4 ms·

I really like the writing on this article. So simple and to the point. No attempt at doing some 'human interest' opening with an irrelevant story about how Rich

by tgb 12y ago

I really like the writing on this article. So simple and to the point. No attempt at doing some 'human interest' opening with an irrelevant story about how Richard Garfield grew up inventing trading games using sticks on the family farm. On the other hand, maybe I wouldn't have found it interesting if I didn't already know the game. And I wouldn't have minded if it had more content to it.

dragontamer 12y ago
As noted in the comments though, there's a lot more than can be written. There's no acknowledgement of the politics of the "reserved" list, the Power 9 (and why even to this day, they have never been reprinted). Or efforts such as "Modern Masters" where Wizards reprints rare cards from years ago that are still in use. (OMFG Tarmogoyf). I already know a bit about the game (not a pro like some people...) but the article feels quite "empty" to me. So many issues were just not even addressed, and the article seems like a gross simplification of what is going on.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  When I played back in the mid-90s, creatures were incredibly underpowered: easy to kill, and great for fun/munchkin play (Force of Nature! 8/8 for 6 mana!) Most of the "good" decks were creatureless. The ridiculously powerful creatures and creature-strategies that came later (like Tarmogoyf and, to get really egregious, fucking affinity) seem to be overcorrections to the long-standing weakness of creatures. You could do a lot with your green growth decks (mana-generating elves and huge creatures on early turns) to beginning and intermediate players, but advanced players with reactive decks would shut those down handily. On the broken cards that come out now and then, Type 2 is a necessary evil. It's not that the designers are bad. It's that Magic's metagame simply won't work if design flaws (which are inevitable with a game of such complexity, just because it's impossible to predict the exploits that thousands of players will discover) don't get scrubbed away a couple years after inception. I also agree that the no-reprint policy around the Power 9 was politically motivated and wrong-headed. The way it should have been done is as follows: 1. Art will be changed with every reprinting. This way, you aren't screwing collectors by reprinting coveted cards. They have a guarantee that the card, in that form, will never reprint. 2. Overpowered cards will be reprinted but "pointed", i.e. each Mox might be 4 points and Black Lotus might be 5 and Time Walk might be 7. Every tournament sets a point limit (or no limit) that applies to all decks submitted. That way, the constraint is still a deck-construction constraint rather than which 13-year-old has a rich daddy.
mikeash 12y ago
For what it's worth, I know almost nothing about Magic aside from the fact that it exists, and I still found this style to be vastly preferable to long human interest stories that only occasionally discuss the actual point.

by tgb 12y ago

dragontamer 12y ago

As noted in the comments though, there's a lot more than can be written. There's no acknowledgement of the politics of the "reserved" list, the Power 9 (and why even to this day, they have never been reprinted). Or efforts such as "Modern Masters" where Wizards reprints rare cards from years ago that are still in use. (OMFG Tarmogoyf). I already know a bit about the game (not a pro like some people...) but the article feels quite "empty" to me. So many issues were just not even addressed, and the article seems like a gross simplification of what is going on.

michaelochurch 12y ago
When I played back in the mid-90s, creatures were incredibly underpowered: easy to kill, and great for fun/munchkin play (Force of Nature! 8/8 for 6 mana!) Most of the "good" decks were creatureless. The ridiculously powerful creatures and creature-strategies that came later (like Tarmogoyf and, to get really egregious, fucking affinity) seem to be overcorrections to the long-standing weakness of creatures. You could do a lot with your green growth decks (mana-generating elves and huge creatures on early turns) to beginning and intermediate players, but advanced players with reactive decks would shut those down handily. On the broken cards that come out now and then, Type 2 is a necessary evil. It's not that the designers are bad. It's that Magic's metagame simply won't work if design flaws (which are inevitable with a game of such complexity, just because it's impossible to predict the exploits that thousands of players will discover) don't get scrubbed away a couple years after inception. I also agree that the no-reprint policy around the Power 9 was politically motivated and wrong-headed. The way it should have been done is as follows: 1. Art will be changed with every reprinting. This way, you aren't screwing collectors by reprinting coveted cards. They have a guarantee that the card, in that form, will never reprint. 2. Overpowered cards will be reprinted but "pointed", i.e. each Mox might be 4 points and Black Lotus might be 5 and Time Walk might be 7. Every tournament sets a point limit (or no limit) that applies to all decks submitted. That way, the constraint is still a deck-construction constraint rather than which 13-year-old has a rich daddy.

mikeash 12y ago

For what it's worth, I know almost nothing about Magic aside from the fact that it exists, and I still found this style to be vastly preferable to long human interest stories that only occasionally discuss the actual point.