Sets [CNS] Conspiracy Spoilers

[ahadabans]

I take it you don't play multiplayer often? You know, the format this set was designed for and where the templating of will of the council actually makes sense because there's more than two votes?

LOL. Good call on that. I forgot about the implications in multi-player. And I should have thought of that because my group does play that often (though usually two-headed giant).

 

[ahadabans]

Eh we've all been myopic before. I'm just happy That however wordy the damn thing is, we now have WW1 exile something. And that's awesome.

Totally myopic on my part. My bad.

I think I'm a little annoyed with a couple of the other cards though because there are clearly non-choices in them. And maybe that changes with more than 2 players and I should probably be more mindful of that (and even embrace it).

 

[Chris Taylor]

Totally myopic on my part. My bad.

I think I'm a little annoyed with a couple of the other cards though because there are clearly non-choices in them. And maybe that changes with more than 2 players and I should probably be more mindful of that (and even embrace it).

I'm just glad they are templates that they do something in one on one, as ties could very well have been unmentioned.

I see what your saying though, and most of them are priced so that their tie mode is playable ish. I don't think I want B1 deal 4, but someone might.

Still kinda wish the time walk/draw 3 one did time walk on ties. I think we're ready for that

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Oof... Time Walk at 3U sounds pretty busted, though Time Warp isn't exactly breaking older formats...

After Fractured Powerstone I was rooting for a mana rock that gives you an additional vote, but I'm afraid we'll have to settle for the (let's be honest here) uncubable Brago's Representative. It could have been awesome, but noooooo...



Sigh.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Hey guys, we got Bottled Cloister without a drawback too!

Oof... Time Walk at 3U sounds pretty busted, though Time Warp isn't exactly breaking older formats...

I had mine costed at 2UU, but hey, this set is going straight to legacy.

 

[CML]

I'm just glad they are templates that they do something in one on one, as ties could very well have been unmentioned.

I see what your saying though, and most of them are priced so that their tie mode is playable ish. I don't think I want B1 deal 4, but someone might.

Still kinda wish the time walk/draw 3 one did time walk on ties. I think we're ready for that

im pretty sure time warp would be busted at 2uu. it's still OK at 3uu and my difficulty in finding more cubable blue cards is probably going to result in a re-add, especially because it's fun to build around with walkers and blue creature decks. this is one of those weird granularity spots where it should probably cost 4.5, and do remember it's weaker because it's blue and the extra combat step matters less -- if it were G especially it'd be nuts

 

[Chris Taylor]

im pretty sure time warp would be busted at 2uu. it's still OK at 3uu and my difficulty in finding more cubable blue cards is probably going to result in a re-add, especially because it's fun to build around with walkers and blue creature decks. this is one of those weird granularity spots where it should probably cost 4.5, and do remember it's weaker because it's blue and the extra combat step matters less -- if it were G especially it'd be nuts

2UG?

Also, time warp is okay at 3UU?

 

[VibeBox]

The "will of the council" mechanic seems gimmicky as hell. Just say "choose and exile a permanent" instead of pretending there is more than one mode.....Thumbs way down.

yup
at this point it's just putting me more and more off magic entirely that they seemingly no longer even try to print playable balance interesting and elegant cards. it feels like more and more they just stick a bunch of clunky forced keywords that shouldn't even exist onto the same old retread and call it a day. probably because they know people will go right on buying it.

as for "but they're for multiplayer!"; magic was very specifically designed to be 1 on 1. edh is a garbage format and i will never stop reiterating that or shy away from doing so.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

as for "but they're for multiplayer!"; magic was very specifically designed to be 1 on 1.

That's about as close-minded of an opinion as it gets.



As early as Antiquities the wording on cards has clearly shown the multiplayer-mindedness of Wizards of the Coast. You might enjoy Magic the most while playing 1 on 1 games, but Wizards certainly has catered to other types of players for the better part of its existence.

 

[VibeBox]

im talking about richard garfield original design of the game.
im talking about a verifiable historical fact of the foundation of the game.

haphazard and clumsy attempts by later stewarts of the game don't change that

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I see acceptance of deviating play-styles and design principles isn't really your cup of tea. As long as that doesn't keep you from letting other people enjoy this rich and varied game in their own way, by all means, enjoy your 1 on 1 duels. I like both modes as they provide very different lines of play. Also, in an alternate universe where Magic hardliners specifically engineered the game so as to exclusively provide for 1 on 1 games, kitchen table playgroups everywhere around the globe found another tcg and made it big instead of Magic.

 

[VibeBox]

I see acceptance of deviating play-styles and design principles isn't really your cup of tea.

on the contrary, i enjoy diversity a great deal.
all im saying is that the fundamental rules and structure of magic are not well suited to multiplayer

Also, in an alternate universe where Magic hardliners specifically engineered the game so as to exclusively provide for 1 on 1 games, kitchen table playgroups everywhere around the globe found another tcg and made it big instead of Magic.

we all would have been better off in this scenario because it would would mean there is more than one game thriving in the realm of tcg
that would mean that wotc would have had to actually continue striving to maintain a quality and innovative product and not just been able to turn it into "planeswalkers the creature fighting" and be propped up by half of nerd-dom

again though, i am not against change and adaptation, but rather the half assed poorly thought out barely coherent amalgams that everyone has now settled for instead of genuine and thorough changes.

 

[Jonas]

I have to say that I generally dislike playing all kinda of multiplayer modes in magic, since they usually end up in giant boardstalled clusterfucks. I kinda liked to play "kejsare" I think some people here have called it king or something? If someone has a bad start, should you just kill them and put them out of their misery, or should you be nice to them and let them catch up and let them feel like a chump when their slow slow slow deck rolls everyone in the end because you let them? I have never had a satisfying end of a multiplayer game. It always feels forced, and never really like you managed to win the game yourself.
Mainly, it frustrates me to play magic in a multiplayer environment. I can play PVC once a year, but that's about it. (Planechase Vanguard Commander)

 

[Onderzeeboot]

But that's all just personal preference, not fact, isn't it? I had great multiplayer games with back and forth gameplay and epic plays, and I also had steaming pile of noninteractive crap because someone reanimated a Iona. That stuff also happens in 1 on 1, even more so I'ld wager because of the competitive nature. Not liking multiplayer games doesn't mean Magic's structure isn't suited to it.

Anyway, I'm plenty happy to weather the awkward wording of will of the council. It is a perfect match for the politics of multiplayer and feels right at home in this set. There are also lots of goodies that are cool in the 1 on 1 environment of our cubes, even if you skip the powerful will of the council cards, and a lot of cubes will be more interesting to play because of it.

 

[Dom Harvey]

The idea of a mana curve becomes ridiculously skewed in multiplayer, to the extent that aggro is basically unplayable.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

The concept of multiplayer predates the concept of aggro however

It also depends on the kind of multiplayer you play. Aggro is perfectly playable in 2hg, star or emperor (for the wingmen), for example. In edh and free for all you are indeed not going to hoist the trophy on the back of a strategy that's build to dish out 20 damage as fast as possible, what with you having to deal 2-4 times as much. That's not a flaw however, that's a characteristic of the format. In edh you can use cards and strategies not viable in 1 on 1 constructed land precisely because you start with more life and because you have more time to build up. It's called battle cruiser Magic for a reason

 

[James Stevenson]

on the contrary, i enjoy diversity a great deal.

I don't want to join this discussion, whatever it's about, I just wanted to point out how great this sentence is. I hope to hear it many more times in my life.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The concept of multiplayer predates the concept of aggro however

It also depends on the kind of multiplayer you play. Aggro is perfectly playable in 2hg, star or emperor (for the wingmen), for example. In edh and free for all you are indeed not going to hoist the trophy on the back of a strategy that's build to dish out 20 damage as fast as possible, what with you having to deal 2-4 times as much. That's not a flaw however, that's a characteristic of the format. In edh you can use cards and strategies not viable in 1 on 1 constructed land precisely because you start with more life and because you have more time to build up. It's called battle cruiser Magic for a reason

Yeah, I agree with all of this. The aggro example really hits home too.

Another thing that should be kept in mind is that there is less focus on multiplayer theory than there is single player theory, and people tend to just jam single player ideas into a multiplayer setting and the results can be pretty bad. My cube is 100% multiplayer and there were a lot of ideas and concepts from this board that I had to modify or discard because the theory behind them was rooted in single player being the only way people play cube.

 

[Jonas]

But that's all just personal preference, not fact, isn't it? I had great multiplayer games with back and forth gameplay and epic plays, and I also had steaming pile of noninteractive crap because someone reanimated a Iona. That stuff also happens in 1 on 1, even more so I'ld wager because of the competitive nature. Not liking multiplayer games doesn't mean Magic's structure isn't suited to it.

Anyway, I'm plenty happy to weather the awkward wording of will of the council. It is a perfect match for the politics of multiplayer and feels right at home in this set. There are also lots of goodies that are cool in the 1 on 1 environment of our cubes, even if you skip the powerful will of the council cards, and a lot of cubes will be more interesting to play because of it.

Of course it's all personal preference, I do most of my judging for having fun based on personal preference. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to enjoy multiplayer, even though my post might have seemed that way, only that from what I've played, it really isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Of course it's all personal preference, I do most of my judging for having fun based on personal preference. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to enjoy multiplayer, even though my post might have seemed that way, only that from what I've played, it really isn't my cup of tea.

That post was more in response to VibeBox who argued the fundamental rules and structure of Magic aren't suited for multiplayer, which is a load of poppycock if you ask me. I can totally respect that you and VibeBox are not into multiplayer, and I would certainly not want to convince you it's fun. That is, really, a matter of personal preference.

 

[ahadabans]

For those looking for a cool multi-player variant that DOES allow aggro/tempo to compete, you guys should try "Attack Left" (or "Right" - direction doesn't actually matter).

It's still technically free-for-all (you can target and attack anyone), but in order to win the game all you need to do is kill the guy to your left (or right - whatever you decide before the game). It plays a lot like 1 vs 1 initially, but then as life totals dwindle you have to start thinking about keeping people alive to buy yourself time to kill your target. Instead of ganging up on the winner (very common in traditional multi-player), you can't do that in this variant because if you do you are just losing the game (well, except for the one guy that benefits).

This is a much faster multi-player game too since the game ends with the first person dies, not the last person. People don't get left out and you can change it up by making different targets and switching seats. Outside two-headed giant, this is our groups most played variant.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

That sounds awesome, I am going to try that

 

[Eric Chan]

That post was more in response to VibeBox who argued the fundamental rules and structure of Magic aren't suited for multiplayer, which is a load of poppycock if you ask me. I can totally respect that you and VibeBox are not into multiplayer, and I would certainly not want to convince you it's fun. That is, really, a matter of personal preference.

Yeah, I don't really have any patience for grumpy old curmudgeons who argue that "Richard Garfield didn't intend for something something to be something something". He didn't intend for booster packs to be drafted, either, because drafting any of the very old sets is just an exercise in misery. It wasn't until the later stewards of the game figured out that the preexisting card rarity in packs could be used to enhance rather than hinder this burgeoning format that it started to take off.

And now here we are, with a website and community devoted to creating our own custom limited formats and drafting rules, none of which Richard envisioned when he created the game.

I don't see why fans of multiplayer Magic can't tweak the game in subtle ways for their own enjoyment, too, nor why anyone should begrudge them that right.

 

[VibeBox]

Yeah, I don't really have any patience for grumpy old curmudgeons who argue that "Richard Garfield didn't intend for something something to be something something".

it's not that he didn't want it to be played however people end up choosing to.
i'm saying that when he went about designing the core rules and processes of the game he did so with only 1 on 1 in mind. it was a necessity to get it through development and into production.
you all seem to keep thinking i'm making some argument about the "spirit" of the rules/game w/e. im not. i'm saying that if you want to play a multiplayer game magic was not designed to handle it at it's core.
i'm really not sure why that's being repeatedly misinterpreted. it's a plain fact

He didn't intend for booster packs to be drafted, either, because drafting any of the very old sets is just an exercise in misery. It wasn't until the later stewards of the game figured out that the preexisting card rarity in packs could be used to enhance rather than hinder this burgeoning format that it started to take off.

right, but that change in design
A: was made MUCH earlier
B: was instituted in a through and comprehensive way
C: was a much easier 'problem' to solve

I don't see why fans of multiplayer Magic can't tweak the game in subtle ways for their own enjoyment, too, nor why anyone should begrudge them that right.

i never said anything like this.
people can do whatever they want, but just because people do something doesn't mean it makes sense (see: impending human extinction to climate crisis)
if anything i'm saying that if people want to play multiplayer formats they need to make more changes to actually create a balanced game, which edh isn't even close to

 

[Chris Taylor]

For those looking for a cool multi-player variant that DOES allow aggro/tempo to compete, you guys should try "Attack Left" (or "Right" - direction doesn't actually matter).

It's still technically free-for-all (you can target and attack anyone), but in order to win the game all you need to do is kill the guy to your left (or right - whatever you decide before the game). It plays a lot like 1 vs 1 initially, but then as life totals dwindle you have to start thinking about keeping people alive to buy yourself time to kill your target. Instead of ganging up on the winner (very common in traditional multi-player), you can't do that in this variant because if you do you are just losing the game (well, except for the one guy that benefits).

This is a much faster multi-player game too since the game ends with the first person dies, not the last person. People don't get left out and you can change it up by making different targets and switching seats. Outside two-headed giant, this is our groups most played variant.

This actually sounds super sweet. I might try this next time someone convinces me to play EDH