If we talk about people's interpretations of the colour pie as if they are talking about the 'actual' colour pie then "Lightning Bolt is a colour pie break" is just as true as "Hornet's Sting is a colour pie break", yet most people would find that comparison to be flawed.
That's my point right there: the only reason we would see one of these statements as "more true" than the other is because the vast majority of people would disagree with it, not because WotC said so. Being in the extreme minority on an opinion issue doesn't make you wrong, but it probably means you should rethink your position or at very least understand that most others disagree with you. Hornet Sting got printed, and it was just as much of a mistake then as it is now. It wasn't "more in pie" back in 2011, and I don't see why saying "Hornet Sting is a color pie break" 5 years ago would have been "more false" than it would be now.
"Lightning Bolt is a colour pie break"
Do you see where I am going?
...no? I don't mean to be rude, I honestly have no idea what your point is here.
Opinions simply aren't facts, no matter how "official" they are. If you think Lightning Bolt breaks the color pie then I'll show you years and hundreds of cards worth of precedence and literature from WotC stating otherwise, but it doesn't make you wrong. Somewhere in WotC there's probably someone who thinks Bygone Bishop shouldn't have been printed, or that Blue's polymorphing is too powerful, or that red should get some soft enchantment removal, or that Hornet Sting is totally ok for green, but none of those people are necessarily wrong just because others within WotC disagree.
What is ok and not ok in the color pie is purely a matter of opinion even within the "official" realm of WotC itself. Some of it has been proven with years of data, but many other things are subjective and have been fought over for years. The only difference between "I think X is bad" and "I think X should be bad" is that the second assumes only one position can be "right" and that you should start believing in my opinion. That's simply not the case. I am perfectly fine continuing to believe that Bygone Bishop is bad for the game regardless of what you, WotC, or anyone else thinks. The only reason I should feel motivated to change my opinion is if I find this stance starts to make my card designs worse (which thinking Bolt is out of pie would definitely do). Looking at WotC and other designers for precedent is important because I don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I have to follow their lead when I think they've made a mistake.
Absolutely. I have no objections to this. What I object to is the community arguing with WotC about what their own system is when that system is basically determined by WotC's fiat. Disagreeing with WotC about what the colour pie should be is good, disagreeing with WotC about what the colour pie is doesn't make any sense. It's like disagreeing with a person about what their favorite colour is.
This seems needlessly pedantic. It sounds like what you're saying is that I shouldn't write "I think Bygone Bishop is a color pie break", but I should instead write "I think Bygone Bishop should be a color pie break"? What's the point of that? And since when does WotC printing something mean in any way that it's not a color pie break? WotC prints things it shouldn't all the time. Developmental mistakes obviously happen, and design mistakes are no different.
FWIW, the color pie to me is different from the mechanical implementation of the color pie. It's not like I'm arguing that Red is actually the color of peace and harmony, but card mechanics have always been an interpretation of the color pie.
Well, artifacts are less of an overarching concern than card draw, given that artifacts are very often also creatures can be interacted with without killing them.
I think Bygone-Bishop-esque cards are fine as an very occasional thing, once or twice per block at most.
But the whole point is that it defeats the point of having a hard weakness.
White is probably the color with the fewest weaknesses overall. It can remove all permanent types (sans lands?) at various levels of efficiency. It gets powerful early drops but also often gets powerful late drops. It has the tools to play both aggressive and controlling strategies. It's only real weakness is it's lack of card draw. So why is it ok that White gets to circumvent this while other colors never get to get around their restrictions? Once or twice a block? That's basically the same frequency that Blue gets to take extra turns, or Green gets to tutor out creatures, and those are supposed to be strengths.
The point is that we're allowed to disagree on these things. Discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed in the game is a huge part of both the challenge and fun of Magic design.
Because it undermines White's key weakness. I think the game is better when colors have strong weaknesses, so I don't see how White sometimes getting card draw is acceptable but Black can never get artifact removal.
The color pie is malleable, and different designers within WotC pull it in different directions. I'm a huge WotC fan boy, but even I think it's kind of pointless not to bring your own opinions into design. Otherwise why even bother? I'm not saying my word is more important than what gets printed, but clearly there were people at WotC who fought against Bygone Bishop and I would have been one of them.
Cantrip investigation is fine, but Bygone Bishop is a pie break IMO.
That was once true, but no longer. MaRo has gone on record stating that they're experimenting with white getting card-draw as long as it's incredibly 'in-tune' with what white's philosophy is. I'm not a fan, myself, but that's apparently the current status quo.
I know he said that, I just don't really agree.
@DJK: I pretty much disagree, if only because WotC is a big group of people with different opinions. They don't get to vote on things, which means cards getting printed doesn't represent a consensus as much as it represents certain people felt a certain way and others didn't have the time/position/motivation to stop it.
But White does get direct damage from time to time, and it almost always is retributive. Cards like Acolyte's Reward, Comeuppance, Divine Deflection, Refraction Trap, etc. show that dealing direct damage to players is something white can do under specific circumstances. I don't think anyone's arguing that Avacyn isn't a bend, but I don't see why it crosses the line into break territory.
And flavorfully Avacyn really isn't white anymore, but DFCs often change color for flavor reasons. Avacynian Missionaries//Lunarch Inquisitors don't change color because their antagonistic qualities actually are white aligned, where Avacyn's are not.
Cantrip investigation is fine, but Bygone Bishop is a pie break IMO.
Hey guys, sorry for the long delay. I've hit crunch time on multiple projects, followed up by GDC. I know we're all busy, but let's try and push through to finish up the commons. Having something testable will be a good milestone to carry us forward.
Some points:
Lands: So we've got a common cycle of lands. The original set had a cycle of "T: add {M} or CC to your mana pool." On one hand, these lands do a pretty decent job of pushing Steam Powered, especially since we no longer have our Ring cycle of mana rocks at common. On the other hand, they're pretty boring and are going to clog up space at common for all the non-SP drafters.
I'm open to hearing suggestions for replacements. One such idea might be a watered down version of the Blighted Cataract cycle from BFZ. These lands provide C but have colored activations, allowing non-SP players to still use them. Unfortunately the value generated by these lands pushes them to Uncommon, and I'm not sure we can water them down enough to fit them at common comfortably. However, they do provide some nice fodder for Trash (assuming it counts lands). Which brings me to...
Trash: How do we all feel about Trash? Of all our mechanics, Trash is the one that's the least inspiring. Unlike basically every other mechanic, all of our Trash cards were essentially created just to fill holes. Personally this doesn't bother me too much since Trash is supposed to be simple, but as we've filled the commons it seems like no one's really been struck with any Trash inspiration. Is it time to look at some of the older alternatives? Or should we just leave it be until after the first round of testing? (FWIW, any replacement would still have to be simple (I'm looking at you, Legend ); we'd be looking for a cool mechanic but one that's easy to grok, like Rebound or Skulk. In fact a Keyword would be preferable, since Windup is our only real Keyword (both Upgrade and Extort require extra rules text so they're almost just Ability words in disguise).)
So an extort card that I can play in my mono white deck that hits players is a bend, but new Avacyn that I can play in my mono white deck that hits players is a break?
I mean I totally agree that Extort and white hitting players in general is a big bend, but how is Avacyn any different? Are you really telling me that that presence of half a black mana symbol is more relevant than Avacyn's backside having a red frame? In a mono-white deck both of these things are close to mechanically meaningless.
Basically all I'm saying is whether or not you agree with me you should at least be consistent. I don't see a big difference between Extort bending the color pie and Avacyn bending it. (TBH I see all of these white Investigate cards as being more of a bend than Avacyn is, because they're undoing something that White's supposed to be specifically bad at.)
Yeah I would have to agree, this seems like an incredibly roundabout way of doing something we can already do. Why add so much complexity for such little gain? Sure there are a few important differences, but are they worth the cost?
But white gets player life loss (Inquisitor Exarch, Suture Priest, Extort, etc.). It has had this ability in its crust for quite a while. So while Avacyn is clearly a color pie bend, the two effects (killing small creatures and dealing damage to players) are not that far outside of what white had had access to in the past, even if they have been few and far between.
This seems decently interesting, though as of right now it's kind of impossible to judge how powerful they are. The only thing I can tell is that most of these are way undercosted for their stats, especially in Red.
The wait from summoning sickness is cost enough; I could have them all have Haste since they're red, but that would be unfair as well as too fast.
Not sure exactly what you mean here... in regular magic a 1R 3/2 with extra abilities would be very strong, not to mention a RR 4/3. Even without haste most of these creatures are well above the curve. Of course, that's just comparing things to normal magic standards.
But if we've already got Elbrus, why do it again? I think hitting on the trope from another direction is just as good.
Honestly I really dig the original card posted (assuming it was a DFC, naturally). I'm a huge fan of demons with big downsides and this fits the bill. The idea that your opponent has to think twice about using the blade is awesome flavor. Overall this card almost feels better than Elbrus from a Vorthos perspective: you hit on exactly the same demon summoning trope while also getting to tell the story of an innocent bystander trying to use the blade and accidentally re-releasing the Demon.
I agree that if you wanted it to be playable you'd need some tweaks. Currently the Demon's not big enough to warrant the downside (6/6 & flying maybe?) and the equipment is a tad too good (or rather, a tad too hard to get back IMO). I think the main change I would make would be having the equipment return if any creature the player controls dies. It still seems flavorful to me, but now there's a much greater risk in using it.
The more I read this, the more awkward it becomes.
Starting with "Skinwalk", it's currently set to trigger when the creature "becomes blocked or deals combat damage to an opponent." This is pretty confusing, since the former happens before combat damage and the latter happens after. What's the purpose of having these two timings? Plus, since there's a possibility that neither of these two things happen (such as a damage prevention spell or a -X/-0 effect) you could potentially pay for nothing at all. It seems incredibly fiddily for not a lot of payoff. You could easily just do what labarith is doing and get a much cleaner mechanic.
The second half (which awkwardly needs its own keyword separate from the first) is also awkwardly worded. Its a combat damage trigger, but that's sort of awkward when one version of Skinwalk flips before combat damage and the other flips after. You've got weird interactions with stuff like doublestrike where an unblocked creature on either side of this card will flip inbetween the two strikes, but a blocked front-side creature will flip beforehand. (And then add the toughness awkwardness on top of all that).
Opinions simply aren't facts, no matter how "official" they are. If you think Lightning Bolt breaks the color pie then I'll show you years and hundreds of cards worth of precedence and literature from WotC stating otherwise, but it doesn't make you wrong. Somewhere in WotC there's probably someone who thinks Bygone Bishop shouldn't have been printed, or that Blue's polymorphing is too powerful, or that red should get some soft enchantment removal, or that Hornet Sting is totally ok for green, but none of those people are necessarily wrong just because others within WotC disagree.
What is ok and not ok in the color pie is purely a matter of opinion even within the "official" realm of WotC itself. Some of it has been proven with years of data, but many other things are subjective and have been fought over for years. The only difference between "I think X is bad" and "I think X should be bad" is that the second assumes only one position can be "right" and that you should start believing in my opinion. That's simply not the case. I am perfectly fine continuing to believe that Bygone Bishop is bad for the game regardless of what you, WotC, or anyone else thinks. The only reason I should feel motivated to change my opinion is if I find this stance starts to make my card designs worse (which thinking Bolt is out of pie would definitely do). Looking at WotC and other designers for precedent is important because I don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I have to follow their lead when I think they've made a mistake.
This seems needlessly pedantic. It sounds like what you're saying is that I shouldn't write "I think Bygone Bishop is a color pie break", but I should instead write "I think Bygone Bishop should be a color pie break"? What's the point of that? And since when does WotC printing something mean in any way that it's not a color pie break? WotC prints things it shouldn't all the time. Developmental mistakes obviously happen, and design mistakes are no different.
FWIW, the color pie to me is different from the mechanical implementation of the color pie. It's not like I'm arguing that Red is actually the color of peace and harmony, but card mechanics have always been an interpretation of the color pie.
White is probably the color with the fewest weaknesses overall. It can remove all permanent types (sans lands?) at various levels of efficiency. It gets powerful early drops but also often gets powerful late drops. It has the tools to play both aggressive and controlling strategies. It's only real weakness is it's lack of card draw. So why is it ok that White gets to circumvent this while other colors never get to get around their restrictions? Once or twice a block? That's basically the same frequency that Blue gets to take extra turns, or Green gets to tutor out creatures, and those are supposed to be strengths.
The point is that we're allowed to disagree on these things. Discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed in the game is a huge part of both the challenge and fun of Magic design.
The color pie is malleable, and different designers within WotC pull it in different directions. I'm a huge WotC fan boy, but even I think it's kind of pointless not to bring your own opinions into design. Otherwise why even bother? I'm not saying my word is more important than what gets printed, but clearly there were people at WotC who fought against Bygone Bishop and I would have been one of them.
@DJK: I pretty much disagree, if only because WotC is a big group of people with different opinions. They don't get to vote on things, which means cards getting printed doesn't represent a consensus as much as it represents certain people felt a certain way and others didn't have the time/position/motivation to stop it.
And flavorfully Avacyn really isn't white anymore, but DFCs often change color for flavor reasons. Avacynian Missionaries//Lunarch Inquisitors don't change color because their antagonistic qualities actually are white aligned, where Avacyn's are not.
Cantrip investigation is fine, but Bygone Bishop is a pie break IMO.
Some points:
Lands: So we've got a common cycle of lands. The original set had a cycle of "T: add {M} or CC to your mana pool." On one hand, these lands do a pretty decent job of pushing Steam Powered, especially since we no longer have our Ring cycle of mana rocks at common. On the other hand, they're pretty boring and are going to clog up space at common for all the non-SP drafters.
I'm open to hearing suggestions for replacements. One such idea might be a watered down version of the Blighted Cataract cycle from BFZ. These lands provide C but have colored activations, allowing non-SP players to still use them. Unfortunately the value generated by these lands pushes them to Uncommon, and I'm not sure we can water them down enough to fit them at common comfortably. However, they do provide some nice fodder for Trash (assuming it counts lands). Which brings me to...
Trash: How do we all feel about Trash? Of all our mechanics, Trash is the one that's the least inspiring. Unlike basically every other mechanic, all of our Trash cards were essentially created just to fill holes. Personally this doesn't bother me too much since Trash is supposed to be simple, but as we've filled the commons it seems like no one's really been struck with any Trash inspiration. Is it time to look at some of the older alternatives? Or should we just leave it be until after the first round of testing? (FWIW, any replacement would still have to be simple (I'm looking at you, Legend
I mean I totally agree that Extort and white hitting players in general is a big bend, but how is Avacyn any different? Are you really telling me that that presence of half a black mana symbol is more relevant than Avacyn's backside having a red frame? In a mono-white deck both of these things are close to mechanically meaningless.
Basically all I'm saying is whether or not you agree with me you should at least be consistent. I don't see a big difference between Extort bending the color pie and Avacyn bending it. (TBH I see all of these white Investigate cards as being more of a bend than Avacyn is, because they're undoing something that White's supposed to be specifically bad at.)
Honestly I really dig the original card posted (assuming it was a DFC, naturally). I'm a huge fan of demons with big downsides and this fits the bill. The idea that your opponent has to think twice about using the blade is awesome flavor. Overall this card almost feels better than Elbrus from a Vorthos perspective: you hit on exactly the same demon summoning trope while also getting to tell the story of an innocent bystander trying to use the blade and accidentally re-releasing the Demon.
I agree that if you wanted it to be playable you'd need some tweaks. Currently the Demon's not big enough to warrant the downside (6/6 & flying maybe?) and the equipment is a tad too good (or rather, a tad too hard to get back IMO). I think the main change I would make would be having the equipment return if any creature the player controls dies. It still seems flavorful to me, but now there's a much greater risk in using it.
Starting with "Skinwalk", it's currently set to trigger when the creature "becomes blocked or deals combat damage to an opponent." This is pretty confusing, since the former happens before combat damage and the latter happens after. What's the purpose of having these two timings? Plus, since there's a possibility that neither of these two things happen (such as a damage prevention spell or a -X/-0 effect) you could potentially pay for nothing at all. It seems incredibly fiddily for not a lot of payoff. You could easily just do what labarith is doing and get a much cleaner mechanic.
The second half (which awkwardly needs its own keyword separate from the first) is also awkwardly worded. Its a combat damage trigger, but that's sort of awkward when one version of Skinwalk flips before combat damage and the other flips after. You've got weird interactions with stuff like doublestrike where an unblocked creature on either side of this card will flip inbetween the two strikes, but a blocked front-side creature will flip beforehand. (And then add the toughness awkwardness on top of all that).