WOTC R&D is there a brain behind it?
Mackenzie Patterson III
"A committtee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain"
-Robert A. Henlein
Now Im not sure what the feeling of other people are but this
quote pretty much sums up WOTC's R&D in my mind.
So a few questions and ideas.
First who are they? Do they play magic? Are they good at playing magic? What
qualifys them to make the desisions they make about the DC?
2nd How do they test to see if a card should be restricted of banned? Do they
build lots of decks usng that card and see what effect it has? What test did
they do that proved that Hymn isnt worth restricting but land tax is?(I would
like to see the data that made them make that decision) Or do they just look
at Pro and World/National championship decks see what won and then restrict
it? Or do they read one "BAN (pick a card)" message and ban that card?
And 3rd where are they? I mean I was recently at the Calfornia Regionals and
Pro qualifyer, and I belive that the top 3 (DC ranked) players were there.
Now were was R&D? shouldnt they have been at the all regionals seeing what
cards are over powering in TYPE II?
Now I admit that I may have been a bit harsh on R&D but it seems to me that
for the raised price of Magic cards and DCI member ship we sure arnt getting
much for it. And if WOTC whats Magic to be respected like Chess or Bridge it
will take more than giving out lots of $$ at Pro Tours it will take a R&D
team that does some R&D.
MacKenzie III
Alan Cade
Go MacKenzie... I don't think you were harsh on R&D. They need to get
their act together, otherwise a new players' association will take over
their job- and WOTC won't like that too much. R&D seems to not be
listening to the needs of the players. Mark Rosewater told me that the
only reason the Hymn wouldn't be restricted on June 1st is if a majority
of the R&D team felt that Alliances would have a significant impact on the
Hymn. All said (and done) wouldn't this be the same reason to not have
restricted Land Tax?
-Chris Cade
#254 DC Type 2 Rankings
"Victim's, aren't we all?"
J.H.
Mackenzie Patterson III wrote:
>
> "A committtee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain"
> -Robert A. Henlein
>
> Now Im not sure what the feeling of other people are but this
> quote pretty much sums up WOTC's R&D in my mind.
>
> So a few questions and ideas.
>
> First who are they? Do they play magic? Are they good at playing magic? What
> qualifys them to make the desisions they make about the DC?
>
> 2nd How do they test to see if a card should be restricted of banned? Do they
> build lots of decks usng that card and see what effect it has? What test did
> they do that proved that Hymn isnt worth restricting but land tax is?(I would
> like to see the data that made them make that decision) Or do they just look
> at Pro and World/National championship decks see what won and then restrict
> it? Or do they read one "BAN (pick a card)" message and ban that card?
>
> And 3rd where are they? I mean I was recently at the Calfornia Regionals and
> Pro qualifyer, and I belive that the top 3 (DC ranked) players were there.
> Now were was R&D? shouldnt they have been at the all regionals seeing what
> cards are over powering in TYPE II?
>
> Now I admit that I may have been a bit harsh on R&D but it seems to me that
> for the raised price of Magic cards and DCI member ship we sure arnt getting
> much for it. And if WOTC whats Magic to be respected like Chess or Bridge it
> will take more than giving out lots of $$ at Pro Tours it will take a R&D
> team that does some R&D.
>
I have to agree with Big Mac Jr. on this. The DC could just
blow us all off with the attitude of we know better. This would
not be in their best interest though. It's quite possible that
they do know more than the top players, though not by much I
would guess. If R&D would be a little more open with the
reasons for their decisions and even more open with their
knowledge, then perhaps there would be less misunderstanding.
What if R&D weren't that up to snuff? Would the players revolt?
Regardless, the R&D folks should be held accountable to some
degree. Don't ignore us, we can ignore back.
Take it easy,
Vince
Jeff Raglin
Mackenzie Patterson III wrote:
> 2nd How do they test to see if a card should be restricted of banned? Do they
> build lots of decks usng that card and see what effect it has? What test did
> they do that proved that Hymn isnt worth restricting but land tax is?(I would
> like to see the data that made them make that decision) Or do they just look
> at Pro and World/National championship decks see what won and then restrict
> it? Or do they read one "BAN (pick a card)" message and ban that card?
That one's easy. The Hymn is a strong card, and possibly a little
overpowered, but then again, so is the Lightning Bolt, and in
pretty much the same way. However, the existance of profuse Hymns
in the environment doesn't make any other particular strategies
impossible.
The Tax, however, in addition to being to very strong card, makes
discard strategies difficult and Land Destruction strategies
completely impossible.
Basically, a card that every deck will want to use does not
necessarily meant automatic restriction. (cf Bolt, Hymn, Disenchant,
Counterspell), but a card that makes certain entire strategies
impossible will (cf Land Tax, Black Vice)
Daniel M Gray
Mackenzie Patterson III <ju...@redshift.com> writes:
>"A committtee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain"
> -Robert A. Henlein
> Now Im not sure what the feeling of other people are but this
> quote pretty much sums up WOTC's R&D in my mind.
> So a few questions and ideas.
I just want to preface this response by pointing out that I don't know
precisely how R&D works, but I've got some idea.
>
>First who are they? Do they play magic? Are they good at playing magic? What
>qualifys them to make the desisions they make about the DC?
A lot of them are names you'd probably recognize-- Tom Wylie, Skaff
Elias, Charlie Catino, and others from the original playtest group and deeply
involved with certain aspects of the game. I have no idea how good of players
they are as a group, as Charlie is the only one I've ever played against(and
it wasn't a power match-- it was my all IA R/G deck against his monored deck).
What qualifies them to make decisions is that they probably know more
about the game than anybody else. Tom Wylie is the unchallenged master of all
Magic rules. Skaff, Charlie, and others are original playtesters, and have
designed or co-designed several of the expansions.
>2nd How do they test to see if a card should be restricted of banned? Do they
>build lots of decks usng that card and see what effect it has? What test did
>they do that proved that Hymn isnt worth restricting but land tax is?(I would
>like to see the data that made them make that decision) Or do they just look
>at Pro and World/National championship decks see what won and then restrict
>it? Or do they read one "BAN (pick a card)" message and ban that card?
They accumlate data from various tournaments and people they talk to
on a regular basis about what is currently popular and/or abusive in deck
designs. They also probably playtest a bit, and are influenced by net and
other messages from players and judges. I'm certain it's quite the involved
process, and I've seen Jason Carl(or people quoting him) state several times
that the decision to restrict/ban a card is not undertaken lightly.
They're supposed to be posting an explanation/rationale about why Land
Tax was restricted and Hymn wasn't on the DCI homepage(this is from a letter
by Jason Carl which Preston Poulter posted yesterday). I dunno if it's there
yet, but I, for one, am anxious to read it.
>And 3rd where are they? I mean I was recently at the Calfornia Regionals and
>Pro qualifyer, and I belive that the top 3 (DC ranked) players were there.
>Now were was R&D? shouldnt they have been at the all regionals seeing what
>cards are over powering in TYPE II?
They're all in Seattle, I presume, since they all work for WotC.
They're busy doing their jobs(which, I'm sure includes a LOT more than DCI
decisions), preparing for Origins, etc. They get feedback from the
tournaments, and they know what kinds of decks are being played, at least at
Regionals and PTQ's, because the winners' decklists are in the possession of
the tournaments organizers. They also listen to the top ranked players. I get
the impression, although I've never really asked him, that Mario Robaina, for
one, has frequent contact with Jason Carl and other WotC people. This is
probably true of many other top players as well.
>Now I admit that I may have been a bit harsh on R&D but it seems to me that
>for the raised price of Magic cards and DCI member ship we sure arnt getting
>much for it. And if WOTC whats Magic to be respected like Chess or Bridge it
>will take more than giving out lots of $$ at Pro Tours it will take a R&D
>team that does some R&D.
Magic card prices have little to do with R&D, and more to do with WotC
Accounting or whomever makes corporate policy(presumably the Janitor and Board
of Directors)-- they gave a list of good reasons when they implemented the
price increase. DCI membership is now free, at least as far as getting a
rating goes. You don't need the Legend Membership to be in the DC. The R&D
team seems to do plenty of R&D-- who do you think makes up all the new cards
that keep coming out?
I, for one, wouldn't blame R&D or anybody else for the state of Magic
today. It's a combination of factors and people, and you rally cannot blame
any one person or group for it all.
> MacKenzie III
Dan Gray
Canticle
Yes, there is. It's kept in a large jar of formeldahyde in one of the
unused sections of the WotC office complex. Every so often, according to
tradition, new members of the WotC R&D team are brought before Gleemax
(as the brain is called) and have their thoughts assimilated into the
hive mind.
I could be wrong though :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Jeff Franzmann | I'm just an effigy to be disgraced ~
~ Campaign Outfitters Netrep | To be defaced ~
~ Editor in Chief, CPI | Your need for me has been replaced ~
~ Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA | And if I can't have everything ~
~ cant...@aratar.mb.ca | Well then just give me a taste ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Campaign Outfitters Home Page & Orders: http://www.aratar.mb.ca/aratar
http://www.aratar.mb.ca/~campaign
(Opinions expressed above are my own, and may not be my employers)
Polar Bear
In article <31B581...@earthlink.net>, jra...@utcvm.utc.edu wrote:
+ Mackenzie Patterson III wrote:
+ > 2nd How do they test to see if a card should be restricted of banned?
Do they
+ > build lots of decks usng that card and see what effect it has? What
test did
+ > they do that proved that Hymn isnt worth restricting but land tax
is?(I would
+ > like to see the data that made them make that decision) Or do they
just look
+ > at Pro and World/National championship decks see what won and then restrict
+ > it? Or do they read one "BAN (pick a card)" message and ban that card?
+
+ That one's easy. The Hymn is a strong card, and possibly a little
+ overpowered, but then again, so is the Lightning Bolt, and in
+ pretty much the same way. However, the existance of profuse Hymns
+ in the environment doesn't make any other particular strategies
+ impossible.
+
+ The Tax, however, in addition to being to very strong card, makes
+ discard strategies difficult and Land Destruction strategies
+ completely impossible.
+
+ Basically, a card that every deck will want to use does not
+ necessarily meant automatic restriction. (cf Bolt, Hymn, Disenchant,
+ Counterspell), but a card that makes certain entire strategies
+ impossible will (cf Land Tax, Black Vice)
Nice theory, but it doesn't really hold water. Cards like Bolt and
Disenchant are staple cards needed to balance the game, which is why they
were printed since the beginning of the game. Hymn is an imbalanced card
which removes strategy from the game by making it impossible to hold the
cards that counter your opponent's strategy. Yes, Land Tax kills land
destruction but then again restricting the vise does too and restricting
tax kills Land's Edge decks and cripples Ermageggon and W/U control
(neither of which was quite as powerful as Necro even before the
restriction of the tax). It isn't a question of everyone wanting four in
his deck--it's simply an overpowered card.
Cathy Nicoloff
Mackenzie Patterson III <ju...@redshift.com> wrote:
>"A committtee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain"
> -Robert A. Henlein
<rofl>
> Now Im not sure what the feeling of other people are but this
> quote pretty much sums up WOTC's R&D in my mind.
Well, I was going to send them a huge pipe for all that crack they've
been smoking.
>First who are they? Do they play magic? Are they good at playing magic? What
>qualifys them to make the desisions they make about the DC?
I think they are a small committee... I've heard snippets of them
being essentially isolated from tournament play. If all they know is
the Northwest, no wonder they aren't alarmed.
>2nd How do they test to see if a card should be restricted of banned? Do they
>build lots of decks usng that card and see what effect it has? What test did
>they do that proved that Hymn isnt worth restricting but land tax is?(I would
>like to see the data that made them make that decision) Or do they just look
>at Pro and World/National championship decks see what won and then restrict
>it? Or do they read one "BAN (pick a card)" message and ban that card?
Cards with potential go onto a list to be watched. Tax was the card
that dominated the first Pro Tournament, so they're probably just
getting around to restricting it now. Nationals will probably have to
be a Necrofest before they do anything about it, and then it will be
too late. All of their decisions always come way too late, especially
with their limitations on when they can announce changes.
Ironically enough, when one compares the decks from the first Pro
tournament to the Necro decks now, we realize that the decks at PT1
truly sucked, Tax or no Tax.
IMHO, WotC should take a proactive stance instead of a reactive one.
They should have restricted the Hymn one month before Nationals to
leave the yokels diving for a new metagame strategy.
>And 3rd where are they? I mean I was recently at the Calfornia Regionals and
>Pro qualifyer, and I belive that the top 3 (DC ranked) players were there.
>Now were was R&D? shouldnt they have been at the all regionals seeing what
>cards are over powering in TYPE II?
I've never heard of them putting in appearances where it counted. If
they had shown at Atlanta or California, they would have ran all the
way back home to restrict the Hymn. Obviously, they just don't think
it's a problem.
Cathy Nicoloff =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= qu...@nexusprime.org
"Let's see if I've got this straight. It's a lazy Saturday afternoon,
and there's this couple lying naked in bed reading the Encyclopaedia
Brittanica to each other and arguing about whether the Andromeda
Galaxy is more 'numinous' than the Resurrection. Do they know how to
have a good time, or don't they?" - Carl Sagan, _Contact_
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eugene Foss
aaron sommer wrote:
> Close.
>
> It's actually Hitler's brain.
What game are we playing here?
--
___ __ _______________________________________________________________
/_ / /_ University of Illinois Eugene Joseph Foss
/__ \/ / CS Graduate Student http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~foss/
Mark Rosewater
In article <dgray.834012961@merle>,
Daniel M Gray <dg...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>Mackenzie Patterson III <ju...@redshift.com> writes:
>
>>"A committtee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain"
>> -Robert A. Henlein
>
>> Now Im not sure what the feeling of other people are but this
>> quote pretty much sums up WOTC's R&D in my mind.
>
>> So a few questions and ideas.
>
> I just want to preface this response by pointing out that I don't know
>precisely how R&D works, but I've got some idea.
>
>>
>>First who are they? Do they play magic? Are they good at playing magic? What
>>qualifys them to make the desisions they make about the DC?
>
These are questions which deserve an answer. As a member of Magic R&D, I
guess I'm as qualified to take a shot at answering them as anybody.
* Who are we?
Magic R&D is comprised of members of Research and Development and the
Magic Team who work on doing card design and development for Magic the
Gathering. Specifically this includes myself, Tom Wylie, Skaff Elias,
Charlie Catino, Bill Rose, Mike Elliott, William Jockush, and Joel Mick
(the lead designer for Magic).
* Do we play Magic?
Yes, all of the above names play Magic on a regular basis. We partake in
non-sanctioned tournaments, we play amongst ourselves, and we do
significant playtesting with new cards.
* Are they good at playing Magic?
This answer is subjective at best. I can clearly say that all Magic R&D
people are very competent players with the skill level varying a bit from
person to person.
* What qualifies them to make the decisions they make about the DC?
Let me start by saying that we do not make the decisions. We merely
advise the DC on what Magic R&D feels needs to be done. The DC takes
feedback from a number of other sources as well. Nonetheless, our advice
is usually given a good deal of weight.
As to what qualifies us to give the advice, there are a number of
reasons. First and foremost, we are the body that decides how the game
itself is going to work. We do a good deal of the design, we do all of
the development, we make the decisions on all rules and erratta (in
conjunction with the rules group which Tom oversees), and make all the
day to day decisions about game mechanics. We spend numerous
hours every week doing nothing but thinking about the ramifications that
each and every decision has on how the game works. In short, it is our
job to keep Magic the best game possible.
Please remember that our decisions are based off a wide variety of data.
We look at what is being played in the current tournament system (and
yes, we do spend time looking at what decks win what tournaments as well
as talking to players and keeping up on the Net). We look at what cards
are coming out, not just in the next month but in the next year. We look
at what constraints certain cards make in the design of future cards not
yet created. A great deal of information is taken into account.
Also, as we want to be very careful about any decision we make, we take
our time to get as much data as possible. This does make the process
slow, but we feel that we should only make a decision when we have all
the information we need.
I hope this gives you all some insight into who Magic R&D is and
what we do. In an attempt to make Magic R&D more accessable, I would
like to open this thread to questions, so that people may ask anything
else on their minds.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
Sam Lindsay-Levine
In article <woodyDs...@netcom.com> Mark Rosewater wrote:
>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:04:21 GMT
>From: wo...@netcom.com (Mark Rosewater)
>Sender: wo...@netcom.netcom.com
>Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy
>Subject: Re: WOTC R&D is there a brain behind it?
>
>In article <dgray.834012961@merle>,
>Daniel M Gray <dg...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>Mackenzie Patterson III <ju...@redshift.com> writes:
>>
>>>"A committtee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain"
>>> -Robert A. Henlein
>>
>>> Now Im not sure what the feeling of other people are but
this
>>> quote pretty much sums up WOTC's R&D in my mind.
>>
>>> So a few questions and ideas.
>>
>> I just want to preface this response by pointing out that I
don't know
>>precisely how R&D works, but I've got some idea.
>>
>>> >>First who are they? Do they play magic? Are they good at
playing
> magic? What
>>>qualifys them to make the desisions they make about the DC?
>>
>
First, thanks for posting--it's nice to hear from someone you've
only heard from/about in a magazine. =)
Now then, my question is:
How much does player input matter to you?
e.g.: "Ban/restrict necro/hymn" (an issue I agree on, btw [r,hymn])
Many, many, say "yes, these are unbalanced!".
R&D says, "Hmmm. Let's restrict Land Tax."
Many, many, say "No! You utter fools!!!!"
How does the player input change/affect/not affect/screw up/sleight
of mind/ your decisions?
And one last question, the one that plagues all Magic players
throughout the world...CAN YOU SLEIGHT OF MIND/HACK FLAVOR
TEXT??!?!?!? (i.e. Moss monster) =)
Thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Lindsay-Levine
pug...@gnn.com
http://members.gnn.com/puggle/snail.htm/samweb/sammain.htm
You have at your command the wisdom of the ages.
-Found in my fortune cookie
Mark Rosewater
Player input is very important. Please remember though that a) many
players give us different messages and b) there are other factors besides
player satisfaction that also must be taken into account.
We try to interact as best we can with as many players as possible. We
talk to people at conventions, on the phone, and in e-mail. We read the
Net. When the majority of players send a strong message we take it as an
important factor to be entered into what is usually a complex decision.
>
>e.g.: "Ban/restrict necro/hymn" (an issue I agree on, btw [r,hymn])
>
>Many, many, say "yes, these are unbalanced!".
>
>R&D says, "Hmmm. Let's restrict Land Tax."
>
>Many, many, say "No! You utter fools!!!!"
>
>How does the player input change/affect/not affect/screw up/sleight
>of mind/ your decisions?
Player input can often set agendas for us to discuss.
>
>And one last question, the one that plagues all Magic players
>throughout the world...CAN YOU SLEIGHT OF MIND/HACK FLAVOR
>TEXT??!?!?!? (i.e. Moss monster) =)
>
Yes, you are allowed to sleight/hack flavor text although it has no
effect on the game whatsoever.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
Tyler Baker
Many, many, many, say no also!
>
> R&D says, "Hmmm. Let's restrict Land Tax."
>
> Many, many, say "No! You utter fools!!!!"
>
> How does the player input change/affect/not affect/screw up/sleight
> of mind/ your decisions?
Players input or just yours? Or do you mean Pro Tourney Players instead
of players.
>
> And one last question, the one that plagues all Magic players
> throughout the world...CAN YOU SLEIGHT OF MIND/HACK FLAVOR
> TEXT??!?!?!? (i.e. Moss monster) =)
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sam Lindsay-Levine
> pug...@gnn.com
> http://members.gnn.com/puggle/snail.htm/samweb/sammain.htm
>
> You have at your command the wisdom of the ages.
> -Found in my fortune cookie
Representing the other side,
The FAT Mage
David J. Low
wo...@netcom.com (Mark Rosewater) writes:
>These are questions which deserve an answer. As a member of Magic R&D, I
>guess I'm as qualified to take a shot at answering them as anybody.
>I hope this gives you all some insight into who Magic R&D is and
>what we do. In an attempt to make Magic R&D more accessable, I would
>like to open this thread to questions, so that people may ask anything
>else on their minds.
Congratulations on what's probably the most informative post I've ever
seen from a WotC-related person :-) If this is a sign of things to come,
there might be hope yet.... For me personally, and for a lot of other
people (given the general tone I gather from reading), one of the most
annoying points with WotC is the reluctance to talk. A change in that is
heartening, but I'll reserve judgement until I see what happens over the
next six months :-)
Regards,
David.
--
{ David J. Low | dl...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }
{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }
{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center | "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness }
{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 | TAKETHIS <4pmogi$i...@news.corpcomm.net>
Path: hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.corpcomm.net!news
From: dsp...@corpcomm.net
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.dolls
Subject: FS MINT VINTAGE BARBIE ITEMS MANY HTF ITEMS!!
Date: 12 Jun 1996 15:42:10 GMT
Organization: Corporate Communications
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4pmogi$i...@news.corpcomm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gf1-a3.corpcomm.net
X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.)
I have just purchsed direct from a store that is closing MINT vintage dolls and fashions from 1963-65!!
Seroius Vintage collectors only!! Please e-mail for list!!
for example I had two MINT skippers with all accessories plus Ken and Bubble Barbie in blonde!!
Also still have one MINT junior prom complete plus After 5 and Country club dance to name a few!!
Stacy Spicer
dsp...@corpcomm.net
Jamie C. Wakefield
I also would like to say thanks for posting.
Mark how about giving us a little insight into the decision to Ban land
tax and not Necro?
Personally I feel that Land tax is one card that hoses -
big creature decks
if you lay land that you need to get started - they get to tax -
sop you end up fighting the land tax battle of never laying land, never
getting started and never getting to play.
Land destruction
obvious
Hand destruction
Fill the hand up with land
One card that makes 3 other types of decks mostly impossible to play.
Necro on the other hand can be a risk, and may be fixed by alliances,
but is still very very powerful.
Can you give us a little insight.
It's popularity already seems to be fading, so the cry may be lessening,
but any response on this would be appreciated.
later
jamie
Remy Evard
"Mark" == Mark Rosewater <wo...@netcom.com> writes:
> I hope this gives you all some insight into who Magic R&D is and what
> we do. In an attempt to make Magic R&D more accessable, I would
> like to open this thread to questions, so that people may ask anything
> else on their minds.
>
>
> Mark Rosewater
Mark, thanks for an extremely informative post. I hope we see more of you
in the future. The same, by the way, goes for your articles in the
Duelist. Real information, however much you have to limit it, is nice to
come by.
Anyway, I've got a question for you guys that's something along the lines
of what I would ask Scott Addams of Dilbert: where do all the ideas come
from, and can they keep coming? Is it possible to keep putting out 2-3
interesting expansions a year for the next N years without running dry, or
creating more and more rule changes, or getting endlessly complicated?
I ask this because when I look at Ice Age and Alliances, as a whole the
sets are substantially more complex than the Gathering. I can come up with
many reasons as to why, but my real interest is in what this means for the
future. Are there just tons of good ideas that you guys can pick through,
or is it getting hard to come up with original directions? Assuming the
market stays as strong as it is now, how long can you keep going?
. . . . . . ....
-r'm . Remy Evard
. Director of Technology
... . . . . . . http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/remy
59 CN College of CS Northeastern University Boston MA 02115 617 373 3787
Mark Rosewater
>Anyway, I've got a question for you guys that's something along the lines
>of what I would ask Scott Addams of Dilbert: where do all the ideas come
>from, and can they keep coming? Is it possible to keep putting out 2-3
>interesting expansions a year for the next N years without running dry, or
>creating more and more rule changes, or getting endlessly complicated?
>
>I ask this because when I look at Ice Age and Alliances, as a whole the
>sets are substantially more complex than the Gathering. I can come up with
>many reasons as to why, but my real interest is in what this means for the
>future. Are there just tons of good ideas that you guys can pick through,
>or is it getting hard to come up with original directions? Assuming the
>market stays as strong as it is now, how long can you keep going?
>
Very good question. I think the proper answer is that there will exist a
point where fresh new ideas are hard to come by, but that point is
nowhere in the forseeable future. Most of the people doing design now
are relatively fresh and have a ways to go before they "tap out their
vein". Plus we do have people who freelance for us bringing in lots of
other ideas.
As to the complexity issue, we are trying hard to do two things at once.
We want to continue to let the Gathering evolve so that there exists a
basic game that can serve as a vehicle to learn Magic. We also want to
have the expansions where we can develop more advanced ideas for the die
hard players to have fun with. If you look at Alliances, you will notice
a mix of complex cards along with a number of rather simple cards. Mind
you that the simple cards might be very interesting to play (Such as
Elvish Ranger) but are relatively basic on a game mechanics level.
I hope that answers your question.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
Tim Wright
In article <woodyDs...@netcom.com>,
wo...@netcom.com (Mark Rosewater) wrote:
<lots of interesting points and answers deleted, since I have a newsposter
that won't allow very much quoting.>
Just a quick questions. When you playtest expansions, do you test them
against _each_other_?
I think most people agree, for example, that Ice Age was a stronger set
than Homelands. Homelands was fairly well balanced internally (i.e. colors
against each other) and so was Ice Age, but in an Ice Age vs Homelands
sealed decker, I know which I'd rather have.
You could also point to the number of cards from each set being used in
Type II play, or even in Type I (AFAIK, none of the HL set is being used
seriously in any type I decks, whilst IA has Caps, Deflections and Icy's,
to name a few).
I'm asking because these factors determine (to an extent) how well each set
will sell, which may in turn influence future print runs, and so on...
Weaker sets will sell less, driving prices down (as with FE and HL,
although large print runs may also have been a factor), and are therefore
unpopular with both players and WotC (or at least the "business" side).
Stronger sets will sell more, but in turn will "up the ante" for future
sets, possibly spiralling the power level back up to type I levels. I can
imagine a certain amount of pressure from WotC finance to release high
powered sets to increase sales...
Just a few thoughts...
Tim.
Michael Roca
In article <woodyDs...@netcom.com>
wo...@netcom.com (Mark Rosewater) writes:
> >How much does player input matter to you?
>
> Player input is very important. Please remember though that a) many
> players give us different messages and b) there are other factors besides
> player satisfaction that also must be taken into account.
>
> We try to interact as best we can with as many players as possible. We
> talk to people at conventions, on the phone, and in e-mail. We read the
> Net. When the majority of players send a strong message we take it as an
> important factor to be entered into what is usually a complex decision.
Mr. Rosewater, since we've got you here, can you explain the logic
behind the latest decisions? I know the gernal guidelines which have
been published, but they just don't explain why Land Tax and not
Hymn/Necro. As a garden-varitey tournament player I'm less disturbed
by not having a voice in the decision than by the "black box"
appearance of it.
Michael Roca
Randolph Kaech
Sam Lindsay-Levine wrote:
> (snip)
> Mark Rosewater wrote: (snip)
> How much does player input matter to you?
> e.g.: "Ban/restrict necro/hymn" >
> of mind/ your decisions?
>
Hello Mark. Just a quick note to say keep up the good work. Personally I have much more
confidence in the judgments of a multi-member, full-time, professional R&D team who has knowledge
of the history of past expansions and the predicted affects of future expansions, than in the
particular likes/dislikes/judgments of the subset of Magic players who have net access and are
vocal about the predominant deck types and/or annoying cards in their particular area. I also
rest in the knowledge that Magic is your livelihood, and you would not, I am sure, deliberately
do anything to mess up the game. Do encourage and consider players' feedback, as I'm sure you
are already doing, and may your final judgements be wise.
--Randolph Kaech
#6934, DC ratings list
Tapani Utriainen
In article <woodyDs...@netcom.com> Mark Rosewater wrote:
[deletions]
>* Do we play Magic?
>
>Yes, all of the above names play Magic on a regular basis. We partake in
>non-sanctioned tournaments, we play amongst ourselves, and we do
>significant playtesting with new cards.
>
[more deletions]
What formats are you playing?
Do you play type I at all? (or just the new type 1.5 - whatever it will be called ("intermediate"?))
//Tapani Utriainen
d3ta...@dtek.chalmers.se
Mark Rosewater
In article <4ppdq5$7...@badger.3do.com>,
Michael Roca <michae...@3do.com> wrote:
>Mr. Rosewater, since we've got you here, can you explain the logic
>behind the latest decisions? I know the gernal guidelines which have
>been published, but they just don't explain why Land Tax and not
>Hymn/Necro. As a garden-varitey tournament player I'm less disturbed
>by not having a voice in the decision than by the "black box"
>appearance of it.
>
>Michael Roca
>
You seem to have two questions. Why did we restrict Land Tax? And why
didn't we restrict Hymn to Tourach? I'll try to answer each.
Why did we restrict Land Tax?
The answer is actually for several reasons. First, the card is broken on
a game mechanics level. For a minimal casting cost and a mandatory
environment (which is very easy to create given the existence of several
cards), a player can get a three card advantage every turn while also
thinning out their deck greatly increasing their ability to draw non-land
cards. Quite simply the card is too good. Also, by allowing players a
rather easy way to fill up their hand, we put a major design constraint
on future cards as it devalues what effects we can create using cards in
hand as a resource. Second, the card has proven to slow down tournaments
as players in a "Land Tax lock" are encouraged not to take any action.
Third, the players have clearly demonstrated that they have learned how
to abuse this card. One only needs look at the results of the first
professional tournament to see how rampant Land Tax has become.
So, why not Hymn to Tourach? Let's examine the Hymn under the same
guidelines as Land Tax. Is the Hymn broken on a game mechanics level?
Unlike Land Tax, the Hymn is not broken, but rather simply undercosted.
For those of you that may be confused by this last sentence, I will
eloborate. A broken card is a card that allows a player access to an
ability that should not be allowed. The problem with Land Tax is not one
of casting cost but rather of ability. If Land Tax costed 2WW for
example, we would still have a problem with it. Hymn, on the other hand,
is merely a bit cheap for its effect. A Hymn at a higher casting cost
(say 2BB) would not be causing problems.
Hymn, unlike Land Tax, does not cause any design constraints. And unlike
Land Tax, does not slow games down. Finally, we come to the tournament
scene. This is the area that caused us the most thought. The
"necrodecks" are obviously quite prevalent in current tournament scene.
But no one is quite sure yet what is causing the "Necrodecks" to win.
Everyone seems to have different hypothesis (everything from Hymns to
Disks to Specters to the Necropotence) on what is making the deck win.
Also, as the deck has only been prevalent for about six weeks, we do not
have the kind of data on it like we do on Land Tax. One simply needs to
look at the presence at PT1 to realize that the speed black decks have
matured later than the green white decks.
The DC governing body has always been very slow to act. The reasons for
this are simple. We do not want to dictate what people should be
playing. We only make restrictions when it has been proven over a long
period of time that a certain card is causing problems which the
environment cannot fix itself. Let's go over that last sentence:
"We only make restrictions when it has been proven..."
As I said above, nothing has been proven yet as people are still arguing
over what the problem is
"...over a long period of time..."
Six weeks is not a long period of time. (Mind you that six weeks is how
long the deck has been prevalent in the majority of the country. The
deck has definitely existed for longer than that.)
"...that a certain card..."
Once again, no one has definitely proven that it is the Hymn that is
causing the problem.
"is causing problems which the environment cannot fix itself."
This is probably the biggest reason we didn't restrict the Hymn. There
has not been sufficient time for anyone to prove that there isn't another
deck type that can beat "Necro". Plus, Alliances has just been released
with a host of powerful cards. We want you guys to be the ones who fix
the problem. If it turns out that there is nothing that can be done (and
time has elapsed to prove the point), we'll gladly step in. But until
that time, we want to be cautious and see what happens.
Remember that Land Tax has been in almost all white tournament decks for
six months. The Hymn has only been very prevalent in one major deck type
which is basically six weeks old.
Hopefully, this will explain our reasoning. Just remember that we act
not out of speed but out of efficiency.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
The Dragon Reborn
Mark Rosewater (wo...@netcom.com) wrote:
: The Hymn has only been very prevalent in one major deck type
: which is basically six weeks old.
A deceptive statement. Just after FE came out, hand destruction decks
were dominant in this area. That was the straw that broke tha camels
back and made me sell my cards and quit playing (for 6 months anyway). A
blue/white/Balance/Land Tax deck that easily won a big Indy tournament just
before FE, could do no better than the semi's in a smaller tournament just
after FE came out. This was before Balance and Land Tax were restricted.
Six of the final 8 were hand destruction. The difference? Hymn to
Tourach.
After a few weeks people quit playing hand destruction out of boredom,
not because it was no longer strong. For a long time it was common for
a person's "killer" deck to be hand destruction, but they would only pull
it out of their box of decks if they really wanted to dump on someone.
I think that what brought hand destruction into big tournament play was
the $$ in prize money involved. People no longer care to experiment
with decks in tournaments. They want to use the deck that gives them the
best shot at winning. At least until Alliances was released that was
hand destruction. After a short period of experimenting, we will no
doubt see a shift in what has the best shot at winning T2 and that deck
will dominate. It may still be hand destruction. It is extremely
unlikely that it will be either Blue or White or Blue/White. Both of
these colors are so slow in mana compared to G/R/B that they are
currently viable only as secondary colors.
Mana + Card Advantage = Win. Always has been. It is what makes Big
Blue/Mox/Lotus/LoA so strong a base to work from in T1. It is what makes
the current Necro theme so strong (Dark Rit, Hymn, Necro). As long as
Black has both advantages, Red and Green one (Mana), and Blue and White
neither, it will be tough to beat.
Bill
SAD...@psuvm.psu.edu
>>Mr. Rosewater, since we've got you here, can you explain the logic
>>behind the latest decisions? I know the gernal guidelines which have
>>been published, but they just don't explain why Land Tax and not
>>Hymn/Necro. As a garden-varitey tournament player I'm less disturbed
>>by not having a voice in the decision than by the "black box"
>>appearance of it.
>
>
>
>six months. The Hymn has only been very prevalent in one major deck type
>which is basically six weeks old.
>
>Hopefully, this will explain our reasoning. Just remember that we act
>not out of speed but out of efficiency.
I'm sorry, but this is all a load of crap. You haven't addressed the
REAL problem. Land Tax has been around for a very long time, yet only
recently has it become a problem card. Now ask yourself the question: WHY?
Why would a card that has been around for so long, suddenly become broken and
abusive? Why are people screaming about another card: Hymm...that too has
been around for a while now. I'll answer it for you: YOU RESTRICTED THE
BLACK VISE AND BALANCE! Were it not for that, no one would be crying about
Land Tax or Hymm or Necro. Haven't you figured out yet that every time you
restrict or ban a card, it has repercussions and changes the playing
environment? Why don't you try unbanning and unrestricting instead, plus work
on new cards that counter the "problem" cards when they arise? You guys just
don't use your heads. You restricted Fork, took Chaos Orb, Channel, and Mind
Twist away, then wonder why all the top decks in Type 1 are Permission decks.
It's pretty obvious that you guys don't think things through very well. The
REAL problem is banning and restricting...THAT is what causes most of the
problems. And of course, the real reason you ban and restrict has nothing to
do with caring about the playing environment...you do it to motivate more
CARD BUYING! I have 4 Vices and 4 Balances in my folder, and I can only
play with 1 each...so now I have 6 cards that are useless to play with, and the
new decks that have risen because of restriction, I have to buy more cards to
defend against them or build them myself. It's all about making money...you
guys don't fool me. And the players ultimately are going to get fed up with
your crap, form their own convocation, and say "Fuck WOTC." Our play group
has already done so...we're tired of laying out good money for cards, only to
see them get restricted and banned.
Scott
My 1st turn: I play an Island, Saphire Mox, Pearl Mox, Lotus, 2 Reconstruction,
Mahamoti Djinn, and Clone it...done...*evil grin*
Opponents turn: Plays Mountain, Ruby Mox, 2 REB's my Djinn and Clone...*smile*
Me: "DOH!!!!!"
Mike McAulay
Mark Rosewater wrote:
> The DC governing body has always been very slow to act. The reasons for
> this are simple. We do not want to dictate what people should be
> playing. We only make restrictions when it has been proven over a long
> period of time that a certain card is causing problems which the
> environment cannot fix itself.
Here's the problem with the current DC policy: deck designs are now propagating at high
speeds via the net and - to a lesser extent - the various CCG magazines. Where a year
or more ago it might have taken several months for an over-powerful deck design to
become dominant it now takes weeks. Furthermore, it is now usually explicit deck
recipes - as opposed to themes around which players build their own variants - that are
exchanged.
The net is the single most significant factor in the homogenizing of the tournament
scene.
While I understand the DC's desire to avoid moving too hastily, I think something must
be done to address the rate at which degenerate designs now propagate. In particular, I
think announcing changes to the Type II banned and restricted lists only four times a
year is insufficient. Three months is a long time in the tourney scene these days.
When I think about all the Hymns I will cast and have cast on me between now and Oct 1
(the earliest a Hymn restriction could take effect) I'm filled with a profound desire to
do anything *but* play M:tG.
In addition to it's power - or undercostedness if you prefer - I think the Hymn is also
objectionable to many people because of the randomness of the discarding. Random
discarding simply isn't *fun.* I'm all for discard remaining a core strategy of the
game but I think all random discarders should be phased out in favor of cards which let
the victim or - in the case of extremely expensive spells - the caster choose.
You can argue that the DC is only concerned with keeping the tourney environment
balanced, but I think that's shortsighted. Having your core card(s) knocked out of your
hand a turn before you're set to play them by some doofus who copied his deck off the
net is a serious buzzkill. It's the kind of thing that makes you think twice about
continuing to go to tournaments because it levels a part of the playfield that shouldn't
be leveled: the relative skills of the competitors.
And while I'm on my soapbox, one more observation: You're right when you say that it's
not clear which one card makes the Necrodeck tick. It's a synergy of cards and I'd like
to suggest that a big part of the problem is the absence of the Black Vise from Type II.
I understand that Vise had to go, but I was expecting a more-expensive replacement in
Alliances and I'm bummed that it's not there. Surely it's clear to every student of the
game by now that card advantage is the single most important factor in Magic. The Vise
has a non-degenerate and indeed extremely important function: to hose card-mongers. A
card that did the same thing as the Vise but cost 3 (or maybe 4?) colorless would go a
long way toward discouraging Necro players.
Still hoping for an interesting Type II environment,
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McAulay "The elucidation of the meaning of the sentence
Project Director 'everything flows' is one of metaphysics' main tasks."
HeadGames Studio -- Whitehead
Sam Lindsay-Levine
Mr. Rosewater and anyone else who payed any attention to this:
We're sorry he's here.
Please forget this letter.
He didn't really mean it..I hope.
No, wait! He's given me a great idea!
MAKE A NEW TOURNEY TYPE!
Call it type 0.
Min number of cards:40
NO OTHER RESTRICTIONS
Watch people play, realize how totally un-fun 1st turn kills are,
and give it up overnight. Maybe this'll knock some sense into their
heads and they'll quit whining about how WotC should un-restrict
obviously overpowered cards.
A Place to Play
In <31C21C...@headgames.com> Mike McAulay <mmca...@headgames.com> writes:
>Mark Rosewater wrote:
>> The DC governing body has always been very slow to act. The reasons for
>> this are simple. We do not want to dictate what people should be
>> playing. We only make restrictions when it has been proven over a long
>> period of time that a certain card is causing problems which the
>> environment cannot fix itself.
>
>speeds via the net and - to a lesser extent - the various CCG magazines. Where a year
>or more ago it might have taken several months for an over-powerful deck design to
>become dominant it now takes weeks. Furthermore, it is now usually explicit deck
>recipes - as opposed to themes around which players build their own variants - that are
>exchanged.
Granted: Deck ideas spread like wildfire now. The DC doesn't want to be hasty, yet by
sitting back and watching, they allow the better decks to conquer the tourney scene. You
suggest faster action (restrictions & bans) by the DC while they see this as (see above):
Dictating what should be played, and...
Not allowing the environment (or changes within) to correct itself.
You see DC's stand as causing some problems, and I see your suggestion as potentially
opening the door for more (different) problems. Is there a balance to be had, or are these
two policies mutually exclusive?
>
>The net is the single most significant factor in the homogenizing of the tournament
>scene.
>
>While I understand the DC's desire to avoid moving too hastily, I think something must
>be done to address the rate at which degenerate designs now propagate. In particular, I
>think announcing changes to the Type II banned and restricted lists only four times a
>year is insufficient. Three months is a long time in the tourney scene these days.
But is it long enough for all possible rival designs to have been exhausted? Is it long
enough for the addition of new sets (and removal of others) to have an effect on popular
deck themes? (I don't think we've seen a 'degenerate' deck yet, IMO. Just a couple of
very strong ones, backed by raging popularity.)
>When I think about all the Hymns I will cast and have cast on me between now and Oct 1
>(the earliest a Hymn restriction could take effect) I'm filled with a profound desire to
>do anything *but* play M:tG.
Ack! The real agenda reveals itself ;) Sheesh, Hymns again...
>
>In addition to it's power - or undercostedness if you prefer - I think the Hymn is also
>objectionable to many people because of the randomness of the discarding. Random
>discarding simply isn't *fun.* I'm all for discard remaining a core strategy of the
>game but I think all random discarders should be phased out in favor of cards which let
>the victim or - in the case of extremely expensive spells - the caster choose.
Is being hymned less fun than having your game winning card countered? Or having your
deck's primary mode of winning cap'ed from your deck? It can't be less fun than getting
mana-hosed on an opening draw, or facing an Early Ernhie 10 consecutive games in a row
(remember when Chronicles first came out?). Yes, discard is *a* game strategy, but it is
BLACK's 'core' strategy...and black needs it. Discard (you choose, I choose and random,
all together) tries to compensate for blacks otherwise prohibitive weaknesses. Discard,
while not quite as fun as bolting someone 8 times in 11 turns, is a part of the game...a
part to be dealt with just like all the others. Winning against discard (for me, anyway)
provides more than enough satisfaction to compensate for all the misery I suffer as my hand
falls uselessly to the graveyard.
>
>You can argue that the DC is only concerned with keeping the tourney environment
>balanced, but I think that's shortsighted. Having your core card(s) knocked out of your
>hand a turn before you're set to play them by some doofus who copied his deck off the
>net is a serious buzzkill.
Being beaten by anyone, regardless of their skill-level, regardless of where the deck
originated, is the real 'buzzkill.' Losing sucks.
>It's the kind of thing that makes you think twice about
>continuing to go to tournaments
It's the kind of thing that fires the drive to create better and more versatile decks.
It's competition.
>because it levels a part of the playfield that shouldn't
>be leveled: the relative skills of the competitors.
The only thing discard levels is black's ability to compete in tourneys. Some would even
argue that discard alone still doesn't quite elevate Black and Black/? designs to equal
standing with other designs. Which brings us to your next observation...
>And while I'm on my soapbox, one more observation: You're right when you say that it's
>not clear which one card makes the Necrodeck tick. It's a synergy of cards and I'd like
>to suggest that a big part of the problem is the absence of the Black Vise from Type II.
> I understand that Vise had to go, but I was expecting a more-expensive replacement in
>Alliances and I'm bummed that it's not there. Surely it's clear to every student of the
>game by now that card advantage is the single most important factor in Magic. The Vise
>has a non-degenerate and indeed extremely important function: to hose card-mongers. A
>card that did the same thing as the Vise but cost 3 (or maybe 4?) colorless would go a
>long way toward discouraging Necro players.
Vises don't stop Hymns. Hymns do afford a limited card advantage, but nowhere near the
advantage supplied by Necropotence. Hymns (and Discard) are as old as the hills, while
Necropotence (and 'Consult) are somewhat new. You state 'a card...same..as..Vise...would
...discourage Necro players.' You've discovered the culprit, but it sounds like you're
hesitant to point a finger at it. It's clear to many what 'card makes the Necrodeck tick.'
It's not called the Hymndeck, and for good reason.
Bless you for bringing up the idea of a Vise-type card (again).
Stormseekers and a restricted Vise just don't do enough to thwart those
decks that strive to attain card superiority. Unless more cards like
that are created, the only alternative remains the restriction of cards
like Tax, 'Potence, etc.
>
>Still hoping for an interesting Type II environment,
Ditto...
-Uncle
>
>Mike
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McAulay
A Place to Play wrote:
> In <31C21C...@headgames.com> Mike McAulay <mmca...@headgames.com> writes:
> >The net is the single most significant factor in the homogenizing of the tournament
> >scene.
> >
> >While I understand the DC's desire to avoid moving too hastily, I think something must
> >be done to address the rate at which degenerate designs now propagate. In particular, I
> >think announcing changes to the Type II banned and restricted lists only four times a
> >year is insufficient. Three months is a long time in the tourney scene these days.
>
> But is it long enough for all possible rival designs to have been exhausted? Is it long
> enough for the addition of new sets (and removal of others) to have an effect on popular
> deck themes? (I don't think we've seen a 'degenerate' deck yet, IMO. Just a couple of
> very strong ones, backed by raging popularity.)
I understand your point. But note that I'm not suggesting that the DC actually restrict or
ban something once a month! Just that they leave themselves the option to should the need
arise.
> >When I think about all the Hymns I will cast and have cast on me between now and Oct 1
> >(the earliest a Hymn restriction could take effect) I'm filled with a profound desire to
> >do anything *but* play M:tG.
>
> Ack! The real agenda reveals itself ;) Sheesh, Hymns again...
I admit I have a chip on my shoulder about the Hymn (I felt the same way - only more so -
about the Twist). But hopefully we can keep the two arguments separate since what I'm saying
applies to any card, not just the Hymn.
> Is being hymned less fun than having your game winning card countered?
Yes. If my opponent is playing permission I will be *very* circumspect about the timing of my
spell casting. I may wait for him to tap out, or at the very least lead with "bait" spells
before casting my game-winner. As someone who frequently plays permission I enjoy the mind
games associated with it, even when I'm on the other end of the stick.
In other words, there's skill involved in playing (or playing against) permission. There's
very little skill involved in playing random discard.
> Or having your
> deck's primary mode of winning cap'ed from your deck?
Well, yes, but less so than your previous example. The Cap should (in my opinion) have been
designed to come into play tapped, but that's another story. Anyway, the 6 mana it takes to
cast and use the Cap means I won't see it on turn one in Type II.
> It can't be less fun than getting
> mana-hosed on an opening draw,
This is true, but irrelevant. There's nothing WOTC could print, restrict, or ban, to change
the overall super-suckiness of mana fuck.
> or facing an Early Ernhie 10 consecutive games in a row
> (remember when Chronicles first came out?).
Ernie's a little over-powered (or "under-costed" to use Rosewater's terminology). Once again,
that's a whole 'nother thread. At least there are Swords, Terror, and Meekstone to use as
cheap counter-measures.
> Yes, discard is *a* game strategy, but it is
> BLACK's 'core' strategy...and black needs it.
I totally agree. Others may object, but I personally would not mind a fixed Hymn which cost
the same but forced the discard of two cards of the opponent's choice. That way, you only
knock my game-winners or - as is more commonly the case - much-needed defensive cards out of
my hand if I've let my hand size fall to two or less. This would make discard into a strategy
that required some skill and timing to play and to play against - not unlike permission.
It's the randomness of the Hymn that pushes it over the top, IMO.
> Being beaten by anyone, regardless of their skill-level, regardless of where the deck
> originated, is the real 'buzzkill.' Losing sucks.
I disagree. If my opponent is skilled and has a great deck it doesn't bother me that much to
lose. Sure I'd rather win, but them's the breaks.
> The only thing discard levels is black's ability to compete in tourneys. Some would even
> argue that discard alone still doesn't quite elevate Black and Black/? designs to equal
> standing with other designs.
I won't argue this point. I just want to point out that there are other ways to fix this
problem: make new, powerful non-random discard spells for one. Another would be to increase
Black's ability to kill creatures, especially in the new creature-heavy T2 environment. For
instance (and yes, this is yet *another* thread really) why does White have the most efficient
creature removers (StP, Wrath)? That's STUPID. Black is supposed to be the color of death
and decay, yet Terror and even Dark Banishing have types of creatures they won't affect, AND
they cost more than StP. This is glaringly, inexcusably wrong.
> Vises don't stop Hymns. Hymns do afford a limited card advantage, but nowhere near the
> advantage supplied by Necropotence. Hymns (and Discard) are as old as the hills, while
> Necropotence (and 'Consult) are somewhat new. You state 'a card...same..as..Vise...would
> ...discourage Necro players.' You've discovered the culprit, but it sounds like you're
> hesitant to point a finger at it. It's clear to many what 'card makes the Necrodeck tick.'
> It's not called the Hymndeck, and for good reason.
No, but it is called "Necrohymn" sometimes. Anyway, Necro has a built in Achilles' heel in
the loss of life it inflicts. This makes it vulnerable to direct damage, especially if the
direct damage player is clever about his timing. Unfortunately, clever timing is the first
thing to go out the window when you're taking random discard hits.
> Bless you for bringing up the idea of a Vise-type card (again).
> Stormseekers and a restricted Vise just don't do enough to thwart those
> decks that strive to attain card superiority. Unless more cards like
> that are created, the only alternative remains the restriction of cards
> like Tax, 'Potence, etc.
They've got to bring back a fixed Vise. The card advantage cat is out of the bag and the game
is going to be a mess until there's an efficient way to combat it.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Patterson III
Ok I understand it makes card draw backs like "Discard a card at random"(from
Balduvian Hoards) not as big a deal. And I agree that tax is broken in the
Type II.
I think though the agrument of slowing down Tournaments is a rather bad one.
For example WOTC seem to be trying to make Magic a recognized game like
Chess. Now what would chess players say if say the Chess Federation dicided
to replace a few Pawns with Queens to speed up Tournement play. Now I
understand you have to have time limits but I at least have played against
many decks with Land Tax and I have NEVER been called on time.
>
> So, why not Hymn to Tourach? Let's examine the Hymn under the same
> guidelines as Land Tax. Is the Hymn broken on a game mechanics level?
> Unlike Land Tax, the Hymn is not broken, but rather simply undercosted.
> For those of you that may be confused by this last sentence, I will
> eloborate. A broken card is a card that allows a player access to an
> ability that should not be allowed. The problem with Land Tax is not one
> of casting cost but rather of ability. If Land Tax costed 2WW for
> example, we would still have a problem with it. Hymn, on the other hand,
> is merely a bit cheap for its effect. A Hymn at a higher casting cost
> (say 2BB) would not be causing problems.
>
> Hymn, unlike Land Tax, does not cause any design constraints. And unlike
> Land Tax, does not slow games down. Finally, we come to the tournament
> scene. This is the area that caused us the most thought. The
> "necrodecks" are obviously quite prevalent in current tournament scene.
> But no one is quite sure yet what is causing the "Necrodecks" to win.
> Everyone seems to have different hypothesis (everything from Hymns to
> Disks to Specters to the Necropotence) on what is making the deck win.
> Also, as the deck has only been prevalent for about six weeks, we do not
> have the kind of data on it like we do on Land Tax. One simply needs to
> look at the presence at PT1 to realize that the speed black decks have
> matured later than the green white decks.
I agree the perfect Mix with Hymns, Necro and Disks is a rater new creation.
This does not mean though that the card is not out of hand. You have only to
look at the California Regional(and I belive many other regionals, although I
do not have first hand knowledge of them) to see even with what seemed like
more Anti-Necro than Necro, Necro was 1st, 3rd, 4th.
I again think that the speed argument is rather bad, Channel was banned and
it sure speeded things up so did Mind Twist, simply because it speeds things
up does not mean that it cant be a spoiler.
>
> The DC governing body has always been very slow to act. The reasons for
> this are simple. We do not want to dictate what people should be
> playing. We only make restrictions when it has been proven over a long
> period of time that a certain card is causing problems which the
> environment cannot fix itself. Let's go over that last sentence:
> "We only make restrictions when it has been proven..."
> As I said above, nothing has been proven yet as people are still arguing
> over what the problem is
> "...over a long period of time..."
> Six weeks is not a long period of time. (Mind you that six weeks is how
> long the deck has been prevalent in the majority of the country. The
> deck has definitely existed for longer than that.)
> "...that a certain card..."
> Once again, no one has definitely proven that it is the Hymn that is
> causing the problem.
> "is causing problems which the environment cannot fix itself."
> This is probably the biggest reason we didn't restrict the Hymn. There
> has not been sufficient time for anyone to prove that there isn't another
> deck type that can beat "Necro". Plus, Alliances has just been released
> with a host of powerful cards. We want you guys to be the ones who fix
> the problem. If it turns out that there is nothing that can be done (and
> time has elapsed to prove the point), we'll gladly step in. But until
> that time, we want to be cautious and see what happens.
Well Ok one question I have looked at Alliances(almost every day for PT3) and
I see NOTHING that will hurt the Hymn it is still to your advantage to trade
one of your cards for two of theres. I would admit the something like
Gorrilla Tactics could Hurt Necro this is not the same as hurting Hymn. Hymn
is just to powerful in the Type II enviorment where card drawing is so
scarce and an early Hymn or two can just make you loose no matter what you
are playing or how good you are.
I also understand that the DCI wants to go slow with restricting but also
remember that because of this Alliances or no Alliances the Nationals will be
a wall of necro. Alliances just will not have been out long enough to affect
any thing greatly.
>
> Remember that Land Tax has been in almost all white tournament decks for
> six months. The Hymn has only been very prevalent in one major deck type
> which is basically six weeks old.
>
> Hopefully, this will explain our reasoning. Just remember that we act
> not out of speed but out of efficiency.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Rosewater
And Mark if you do not belive be about the wall of necro, you will be at
NecroFest(formerly known as ManaFest) come down and look at what happens.
MacKenzie III
Jason D. Steel
Mike McAulay (mmca...@headgames.com) wrote:
: A Place to Play wrote:
: > In <31C21C...@headgames.com> Mike McAulay <mmca...@headgames.com> writes:
: > or facing an Early Ernhie 10 consecutive games in a row
: > (remember when Chronicles first came out?).
: Ernie's a little over-powered (or "under-costed" to use Rosewater's terminology). Once again,
: that's a whole 'nother thread. At least there are Swords, Terror, and Meekstone to use as
: cheap counter-measures.
I agree. How WotC could take out the Granite Gargoyle and the Serendib for
being under-socsted then put in_ Ernham, Varchild's War Riders and
Balduvian Hordes is beyond me. Well, at least they cannot use the excuse
they didn't know any better about it being under-costed anymore, no? :).
: > Yes, discard is *a* game strategy, but it is
: > BLACK's 'core' strategy...and black needs it.
: I totally agree. Others may object, but I personally would not mind a fixed Hymn which cost
: the same but forced the discard of two cards of the opponent's choice. That way, you only
: knock my game-winners or - as is more commonly the case - much-needed defensive cards out of
: my hand if I've let my hand size fall to two or less. This would make discard into a strategy
: that required some skill and timing to play and to play against - not unlike permission.
: It's the randomness of the Hymn that pushes it over the top, IMO.
I agree on both conts. Discard, and resource destruction in general
(rememeber, Black always, from the beginning, had the cheapest Land
Destruction AND the Hordes!!! Why they took those out is beyond me) is
Black's greatest strength, but also its greatest weakness (after all, if
you concentrate too much on resource destruction, you are going to get
killed from the things that DO get out). Personally, I think WotC should
bring BACK black's cheap land-kill and the Hordes and bring more
non-random discard cards out. How about this for a card that has never
been done, but would be both cool and not terribly overpowered (just a
good core card, like Lightning Bolt or Dark Ritual, etc):
Desecration
BB Interrupt
Counter target land being placed into play.
Also, I think the Lich should come back...it was just too cool and not at
all overpowered (well, Mirror Universe is broken anyhow).
: > The only thing discard levels is black's ability to compete in tourneys. Some would even
: > argue that discard alone still doesn't quite elevate Black and Black/? designs to equal
: > standing with other designs.
: I won't argue this point. I just want to point out that there are other ways to fix this
: problem: make new, powerful non-random discard spells for one. Another would be to increase
: Black's ability to kill creatures, especially in the new creature-heavy T2 environment. For
: instance (and yes, this is yet *another* thread really) why does White have the most efficient
: creature removers (StP, Wrath)? That's STUPID. Black is supposed to be the color of death
: and decay, yet Terror and even Dark Banishing have types of creatures they won't affect, AND
: they cost more than StP. This is glaringly, inexcusably wrong.
Again, for the most part, I agree. Black should be the creature-killer, in
efficiency at least (every other color, much like StP, should have a
negative, though Terror should be a B casting cost with its current
negatives, or a BB casting cost with any creature being applicable). Black
should have Land Destruction, Hand Discard, Creature killing, and
tough-to-kill creatures that can hurt the caster as much as the enemy! The
first three should be the basic cards, the latter one should be a
trademark. Lord of the Pit, the Hordes, Juzam, Junun, Yawgmoth, Erg
Raiders and Hasran and Cuomajj even...all of these fit most into Black's
theme (well, so does the Assassin, but he is a special case...).
Al;so, I am getting tired of WotCs leanings towards less colored mana and
more colorless mana in spells nowadays! So many cards I see that should
have mana prices switched around, mostly from less colorless to more
colored. I don't know, maybe it is me, but the MORE POWERFULLY a card fits
into a given colors theme, the _more_ colored mana it should have, but the
less colorless. For instance all those life-draining or discard type
cantrips. Less colorless! Touch of Death and Mind Ravel _both_ should be
BB. That is the reason for more and more cards being tossed aside for
tournament consideration!
Also, I agree with those saying a new Vise needs to be mande. The only
unbalancing part of the Black Vise is the one casting cost. A 3 casting
cost would be FINE and would still see alot of play, without the
overwhelming advantage of the first-turn vice[es]. That is, and will
always be the major complaint of the Vise. But if you must use a whole
Dark Ritual or Lotus to drop a vise, you'll see less 1st turn Vices and
less bitching.
Alan Cade
MacKenzie-
Do you think it is worth my time to play at HymnFest '96 this
weekend since I'm not playing Necro? Just curious about your opinion.
-Chris Cade
#254 DC Type 2 Rankings
"Victim's, aren't we all?"
Erik Lunna
A> Desecration
A> BB Interrupt
A> Counter target land being placed into play.
If they printed this card, black/blue would probably be seen everywhere.
Think about it, your playing one of your friends, I'll counter all your
stuff, I'll destroy your land, and then I'll counter your land! Instant
lock.
bbea...@adobe.com
afn2...@afn.org (Jason D. Steel) wrote:
> Desecration
> BB Interrupt
> Counter target land being placed into play.
NO NO NO NO NO! Playing land is the only thing in the game that
1) Can't be countered
2) Can't be responded to
3) Can't be done in response to something
and it should stay this way. To even consider a spell like this would destroy
the game. Tired of Mishra's? Then play w/artifact destruction. All decks
should be able to deal with all types of permanents in some form. Granted,
there will always be a weakness of a color to certain permanents (unless u'r
playing white), but that is inherent in Type II deck design.
I'll be at the so-called "HymmFest" this weekend. Will I be Hymming? no F'in
way. I'll play something of my own design, that I would like to tune more.
Will it stand up to NecroHymm? Maybe...we'll just have to see.
-Lazlo...
p.s. something tell me there might be some extra table space at A Place to Play
this weekend :P C u @ ManaFest :)
A Place to Play
In <4q9f33$q...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com> bbea...@adobe.com writes:
>
>afn2...@afn.org (Jason D. Steel) wrote:
>
>
>> BB Interrupt
>> Counter target land being placed into play.
>
>
>1) Can't be countered
>2) Can't be responded to
>3) Can't be done in response to something
>
>and it should stay this way.
Absolutely!!
To even consider a spell like this would destroy
>the game. Tired of Mishra's? Then play w/artifact destruction. All decks
>should be able to deal with all types of permanents in some form. Granted,
>there will always be a weakness of a color to certain permanents (unless u'r
>playing white), but that is inherent in Type II deck design.
>
>I'll be at the so-called "HymmFest" this weekend. Will I be Hymming? no F'in
>way. I'll play something of my own design, that I would like to tune
more.
>Will it stand up to NecroHymm? Maybe...we'll just have to see.
>
>-Lazlo...
>
>
>p.s. something tell me there might be some extra table space at A
Place to Play
>this weekend :P C u @ ManaFest :)
'some' extra table space? The only people I'd expect to see at APTP
this weekend are the ones looking to bum a ride to the 'Fest. 'Course,
I won't be able to see them...I'll already be in SF.
Good luck in the tourneys. I'm rootin' for the non-black decks this
time around.
-Uncle
>
Alan Cade
game...@ix.netcom.com(A Place to Play) wrote:
>In <4q9f33$q...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com> bbea...@adobe.com writes:
>>
>>afn2...@afn.org (Jason D. Steel) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> BB Interrupt
>>> Counter target land being placed into play.
>>
>>
>>1) Can't be countered
>>2) Can't be responded to
>>3) Can't be done in response to something
>>
>>and it should stay this way.
>
>Absolutely!!
>
> To even consider a spell like this would destroy
>>the game. Tired of Mishra's? Then play w/artifact destruction. All decks
>>should be able to deal with all types of permanents in some form. Granted,
>>there will always be a weakness of a color to certain permanents (unless u'r
>>playing white), but that is inherent in Type II deck design.
>>
>>I'll be at the so-called "HymmFest" this weekend. Will I be Hymming? no F'in
>>way. I'll play something of my own design, that I would like to tune
>more.
>>Will it stand up to NecroHymm? Maybe...we'll just have to see.
>>
>>-Lazlo...
>>
>>
>>p.s. something tell me there might be some extra table space at A
>Place to Play
>>this weekend :P C u @ ManaFest :)
>
>'some' extra table space? The only people I'd expect to see at APTP
>this weekend are the ones looking to bum a ride to the 'Fest. 'Course,
>I won't be able to see them...I'll already be in SF.
>
>Good luck in the tourneys. I'm rootin' for the non-black decks this
>time around.
Cool, are you going to be my cheering crowd? I just hope all goes well,
I'm looking for a ride up there right now.
GlennW2160
Many thanks to Mark for clearing up a lot of pressing questions. It is SO
reassuring to see WOTC actually replying to us!
btw, I think an expensive vise would be a good idea. It would still hurt
Necro, control, land tax, etc., and wouldn't lead to those awful strip
mine, mana vault, vise, vise situations. (please nobody calculate the
probabilities of this...)