cards in new sets to help noobs understand the game better. Makes sense really, since noobs just buy the latest expansion instead of the Core set.
No, I didn't "miss the memo". We have yet to see an actual core set designed under this model, but regardless, core sets are still all 100% reprints. They won't be exploring any new design space in them. That's the heart of the matter for me. There's only so many new sets a year. By decreasing the amount of truly new cards, we see less and less new stuff and the game gets stale much more quickly.
Has it not dawned on a lot of you complainers so far that Magic is a big game that's still getting bigger and bigger, and that many new players are coming into the game every year, and that many of them most likely would not have any idea what we are talking about when it comes to reprints? Our complaining and bashing?
If bringing in more players at the expense of keeping long term players ultimately increases their bottom line, then so be it. They are a for-profit corporation after all. It just makes me sad to see them take Richard Garfield's brillant work of art and reduce it to a cash cow.
Don't you guys think it's selfish for us not to let the new guys get a piece of history by being able to play with functional reprints of useful/powerful classic cards in a format that's easily accessible to them?
The cards being reprinted aren't particularly powerful, hard to get, or expense (as far as I know). Let new players pick them up on the secondary market if they want them.
For as long as the game still works, is still fun, and can attract a new slew of players willing to learn and play the best card game that started it all, Magic will still be the same old Magic we used to play, regardless of the number of times we see a card revived, reprinted, and replayed.
I don't know about other long time players, but for me the only way the game says fun, is if it's kept fresh. Reprints and rehahses don't get me interested or excited. I don't doubt that there's lots and lots of design space to explore (just take a look at the custom card creation forums here). What I do doubt, is that WotC can successfully balance their drive to bring in new players and reduce development costs, against the desire for innovation coming from long time players.
For me, the problem with reprints boils down to this: it makes me feel like WotC is trying to cheat players out of their hard earned money.
I fully understand that the 10 reprints/functional reprints we've seen so far fit into the theme and mechanical structure of this set. I understand that they're not, in and of themselves, terrible cards and that people will play them in limited and possibly constructed. But that doesn't change the fact that they are cards that already exist, and anyone who wants to play with them already has access to them.
Of course sets have always had a few reprints here and there. But anyone who denies that in this most recent block they've noticeably and significantly increased the amount (while at the same time decreasing set sizes no less) is frankly, making fan-boy excuses. They've crossed an invisible line of what's acceptable for a "new" set, IMHO. (And from the looks of this thread, many players agree.)
I have enjoyed Magic for several years, and hope to continue enjoying it for years to come. But I think if we don't hold WotC to a higher standard, they're going to keep feeding us left over table scraps.
Keep in mind that different types of players are looking for different things.
Some people play serious constructed.
Some people play serious limited.
Some people play casual.
Some people have been playing for years.
Some people just started one or two blocks ago.
Speaking as someone who's been playing casual for 6 years now, Alara is a steaming pile of uninspired, mailed-in, recycled crap that bores me to tears.
I appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts, some very interesting points have been made. But, it seems like there's a discussion about "the set doesn't actually suck!" and another discussion about the merits of colored artifacts.
Most of the people expressing their disappointment in the set have the same reasons I do, which I expected. What I wanted to know is what these people think WotC will do if the set doesn't sell well. Let me pose some specific questions to try and get things back on topic:
Have they ever publicly (through mtg.com articles or otherwise) said a set sold poorly, called it their fault, and explained how they were going to do things better?
Does it seem they have locked in a strategy of bringing in as many new players as they can, even if it means long time players lose interest?
Do you think sets can be designed in such a way that they both bring in new players, and are interesting to long time players? Is your gut feeling that WotC will be able to pull this off, or is the game potentially dying out?
Sorry, the quote you provided essentially says Alara seems less "awesome" than Lorwyn. That's not a fact, that's an opinion. It's the "Why is Alara badly designed? Because I think so" line of thought. And I haven't seen a single post on the subject that uses measurable facts to gouge how good or bad Alara is. That's why I asked.
All opinions about any form of entertainment are entirely subjective. No one's going to argue that. This thread is for people who are of the opinion that Alara is boring.
I also find it strange that a thread was created solely for the purpose of saying "Aye, Alara sucks"
That's not the purpose. The purpose is to discuss the theoretical effects of bad sales on future design.
How exactly is Shards a badly designed set? And I don't want to hear "because I think it is", I want to hear arguments.
There's plenty of other threads for that. I made this thread for people who already agree that it's badly designed and boring (as stated in the title), so we could discuss the possible reactions WotC may have to poor sales and how they will adjust.
That being said, I think Messenger summed up nicely why the set is seriously lacking:
Personally, I don't think Alara is a bad set because of its multicoloredness or how it tones down the power level. I'm a great believer in keeping power levels down and controlled. What disappoints me about Shards of Alara is that the card designs aren't very original, innovative, novel or cool, unlike what we saw in Shadowmoor block, Llorwyn block, even Time Spiral block (and that includes its funky time shifts). Most of the stuff we're seeing just doesn't feel as new or awesome as stuff we saw previously.
Are you worried that (potentially) bad sales will be explained away by the weak economy and not seen as the result lazy design work? What would this mean for the long term health of the game- even more corner-cutting, or a wake up call leading to more innovative designs?
Just thought I'd point out that the bull, obviously, is from the green shard, and that Vigilance and Haste are now both secondary abilities in green. Could possibly be a cycle, though I can't really design other possibilities off the top of my head.
Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of multicolored cards. :/
...
My hype for Alara, sadly, is dying down. WHich is too bad, because I had a feeling it would be a set I'd enjoy immensely.
I have to agree with this sentiment. I've learned not to pass judgment too early on sets, but... holy crap. If this isn't themost boring batch of initial cards I've seen I don't know what is. Maybe it's due to the fact that there's no new keyword mechanics shown, I don't know.
Some of you may have seen an app that someone designed that spits out randomized Magic cards. To me, most of these feel like they could have been generated by that program.
And the scary part is the design team for this set consisted of 15 people.
I came here to post a slightly off topic question, but to answer your question, I do personally think it's likely that there will be a cycle of CDDE creatures.
Now, this feels very much like they may make a rare wedge cycle like this.
Are people now referring to three color triplets consisting of a color and its two allies as a "wedge"? Last time I checked, that was the term used for a color and its two enemies, and "arc" was the term used for color + allies. The terms make more sense when you look at the shapes made by connecting such triplets with lines.
Am I mistaken, or is this the start of another corruption of Magic jargon? (Similar to how "187" went from meaning Nekrataal's ability to kill a creature, to meaning any CITP ability at all.)
Thanks for your feedback on Excavate. Would you guys say that it's clearly broken as I have it now, or do you think it would be worth play testing some cards with it and seeing how it goes before making a change? Or do you think it ultimately depends on what the card themselves that have the ability can do?
On the one hand, I've considered just letting them be pretty much normal cards with no graveyard related abilites for the sole purpose of interacting with Zombify, and Reclaim type effects, etc. On the other hand, I've considered adding mechanics like Flashback and Cycling to the set for the interaction with Excavate (and I didn't even consider Delve!)
If it does turn out to be broken, I think I'm leaning towards a modified version of something Valros suggested:
Excavate (If this card is in your graveyard at the end of the game, you may begin the next game with the same opponent with this card in your graveyard. If you do, your starting hand size is reduced by one.)
The other possibility for fixing it might be what I originally designed when I came up with the mechanic:
Excavate (At the end of the game, you may choose one card with excavate in your graveyard. Begin the next game with the same opponent with that card in your graveyard.)
I checked with a mod, and it seems that threads like this can go in the custom set creation forum after all.
I'm going to update the first post and invite anyone who's interested in the concept of this set to submit cards, ideas, suggestions, even new mechanics if you have one that fits the themes.
Regarding the questions raised about the meaning of the phrase "next game with the same opponent" which appears in the reminder text for Excavate and Timewarp. I imagined it working a lot like the wishes. That is, they would work differently in tournaments and casual play. In tournaments, it would be restricted to the next game in the same match. In casual, it would be whatever your playgroup decides; next game that day, a week later, a month, whatever the group thinks would be fun and manageable.
Post this in custom set discussion, because people will know more about sets there.
I started to, but then I read the forum rules, and as I understood them an outline of set themes and mechanics like this one should go here, not there.
Quote from fifthdawn521 »
Anyway, the first two mechanics are awful. I mean, really, really bad. Totally worthless. The last one is a little bit too specific.
Oh, Okay, I get it. Well, I like that one, at least. The other two are just too situational - What happens if it's game 3 of 3? What good does Timewarp do?
Yeah, as Danny said, Autolock doesn't always do damage, it could do pretty much anything, such as his example.
If it is game 3, then Timewarp wouldn't be useful, and neither would Excavate. I guess the challenge is to design cards with those mechanics that you might consider putting in your deck for the benefit they may have in games 2 and 3.
Is there anything else you didn't like about them? I'm open to suggestions.
I like this so far, some creative work, even if it is a bit crazy. By the way, I know nothing about Panzer Dragoon.
The problems I see with the abilities which effect the next game played are memory issues, especially Timewarp. Maybe Timewarp could be a variant on suspend?
Thanks for the feedback. I'm used to playing on MTGO, so I'm not great when it comes to considering memory issues with new mechanics. I have played with Time Machine IRL and it didn't seem to pose too much of problem. I don't think counters are needed, since you always return it on the turn = its CMC. I'll keep this mind and see what others have to say about it.
Funny you should mention Zephyr Spirit, I actually quite enjoyed playing a deck that was in an article on mtg.com designed around taking advantage of it as a high CMC spirit you could replay to trigger Cloudhoof Kirin, the dragon auras from Scourge as well as being able to pitch it to Disrupting Shoal to counter the popular legendary dragons like Kokusho, which all cost 6 mana. Fun times.
IMHO, they should at least make an attempt to design new stuff, and let the players decide what's worth playing. Bundling in old material with "new" products is lazy, and the fact that they're asking us to pay money for the (ever decreasing) amount of new stuff, makes it borderline dishonest.
I haven't checked the prices of Invasion singles lately, but I doubt these are very pricey. It's quite easy to pickup any old singles from online vendors, both paper and MTGO.
This is a fair point, although I don't know how many functional reprints this applies to in practice.
No, I didn't "miss the memo". We have yet to see an actual core set designed under this model, but regardless, core sets are still all 100% reprints. They won't be exploring any new design space in them. That's the heart of the matter for me. There's only so many new sets a year. By decreasing the amount of truly new cards, we see less and less new stuff and the game gets stale much more quickly.
If bringing in more players at the expense of keeping long term players ultimately increases their bottom line, then so be it. They are a for-profit corporation after all. It just makes me sad to see them take Richard Garfield's brillant work of art and reduce it to a cash cow.
The cards being reprinted aren't particularly powerful, hard to get, or expense (as far as I know). Let new players pick them up on the secondary market if they want them.
I don't know about other long time players, but for me the only way the game says fun, is if it's kept fresh. Reprints and rehahses don't get me interested or excited. I don't doubt that there's lots and lots of design space to explore (just take a look at the custom card creation forums here). What I do doubt, is that WotC can successfully balance their drive to bring in new players and reduce development costs, against the desire for innovation coming from long time players.
I fully understand that the 10 reprints/functional reprints we've seen so far fit into the theme and mechanical structure of this set. I understand that they're not, in and of themselves, terrible cards and that people will play them in limited and possibly constructed. But that doesn't change the fact that they are cards that already exist, and anyone who wants to play with them already has access to them.
Of course sets have always had a few reprints here and there. But anyone who denies that in this most recent block they've noticeably and significantly increased the amount (while at the same time decreasing set sizes no less) is frankly, making fan-boy excuses. They've crossed an invisible line of what's acceptable for a "new" set, IMHO. (And from the looks of this thread, many players agree.)
I have enjoyed Magic for several years, and hope to continue enjoying it for years to come. But I think if we don't hold WotC to a higher standard, they're going to keep feeding us left over table scraps.
Some people play serious constructed.
Some people play serious limited.
Some people play casual.
Some people have been playing for years.
Some people just started one or two blocks ago.
Speaking as someone who's been playing casual for 6 years now, Alara is a steaming pile of uninspired, mailed-in, recycled crap that bores me to tears.
Most of the people expressing their disappointment in the set have the same reasons I do, which I expected. What I wanted to know is what these people think WotC will do if the set doesn't sell well. Let me pose some specific questions to try and get things back on topic:
Have they ever publicly (through mtg.com articles or otherwise) said a set sold poorly, called it their fault, and explained how they were going to do things better?
Does it seem they have locked in a strategy of bringing in as many new players as they can, even if it means long time players lose interest?
Do you think sets can be designed in such a way that they both bring in new players, and are interesting to long time players? Is your gut feeling that WotC will be able to pull this off, or is the game potentially dying out?
All opinions about any form of entertainment are entirely subjective. No one's going to argue that. This thread is for people who are of the opinion that Alara is boring.
That's not the purpose. The purpose is to discuss the theoretical effects of bad sales on future design.
There's plenty of other threads for that. I made this thread for people who already agree that it's badly designed and boring (as stated in the title), so we could discuss the possible reactions WotC may have to poor sales and how they will adjust.
That being said, I think Messenger summed up nicely why the set is seriously lacking:
"Exalted - Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 and gains lifelink until end of turn."
I have to agree with this sentiment. I've learned not to pass judgment too early on sets, but... holy crap. If this isn't the most boring batch of initial cards I've seen I don't know what is. Maybe it's due to the fact that there's no new keyword mechanics shown, I don't know.
Some of you may have seen an app that someone designed that spits out randomized Magic cards. To me, most of these feel like they could have been generated by that program.
And the scary part is the design team for this set consisted of 15 people.
Now....
Are people now referring to three color triplets consisting of a color and its two allies as a "wedge"? Last time I checked, that was the term used for a color and its two enemies, and "arc" was the term used for color + allies. The terms make more sense when you look at the shapes made by connecting such triplets with lines.
Am I mistaken, or is this the start of another corruption of Magic jargon? (Similar to how "187" went from meaning Nekrataal's ability to kill a creature, to meaning any CITP ability at all.)
Thanks for your feedback on Excavate. Would you guys say that it's clearly broken as I have it now, or do you think it would be worth play testing some cards with it and seeing how it goes before making a change? Or do you think it ultimately depends on what the card themselves that have the ability can do?
On the one hand, I've considered just letting them be pretty much normal cards with no graveyard related abilites for the sole purpose of interacting with Zombify, and Reclaim type effects, etc. On the other hand, I've considered adding mechanics like Flashback and Cycling to the set for the interaction with Excavate (and I didn't even consider Delve!)
If it does turn out to be broken, I think I'm leaning towards a modified version of something Valros suggested:
Excavate (If this card is in your graveyard at the end of the game, you may begin the next game with the same opponent with this card in your graveyard. If you do, your starting hand size is reduced by one.)
The other possibility for fixing it might be what I originally designed when I came up with the mechanic:
Excavate (At the end of the game, you may choose one card with excavate in your graveyard. Begin the next game with the same opponent with that card in your graveyard.)
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
I'm going to update the first post and invite anyone who's interested in the concept of this set to submit cards, ideas, suggestions, even new mechanics if you have one that fits the themes.
Regarding the questions raised about the meaning of the phrase "next game with the same opponent" which appears in the reminder text for Excavate and Timewarp. I imagined it working a lot like the wishes. That is, they would work differently in tournaments and casual play. In tournaments, it would be restricted to the next game in the same match. In casual, it would be whatever your playgroup decides; next game that day, a week later, a month, whatever the group thinks would be fun and manageable.
I started to, but then I read the forum rules, and as I understood them an outline of set themes and mechanics like this one should go here, not there.
Yeah, as Danny said, Autolock doesn't always do damage, it could do pretty much anything, such as his example.
If it is game 3, then Timewarp wouldn't be useful, and neither would Excavate. I guess the challenge is to design cards with those mechanics that you might consider putting in your deck for the benefit they may have in games 2 and 3.
Is there anything else you didn't like about them? I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm used to playing on MTGO, so I'm not great when it comes to considering memory issues with new mechanics. I have played with Time Machine IRL and it didn't seem to pose too much of problem. I don't think counters are needed, since you always return it on the turn = its CMC. I'll keep this mind and see what others have to say about it.