Round 2 of the Great Designer Search 2 was a fifty-question multiple-choice quiz. The top ~100 people in the quiz will move on to submit actual world and card designs, which will then be narrowed down to a final 8! Partly to share and partly to think through my own answers, I wrote my thoughts and reasons for answering the way I did on each question. I don’t have time to format this to show the question and my answer, so for maximum functionality I recommend opening up the quiz page in a separate window.
Some were easy, some put me through an absolute wringer. Here we go…
1) C: Black is the only color with both haste and lifelink.
2) A: Blackcleave Goblin says black can have haste + one other keyword ability at common, and in fact it doesn’t get haste at higher rarity often, and when it does it's never as a double scoop of French vanilla only, it always has something more complex going on.
3) C: Lifelink is only on white and black, shroud only on green and blue. The other four options all have a color that can do both.
4) B: Flash, redirection, and low power/high toughness are heavily blue, and redirection is also red, leaving blue-red as the best option here. Green has more flash, but red has flash as well, and in this case it's needed for the effect.
5) E: Discard is the only ability here that is mono-colored by current pie standards (and one of the reasons I opted to give red a sliver of discard in the essay portion).
6) E: While they absolutely have given "giant growth" to flash ETB creatures, it is the only one that could still have a use on a non-flash creature. All other cards would outright not work or be frustratingly terrible without flash.
7) A: White has an established corner of the bounce pie where it can bounce its own stuff.
8) A: Common. Simple bounce spells like this would be out of place at higher rarities. See Glint Hawk, Kor Skyfisher, and Narrow Escape. This is an interesting, not-broken ability for white to have in Limited too, another reason for common status.
9) E: The rules never allow a card you don't own to be in your hand, library, or graveyard, and returning to "controller's hand" would break this rule.
10) D: Red and white have first strike but not regeneration, so it could not be this combo.
11) E: Abilities that tend to render each other moot on the same creature are a design no-no that has been discussed in columns by Maro over the years. Also the other answers are just not even close to this one.
12) E: While green does have vigilance in limited quantities, blue doesn't, and that would leave the card with absolutely nothing blue about it. A, C and D *could* be monogreen cards, but at least those abilities are blue enough that it would feel fine to be blue-green.
13) C: A demon that forces discard is pure blackness. As stated above, black is the only color with discard.
14) C: Unless R&D costed to the point of unplayability, this creature would warp Limited at uncommon, but there's nothing particularly "mythic" about it.
15) C: The key is "as a demon." Demons historically have some controller-punishing drawback as part of the flavor of being a demon.
16) B: Interesting question, because there are ZERO pure vanilla "bears" in red, blue, or black. That would make all three inappropriate, but blue is the most inappropriate because it has the fewest 2/2 for 1U of *any* kind at common (three in regular sets, one "un"), and this is clearly a common card.
17) B: It would be an insult to development to suggest that design creates vanillas to "ease the burden" on dev.
18) A: Springjack Knight is the only common creature in Magic history that grants double strike in any way. The others have all appeared at common many times.
19) E: I answered this one before even reading the question. When I read the card, I thought, "Why isn't this an instant or sorcery? Being an enchantment does nothing for the card, and if a set wants more enchantments, then tweak this to have a reason it might actually stick on the creature for a bit."
20) B: You can't equip opposing creatures, making this one terrible spell in equipment form.
21) C: Lands are the only other permanent type that black has the ability to destroy without help from other colors, and there are several "destroy creature or land" cards in black's history.
22) A: Tumble Magnet at common in Scars of Mirrodin suggests that's where this would be, too. Large sets have common mill cards of a Tome Scour/Jace's Erasure level of impact, and that's where this card falls in terms of how much it would mill without shenanigans.
23) B: There are no artifact creatures in all of Mirrodin block or Scars of Mirrodin that care about having charge counters on them.
24) C: The other reasons are definitely "positive effects this rule has on the game," but preventing a neverending game with a stalled board and empty libraries is the one that is why it has to be there. We hate draws!
25) E: All other answers are contradicted by exiting PWs. Jace 2.0 (A), Gideon (B), Sarkhan the Mad (C), any planeswalker with two versions (Jace, Sarkhan, Chandra, Elspeth, Ajani) (D)
26) B: Urza's Saga has a definite "enchantments matter" sub-theme throughout, certainly far more than any of the other blocks listed.
27) D: There are a couple of common white bears that sacrifice to destroy an enchantment, and white has a history of common creatures that destroy enchants when ETB (Aven Cloudchaser, Absolver Thrull, Cloudchaser Eagle) etc.
28) D: Modular mechanics do not necessitate the inclusion of other cards containing the mechanic. Infect is the only mechanic here that says to the deckbuilder, "You'd better include lots of this if you're going to run any."
29) E: This is the first question of the bunch that really had me going...wha?! They are all fairly odd cards, but all similarly so, such that it was tough to figure out which one had the “worst design.” So much so, I figured there was something I was missing. Then I think I found it. "Landfall" is not a keyword, it's an ability word. Per the rules:
"An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities on cards. Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie together cards that have similar functionality, but they have no special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive Rules."
It seems bad to have a card that gives a creature a bonus based on a word that doesn’t technically have any meaning on the comprehensive rules, so I’m pretty sure this is E. Maro said they weren't doing "trick questions" so maybe I'm wrong, but does having four keywords and one ability word constitute a trick, or is it an "on-board trick?"
30) D: Flavor-based decks like this are very Vorthos.
31) C: Agonizing question number 2! This is borderline unfair in the sense that there is not a clear answer you can point to with overwhelming examples from card history like you can with most questions in this quiz—particularly if you consider each of these abilities as literally stated below. I’ll consider each one by one.
A) "Ping" abilities feel more uncommon than common now (Prodigal Pyromancer (twice), Cunning Sparkmage, and Brimstone Mage), although Vithian Stinger and Viashino Fangtail are recent exceptions. Even though there are recent examples at common, the four pingers that have seen print since Vithian Stinger have all been uncommon. I think generally pingers should be uncommon to keep them from rendering one-toughness creatures so fragile in Limited, and I expect common pingers in the future only when it doesn't warp Limited.
B) This feels like the "trick" answer. While 1 point of damage prevention feels very common, there has actually never been a creature that prevents 1 to creatures and NOT to players, too. Ever. I don't think they would print this without printing the player clause along with it.
C) Only Ballynock Trapper and Minister of Impediments have had this at common without an activation cost, but it's worth noting that this ability has NEVER appeared on a card outside of common, and there are two commons that have had it in the last ~5 years.
D) This has never been done without a mana cost at common and is right out.
E) Only Ghost Warden has had this at common without a limitation or mana cost. Infantry Veteran gets it with attack clause. It feels like this is a definite possibility. The creature exists at common in tenth edition, which was the same era as the trapper example above. Leonin Battlemage had this ability at uncommon, for what it’s worth.
So this is a sick spot. I dismissed the trick answer B, leaving C and E, and narrowly went with C because there are a couple of recent examples of tapping a creature without a mana cost at common, and only one that pumps for +1/+1. I will be quite angry if the answer is B, because that specific ability literally does not exist on any card in the game, and annoyed if it's E, because it's a close call but recent history is still on the side of tapping. Still, this feels like it comes down to what Maro thinks, and I'm honestly not sure.
32) C: Last Gasp is the only one where scaling up the number doesn't have a dramatic impact on the card’s effect on the game. If you made the number "20" on all cards, Last Gasp is the one that's still just a one-for-one removal spell.
33) A: In http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57 "harmony" is stated at white's goal, and white likes “order” which is reflected in the “pattern” comment.
34) A: Golgari is about black and green crossing over in graveyard-as-a-resource space, and flashback is the only mechanic here that does that.
35) E: This comes down pretty quickly to life gain and token making, but in the end, there are a similar number of instants and sorceries with lifegain, while token-making is heavily sorcery, as it is often a pseudo-creature card, and thus happens more often at sorcery speed.
36) E: That Spike does not need to be designed for is one of the classic misunderstandings about the psychographic. Magic is heavily designed for Spike, including any card you would think of as “just for Limited.”
37) A: Color and managing abilities relative to the pie is at the heart of design. As for the others, "Creature Type" is more creative, mana cost is development, P/T is development, and rarity is in second place, but is also more development, who tune the Limited play experience. Design does care about rarity, but not like design cares about color. They are the caretakers of the color pie.
38) B: Boils immediately down to Vigilance vs. Can't Be Blocked, with a nod to "as though it weren't blocked" because it's a rarely-seen ability, although fully green. There are more recent examples of green vigilance than green "two or more" (that don't need mountains). Also, green recently getting intimidate suggests that intimidate is the version of green evasion we will be seeing like this, and the two-or-more mechanic is so distinctly red I don't see why they would put it on a green creature.
39) D: Pretty straightforward. While they make "chase cards" at rare to help move new sets, the notion of moving a card to uncommon because it is a tournament-level card is silly.
40) E: Lots of great reasons for variance of the draw are listed here, but design is most concerned with design space, and without the variance of the draw, a huge class of cards--library manipulation--would be lost. For the game itself, I'd say the answer is C, but for design, it's E, having more design space.
41) E: Back to Nature says "Destroy all enchantments" is an uncommon thing now. Sorry Tranquility.
42) B: Cycling is the least parasitic, it does not force you into other cards in any way. You can decide to play a cycling card entirely on its own merits, it doesn't dictate any other card inclusions.
43) D: As Maro mentions in the article linked in the previous question, Kamigawa was very parasitic. Soulshift working only with spirit creatures and splice working only with arcane creatures made the set very parasitic. There were few older cards that worked with newer cards.
44) A: This one was the other ass-kicker in my opinion. I will be surprised if it is not one of these two, though:
A) Flanking not working against other flankers wasn't intuitive to many players and thus was often played incorrectly.
B) Flanking only worked on attacking and not on blocking, limiting the number of interactions it created.
Both of these are things bushido "fixed," so I feel it is one of the two. There are good arguments for each:
A) "Player intuition" has been a hot-button issue for the game, to the point that it led to many of the M10 rules changes. If people intuitively want to play your mechanic differently than it is designed, the problem is with the design, not the players. That being said, was this really a problem? Were people misplaying the mechanic? I don't know, I don’t think I did. If this was a legitimate thing that happened and not just a red herring, it's probably this.
C) This is another legit issue addressed with bushido. Creating more interactions is a good thing for a combat mechanic like this.
However, I found this Rosewater quote that has me leaning a bit. It is in reference to keywords vs. ability words, but it compares flanking to bushido:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr342n
Flanking (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks this creature, the blocking creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.)
Bushido (When this blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Can you see the important difference between them? Bushido works on defense, but that’s not the relevant part. The important part shows up in flanking. It’s the “creature without flanking” section. You see, flanking is self-referential. Flankers don’t flank other flankers. What this means is that the mechanic cannot work without a keyword. Without a keyword to reference, there is no way for the cards to know what they can’t “flank” against. Bushido, on the other hand, could work just fine written out on every card. The flanking mechanics of the world have to be keyworded, while the bushido mechanics are keyworded on a case by case basis.
I think calling this out demonstrates that the self-referential part might have caused some confusion, and he certainly dismisses the “on defense” part quickly. Keep in mind, though, this was not an aside on what was wrong with flanking per se.
If A is true, then I believe it’s a more significant problem for the mechanic than the “no defense” aspect, as there are many mechanics that are only relevant when the creature is attacking.
In fact, I think I’ve talked myself into more confidence on this one. There are plenty of mechanics that are only relevant when attacking, so can that really be considered the “big drawback” of flanking? If it ran against intuition, then it’s trouble, though, and none of the other options offered seem like big enough design problems to warrant an answer on the GDS2 quiz, while the issue of player intuition is a major big-picture issue for R&D that does warrant an answer.
45) A: White. Note that the one missing here is the one we had to identify above. I think Maro wrote one for each color, then split it off and turned it into two questions.
Black: "Morality? There's no such thing as morality. It's a construct of the weak to justify their actions."
Red: "What value is there in thinking about tomorrow? Who knows if we'll even be alive tomorrow?"
Green: "Everybody is trying so hard to change everything that they sometimes miss that things don't need to be changed."
Blue: "Any problem that is understood can be solved."
46) B: Devastating Summons edges out Clone. Clone isn't *super* Johnny like the other ones are, but copying a creature can certainly be part of wacky shenanigans more so than decimating your mana base for two vanilla creatures can Devastating Summons is more Spike.
47) A: Permanents that create creature tokens upon creature death basically always have the "nontoken" clause to avoid an easy infinite cycles with any cost-free sacrifice outlet. While vamp over zombie, the tap clause, etc. are all odd choices, the thing that needs to change for this not to be potentially broken is the lack of the nontoken clause.
48) C: Six!
• Æther Adept
total vanilla after first turn in play
• Ambassador Oak
total vanilla after first turn in play
• Gravedigger
total vanilla after first turn in play
• King Cheetah
total vanilla after first turn in play
• Rotting Legion
total vanilla after first turn in play
• Vulshok Berserker
total vanilla after first turn in play
• Bog Raiders
NOT vanilla
• Canyon Minotaur
Vanilla from first turn in play, not virtual, it is vanilla
• Riptide Crab
Not vanilla ever
• Squadron Hawk
Sneaky! French vanilla after first turn in play, but that ain’t vanilla!
49) C: The Heralds are mythic-fetchers in Shards of Alara, invokers are “8: do something” cards at common in ROE, Rest for the Weary is part of a cycle of landfall spells at common in WWK, and Steppe Lynx part of a cycle of +2/+2 landfall creatures in ZEN. Martial Coup by process of elimination as much as anything.
50) D: Mark Rosewater has raised his concern about the finite nature of Magic design space before, and the ongoing challenge it presents to R&D.
So all in all, I’d say there are two that if I miss—31 and 44—I won’t be totally surprised, because it felt like you had to be in Mark Rosewater’s head after narrowing it down to a couple options. (Although if there is a concrete declaration somewhere that I missed, by all means, share!)
There are about five where I felt super solid about my reasoning, but recognize that it’s just gray enough that I could be surprised with a wrong answer. If any of those turn out to be wrong, I will roll my eyes and demand an explanation, though.
Then there are about 43 that, if I got wrong, I will have to do some M:TG soul searching because I was pretty damn sure of them.
I look forward to seeing the answers and Maro’s explanations!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor 41: Isn't Back to Nature @ Uncommon just because it's simply the most efficient Tranquility printed? Tom Lapille says to not expect such high level of destroy enchantment effects to last for a long time:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/105
I chose C for that one. A black sorcery that causes you to pay life to draw cards.
While it's true that Sign in Blood/Moriok Replica are at common and match C, the answer did not specify how much life/cards. If it was draw 3 lose 3, it would definitely not be common.
For two people who were both pretty sure of their answers, seven questions different seems like a lot!
ReplyDelete6: I put B because it's awkward. The question didn't ask which ability would also get flash; it asked which ability would get added to a flash card.
15. I put A because demons have flying as often as drawbacks. Not as happy with my answer after seeing yours :(
30. The answer is B for Johnny. The example in the question is a different version of an example from the article 'Revisited'.
33. I have E for green. The passive nature of the quotation suggests an underlying structure of life (and therefore nature), not an imposed one such as in white.
40. I'm glad to see we have the same answer here, and for the same reason, because I was very shaky here.
44. I have E here, actually. I vaguely remember reading this specific complaint about flanking from someone in R&D, but I don't have evidence. Even after reading your explanation, I'm still happy with my answer despite that all I'm going on is gut feeling and a vague memory.
46. I have A for Clone. I felt that the closeness you described edged in the other direction.
50. Mark Rosewater has indeed raised his concerns about D, and I had that bubbled for a while. But then I decided that they would explore more complex designs before actually running out of design space, and so the answer was A. Maybe I over-thought it.
~ fissionessence or Silent7Seven on twitter
Couple places I chose differently:
ReplyDelete6) Chose B. Only way the flash ability works in your favor (assuming two player) is with your own spell on the stack, which is just an awkward thing to put on a card. Briarforce also strongly persuades me against E, especially being fairly recent.
29) Chose B. Ability word issues aside, this combo is the only one that isn't complementary or flavorful in any way.
30) I thought E at first also, but the answer is B, straight out of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike article (scroll to 'Deck Artist').
38) Chose E. Vigilance is definitively green now, and the 2 or more clause showed up as recently as Zendikar. E is just a sketchy version of trample which hasn't shown up since Trample became core set worthy.
41) Chose A. A gatherer search showed 0 white cards with or mentioning protection in current Standard, but you could be right on this one.
44) Chose E, mainly because I remembered him mentioning this specifically in one article (maybe from Time Spiral discussions?).
46) Chose A. Johnny likes build-around-me cards, and Clone can't do that because it needs other cards to do anything interesting. So yes Johnny might put it in a deck, but it's the only card in the list that doesn't enable a deck in itself.
50) This one is A because MaRo says this exact thing in his column (which you can find by doing a quick google search for "mark rosewater complexity creep").
48) Chose E/eight - I missed the sneaky on Squadron Hawk, but I would still count Canyon Minotaur, so I think the right answer is D/seven.
I will weep for the game of Magic if the correct answer to question 40 is anything but B. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteSo many tough questions, including many that very much appear to be tricks. Differences in opinion:
ReplyDelete24. In a recent article about infect, Mark espouses its virtues pertaining to creating an alternate win condition that opens up design space. So I chose B.
29. I thought that too, but B is weird because black only has 2 echo critters, echo is an unpopular mechanic, and echo + deathtouch has no apparent synergy.
30. B - Refer to Spike/Johnny/Timmy Returns - This quality is one of the Johnny types, described as building Empire Strikes Back decks or something. Vorthos is a subclass.
33. E - Tricky again, as Green is very much about a cycle (or pattern) and harmony with nature.
40. B - Rosewater article on randomness talked about how it contributes to the positive quality that is randomness and how randomness improves gameplay.
41. Jin covered 41's weirdness. I chose A, but can't remember what it was.
44. C - Toss up, I chose C because of a similar logic: it makes no intuitive sense that flanking doesn't work on defense. Dude is on a horse, he should always flank.
46. A - Chose A, because D Summons really demands a combo to work, thus very Johnny. Clone is Timmy/Johnny.
48. D - Arrrrrrgh, missed Squadron Hawk.
50. A - Chose A because it seemed like the only thing that is actively a fault of design, versus a fault of pretty much all things being finite in some regard.
@ Qster - RE: #38, the two green cards that have that ability only get it because of red's influence. Summit Apes needs a mountain to turn on and Gruul Nodorog needs red man to activate its ability.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 44:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1106
See Nov.20th entry. I chose C for that reason...it's definitely not E according to it.
And 46...I chose Devastating Summons. It doesn't necessarily need a combo to work. A linear ramp strategy will do fine (although as a Johnny, I don't mind comboing it with Fork/Reverberate/Planar Birth). I was torn over this as well, but I chose Clone since it is very open ended as to what it can potentially do.
@Michael: Good point, I did miss that when scanning gatherer. However the E ability is only on hasn't shown up since 10th edition, and I remember a MaRo article specifically talking about how they could finally put trample in core sets starting in M2010 thanks to better reminder text, which supercedes the E ability. MaRo's articles have a huge amount of weight here, which is why I still think it's E despite the point about only getting B when teaming up with red.
ReplyDeleteI guess my memory of the flanking-related topic was exactly opposite what I remembered it to be. Thanks for the link, Jin.
ReplyDelete~
@Jin: Hmm, you're probably right about 44 not being E then, I guess I misremembered that Ask Wizards segment. Probably should have googled it up instead of relying on memory!
ReplyDeleteI think he's wrong though in the article. If it were Flanking 1, Cavalry Master could just say:
Other creatures you control with flanking gain flanking 1
And then both flankings would trigger as normal and no functionality would be different, but would still allow for cards to have Flanking 2 or Flanking 3.
Some differences I had;
ReplyDelete20- Am I the only one that thought 20 was A? Yes it would be bad equipment, but the text says damage to target player, essentially turning it into an equip cost to toughness fling a creature at an opponent. A good card for equipment? No. Could it be turned into an equipment card with only minor tweaking, seems like it to me.
30- I put B for the reasons posted above.
33- I also had E for Green
40- B, Maro talked about how he had designed cards in Tempest that took out the randomness of the draw, and he axed it before even testing because it killed the game.
41- A I was surprised at this, but gatherer seems to have confirmed it for me.
Other differences I had put me clearly in the wrong. Including 44, 48 (yeah squadron hawk has flying), and 39. All mistakes due to poor reading skills despite having read over the questions five or six times. Sigh.
From Az-cz on twitter/kcolloran on mtgsalvation.
ReplyDeleteHere are my points of disagreement:
6. I think the answer is B. While I understand your argument, I just think the ability on B is one they just wouldn't print, and they especially wouldn't put it on a creature.
31. I think E is the answer here. While Ballyknock Trapper and Master of Impediments are examples I just feel they are less basic feeling than Ghost Warden. I think making it as a common or uncommon in a core set is a sign that it's printable anywhere.
35. My first impression was that it was token making, but you've convinced me on life gain. I just got perhaps overly swayed by a few key instant speed token makers in recent sets.
38. How is the two or more mechanic so distinctly red? What are well known red cards with this ability? It definitely feels like a green ability to me, but that's cause it was a long time ago. I'm not totally sure where it resides in the pie now, but it sure feels more green than vigilance.
44. I think the biggest problem with it is actually B, but I think your answer of A is correct.
48. I think seven is correct. There are 7 cards that have no abilities after they come into play, which is what's important in making decisions. I can't see them getting hung up on the difference between virtual vanilla and actual vanilla.
50. I think the answer is A here. While Maro has discussed the limitations of design space he's always given the impression that there's plenty of stuff left to explore, but especially in casual environments where anyone can use any card complexity is only increasing on top of what is a complicated game even just looking at Standard.
As for the comments I just want to say that I'm sure 29 is E. Ability words aren't even things that creatures technically have. It's just shorthand.
6: comes down to your reading of the question. "Assuming we are putting this on a creature..." and I'm right. "Which of these would we bother doing at all?" and I'm wrong. It really felt like the thrust of the question was some abilities *needing* a flash creature to even function.
ReplyDelete29: All of them were weird, which is why I stopped trying to figure out which was weirdest. Deathtouch fine on echo if you pay for the guy, and if not, one-turn "don't attack me bro!"
30: Serves me right for not re-reading T/J/S before answering because I've read it 20 times, although I did read Vorthos/Melvin...
33: Definitely white. "Pattern" and "Harmony" are dead-center white.
40: I would not be surprised if I'm wrong here, but still could be right. Again, very much how you read it. If it's about why it's good for "the game" and what makes it fun, I'm wrong, but if it's about the value of it for design...dunno, I could have gotten too hung up on "finite design space" in a couple of the questions.
41: we haven't seen "wrath permanent type" at common in forever, it just doesn't feel common. The others do.
44: I actually read that Ask Wizards link on Flanking, and while it convinced me it was not E, it did not convince me fully that it was C. I easily spent the most time on any one question debating between A and C for 44, so naturally I'll get it wrong.
46: I think Clone just has more "clever" potential than Summons.
48: Canyon Minotaur is simply not a "virtual" vanilla creature, and that's what they were asking for.
50: He worries about complexity creep, and he worries about finite design space too. I actually picked finite design space *because* complexity creep is something they can control. Finite design space is not, and could theoretically eventually kill the game.
Thanks for the responses, interesting to see what others came up with. Definitely not feeling I hit 100%, now just hoping I scored high enough to move on...
Brian,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you're alone in that. I can't imagine R&D ever printing that as an equipment. They could under the rules, but why would they. It would just play better as a regular artifact. The fact that they could make it an equipment under the rules doesn't mean they could make it an equipment under accepted design principles.
"virtual vanilla" to refer to a creature that, after the first turn it enters the battlefield, functions as a simple vanilla creature for purposes of evaluating the board state.
ReplyDeleteJust read that definition and ask does Canyon Minotaur fit? Yes it does. It functions as a simple vanilla creature for purposes of evaluating the board.
Arguing that it doesn't fit seems to be arguing that vanilla creatures don't function as vanilla creatures. Which is crazy.
@Kenyon: Of all the questions I think the Canyon Minotaur issue is the closest to being a 'trick'. I think you're right, but I could also see why people would think the opposite.
ReplyDeleteAlso,
ReplyDeleteGood luck. I think you'd make a good designer, though it would be sad to lose the limited resources podcast.
@kenyon Re: virtual vanilla: I think you are over-thinking it. Saying that it "functions as a vanilla" implies that technically it is *not* vanilla.
ReplyDeleteI think you're getting caught up on the word "virtual" and missing the point of what the "virtual vanilla" idea is for. If R&D wants to know what percentage of the creatures in a set are vanilla on board, they're going to group Aether Adept and Canyon Minotaur together. Terms like Vanilla and Virtual Vanilla are just design tools, not rules text. As such there's no point in worrying about semantics and instead should look at function.
ReplyDeleteA few comments on the most discussed answers
ReplyDelete6 - I was debating between the damage doubling ability, as it is the least likely to see print, and the creature pump, as it is the one that is useful without flash. I ended up choosing the creature pump.
30 - I chose Vorthos, but could easily see it being Johnny. I think it would be a Johnny Vorthos that would construct the deck, but I think it is more of a Vorthos than a Johnny thing.
31 - I went with the tappers. Tappers get printed in every block because white needs to get its removal, and white also needs to be the color with the most creatures, and tappers are an easy way to help with both problems at once in common. Tappers appear way more often than wylulis or healers, and virtually always appear at common. Yeah, the lack of a mana cost makes it a little weird; even still, I think they've shown up more frequently than either of the other options.
33 - Both white and green want harmony, but green accepts things the way they are, whereas white pushes their values on you. Acceptance is a green trait
40 - It adds randomness. There are at least as many cards that use the randomness from the top of the deck (Cascade, Clash, etc.) than there are cards that manipulate it (Scry, tutors, etc.). The variety of gameplay is the primary benefit, the ability to manipulate it is the side benefit.
41 - Protection does seem like more of an uncommon thing lately, but still, Sejiri Steppe is a very recent common 'white' card that grants protection. I guess it's a bit of a tossup whether granting protection is too complicated for common, or destroying all enchantments is useful for common. I think protection is the more interesting card to show up in limited, so chose the enchantment destruction answer.
44 - While I don't think there were any big problems with flanking, I would think the biggest mark on a card is how intuitive it is. Allowing flankers to give blockers -2/-2 doesn't open up much design space as it quickly becomes "don't block me", and if flankers are supposed to be aggressive, removing the blocking interaction is the correct design move.
46 - The article on Spike describes Clone as being popular with both Spikes and Johnnies. Devastating Summons is mostly a Spike thing.
48 - Missed the bird. Damn. I think it's 7; From the definition of virtual vanilla, it sounds like it includes regular vanilla as well
50 - Opening up design space is a big issue, but I think Mark thinks that there is still a lot of design space left to mine. I think complexity creep is the bigger and more pressing issue. Of course, perhaps the complexity creep happens because they run out of the simple design space for individual cards?
Pretty sure you punted #50 hard here. If anything is a threat to the game, it's MaRo snapping and going on a chainsaw wielding massacre.
ReplyDeleteJoking aside, I'm not so sure about #40 being E. In the first GDS, one of the essay questions was about why randomness of the draw was important for the game. When MaRo went back and answered them in his column he mainly focused on B and C. In fact, I'm not sure if he mentioned E at all. While E is important in helping design do their jobs, design also has a hand in the shaping of the rules of the game, which is why I'd lean toward the broader answers (B specifically).
Hmmm, after rereading the article on Vorthos, it looks like design might disagree with me as to whether it is the Johnny half or the Vorthos half of the Johnny-Vorthos mix that would be most responsible for making the Deck
ReplyDeleteQuote from Maro's article on June 22nd 2009, about halfway down.
ReplyDelete"But Magic is an awesome game. How would we ever stop attracting new players? The answer is what I consider to be the biggest danger to the game: complexity creep. Let me explain. The game keeps evolving. As it does so, it continues to add new elements to the game. Complexity can only grow."
#29 I said D infect creatured get first strike.
ReplyDeleteSince so much of the test was aimed at color pie considerations and all 5 seems mechanically possible but kind of crappy, I went with the one that shattered the color pie.
Infect is all Green and black. The Enchantment is either going to be green or black (which can't give first strike) or be another color...and then help creatures that aren't in it's color?
@Sir Jarlsburg - The test didn't rule out the possibility of a multicolored enchantment
ReplyDelete@ Ryan - True, and frankly I wouldn't be suprised if I got this wrong, I look forward to Maro's explaination.
ReplyDeleteIn general though, I found that there was almost always one definitive answer to every question, and if it looked close it probably meant i wasn't considering the right things. (I'm also in chapin's boat that landfall can be referenced, meaning mechanical impossibiity wasn't in my list of considerations)
The color pie issue seems to be the only thing that REALLY seperates it from the rest.
Now...I also audibled to that at the last second, I was going to say "Echo gets deathtouch" because it was entirely arbitrary until i remembered that echo dudes can defend out of the gate
4. D - I was thinking that Red doesn't provide flash (I *know* it's primary GWU), and that therefore it has to be like Giant Solifuge and similar, with one ability from each color. I'm not so sure on my reasoning, though.
ReplyDelete6. B - Quite sure on this one. Flash is primary GWU, and all but B are on-color abilities.
18. D - I don't know whether I got it right, but you dismissed a hard choice out of hand. There are only TWO common tramplers... with 2 power or less and no inherent way to get more. The more recent one was printed in Prophecy, long before Double Strike even existed. (To be fair, I too dismissed a hard choice out of hand - I knew that trample was the least relevant ability and didn't think about whether they'd do double strike at common.)
20. A - Pretty sure on this one. You equip your creatures to Fling them, as earlier poster said.
22. B - Not sure on this one, but I think my logic is sound: there's an article somewhere on what abilities uncommon artifacts can have, (only the most common stuff), and of course artifact sets can have them at common. "Wacky" artifacts all are rare, except, logically, can be uncommon in an Artifact set. Millstone trope is always rare, ergo in artifact set this would be uncommon.
23. E - B is the other logical choice, but: the first bit of logic doesn't make sense. There's nothing about an "artifact set" that makes them use +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters, I mean, Scars is proof of that, it's the non-artifact theme bringing the -1/-1 counters. And Rise has charge counters on creatures in a set with a few +1/+1 counters. Worried I missed this one, though.
25. B - "Ultimate" is poorly defined, and even "cannot have any card types other than P" is ambiguous. But I'd definitely guess that Gideon Jura is a counter-example of E, not B. Since that rules out all the others, I was able to go with what I already thought: Gideon (and Sarkhan the Mad) doesn't HAVE an Ultimate ability!
29. B - Because Echo's irrelevant after one turn. However, it looks like E was right. :(
30. B, but it's hard to be sure, since the T/J/S article was written (I think) before he'd even been told about Vorthos or dreamed up Melvin. Be pretty lame, though, if an answer written in black and white was NOT correct.
31. C also. I literally spent hours on this one, heh.
33. E.
40. B. (Question sure was written incredibly oddly, though).
44. A. (def not E, only hope it was A)
46. B. Clone is specifically noted as something Johnny likes in... wait for it... Designing for Spike. However, card with giant drawback is mentioned in Designing for Johnny, and Devastating Summons might qualify there. So... *shrugs*
48. D.
50. A.
@Sir Jarlsburg: It doesn't say that the enchantment is monocolored, and Black does occasionally get First Strike from time to time. Black might also get a bump in this case because of the Infect+First Strike synergy (think Nirkana Cutthroat).
ReplyDeleteTwo biggies:
ReplyDelete45) The philosophy of four of the five colors is stated below. Which color is missing?
My answer: Green.
The philosophy of: "Everybody is trying so hard to change everything that they sometimes miss that things don't need to be changed." is clearly White. White tries to set a set of rules that prevent things from spinning out of control (which is reflected by cards like Ethersworn Canonist, Rule of Law, Leonin Arbiter, etc.).
On the other hand, green is the color of growth, evolution and the cycle of life and death which is strongly tied to "change".
50) From a design standpoint, what is the most realistic threat to Magic's long-term health?
I would actually go with A) Complexity Creep.
MaRo did voice some concerns over limited card design space, but also noted that there is enough design space for a lifetime of card design and if that ever runs out, modifying rules can open up even more space (like the recent removal of mana burn).
From his articles, I figured he was more concerned about the thing that is in the nature of the game and cannot be controlled - complexity creep. With every set, there is a new batch of cards being added to the already hefty amount of old cards. Each new card forges new interactions with the old ones and design needs to be wary of each of them. In some time this may become a very daunting, even crippling task.