General Color matters / devotion
- Thread starter CML
- Start date
Dom Harvey
Contributor
Except that the synergy-based decks rely on having consistent access to their drivers; a 3-of rule would lead to more generic goodstuff decks because 'good threats' and 'good disruption/removal' can be found in many forms (not much difference between 4 Hero's Downfall and 3/1 Doom Blade or 4 Brimaz and 3 Brimaz 1 Loxodon Smiter) whereas there's really no substitute for Eidolon of Blossoms in a Constellation deck.
Because you didn't follow the 4-of rule. BAD JONAS!
That's a fair criticism of a 3-of rule. And maybe it needs to be something like 4-of one card, 3-of two other cards, and 2-of everything else. That would still give a lot of flexibiliy to deck building while keeping super consistent exploit decks from being easy to assemble.
Point is, I still think we are all just clinging to an antiquated idea. Admittedly, I never competed at any level when I was really into the game (and now cube is all I will play period). But most of my favorite decks from the past were ones where I didn't maximize the 4-of thing. Were they the best decks? Probably not, but they were more enjoyable to play IMO because they could do more and react better to what other people were doing. They felt more "complete" versus the 9 x 4 decks that had a plan "A" and nothing else because you literally only had 9 fucking cards in the deck.
I just think there's a better mouse trap out there. It's sort of like mana and color screw. People feverishly defend that stuff as part of the game with statements like "you should have built a better mana base" or "you should have been more aggressive with you mulligan" or whatever, but really that's just a weakness of the game anyway you slice it. If I had billions of dollars, I'd buy MTG from Wizards and completely change the game. I'd probably put the game out of business in the process because my decisions wouldn't be about making money. But I'd find dudes that could take the game to the next level and I'd make it a better game in the end. Because the reality is it's a very good game but it could be better if some things were fixed in it. IMO, the 4-of rule is one of those things that should be changed, as is mana/color screw. Oh, and mythic rares. FUCK mythic rares. That shit would be gone so fast if I owned the rights to this game.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
Well,V:TES (another Richard Garfield design) doesn't have any limit on the number of copies of a card you can put in your deck at all and it isn't stifled because of that. Then again, Original Netrunner (yet another Richard Garfield design) also didn't have a limit on the number of copies on a card you could include and was extremely degenerate because of it.
Its probably related to the fact that in Magic and Netrunner cards are a resource while in V:TES they aren't.
Its probably related to the fact that in Magic and Netrunner cards are a resource while in V:TES they aren't.
Makes sense actually. I fancy myself an amateur game designer (I've designed dozens of games), so this topic is interesting to me. I often buy games with the intent of just learning how they work (knowing I'll never play them) because I find game mechanics very interesting. And no game I design is ever really finished. I keep evolving them over time.
Magic has a lot going for it. I think it's a very good game - I've been playing it for over a decade and that wouldn't have happened if I didn't really find it engaging. So my criticism should be taken lightly. To me though, nothing is beyond improvement.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
When I here things like this, I think about 18XX games. One of the best developed game series of all time, but basically everything about them guarantees that they appeal to almost no one.
When your publishing model is made to order, you're a niche game.
There are just so few cards across AMERICA that it just doesn't seem worth trying to push devotion for them. Black has some real spice, green has some OK stuff but I feel it's too weak. Only fanatic and Gary actually directly kill your opponent with no interaction. Nykthos has actually been an interesting tool to help decks reach their big drops without needing to play rocks or ramp.
I forget about this card. It seems not terrible. I've been trying black devotion with positive feedback so far, so I might give him a run. I also run Master of Waves currently, but that's pretty much where the theme stops (besides Thassa).
In my opinion, the Restricted List is what makes Vintage the most fun and interesting constructed format.
I like the one copy idea. I know some cards just don't work without multiples, so it's not that simple. But I find the decks that get built in cube to be considerably more interesting than anything that I've ever built or played against in constructed. One deck never plays the same game to game and that keeps it fresh and interesting and makes for unpredictable game states.
Cube is the greatest format ever as it combines all the best things about Magic.
Okay, there are two really interesting points here. I'll start with the latter: I don't think the 4-of rule hurts fringe decks. A ton of fringe decks rely on a high density of obscure interactions, and without four of each they can't really pad out properly. The closer you go to singleton with a finitely sized pool, the more you encourage more generic "good stuff" decks. I know there are a ton of exceptions, but I'll site my own cube. Multiples of Gravecrawler / Steppe Lynx allowed people to build much different decks than they did previously, but with one of each the density of interaction wasn't there.
The second point is the relationship Constructed has to Draft. Let's call it the "Storm Principle" because I want to confuse people who follow Rosewater's stuff: the fact that constructed exists means they have to neuter certain effects that can be built around. All the storm cards suck at whatever storm count you can naturally generate in cube, but can be super broken in constructed. The same type of thing affects devotion. For cube purposes some mechanics are really hamstrung by this.
Those are good points. I don't disagree that the more towards singleton you go the weaker you make combo-ish type decks (those decks that rely on one or two cards). I guess I'm just calling into question the original decision made 20 years ago to allow a 4 copy limit in a 60 card deck. I think it's safe to assume that Richard Garfield made lots of mistakes when he first made this game.
And those mistakes in particular are really glaring and happened because he really didn't fully understand his own game (not uncommon really for a game designer believe it or not - I routinely get beaten at my own games). I personally feel the 4-of rule is similar in that it creates more problems than it solves. But that's just my opinion and maybe I'd feel different if I actually played a different version of constructed and saw the flaws of that variant (all this is purely academic obviously). Cool discussion though.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
The idea was that he underestimated the popularity of the equipment game. He didn't think anyone would get 30 lotuses, and he was basically right.
Those cards above are completely broken even with just one copy. They are degenerate beyond belief. That's not just him thinking no one would have a bunch of lotuses. He didn't think through how badly costed those effects are and how they undermined the resource mechanic of his own game.
Richard made a great game, but I'm NOT giving him a pass on these cards. Sorry. There is no excuse for how poorly designed they are.
Ugh, I mean, nobody knew where the game would go. I remember reading that he was aware they were broken, but you don't really expect your homebrew game to spawn an international tournament scene.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
More to the point, what other competitive, customizable game was there at the time to look at for precedent?
Magic really was in uncharted waters at the time and I imagine that Mr. Garfield didn't realize people would view the cards as an unassailable right to break the game rather then simply a set of tools for having fun.
Though I'm still trying to figure out in what way Ancestral Recall could ever be interpreted as being fun.
Magic really was in uncharted waters at the time and I imagine that Mr. Garfield didn't realize people would view the cards as an unassailable right to break the game rather then simply a set of tools for having fun.
Though I'm still trying to figure out in what way Ancestral Recall could ever be interpreted as being fun.
Fair enough. By by that same token, I'm pretty sure the "4-of" rule was the same kind of thing. Thumb in the air - that sounds good. Where did he come up with 60 cards for a constructed deck? Even number pretty close to how many cards in a deck of playing cards?
All I'm getting at is some of this stuff was just made up in the beginning and it's great that everyone has just played that way for 20+ years, but by the same token I don't know why people haven't questioned some of this (and maybe they have, I don't know but I've never read about any of that anywhere). Maybe you'd get a better flavor of constructed if you micro-managed the number of copies similar to a restricted list (or went 3-of instead). Or changed how many cards made up a deck (50 instead of 60, whatever). Or added some kind of card replacement rule to deal with mana flood/screw (remove a card from your hand and draw a card - take this action only once per turn and before your draw step). There are just a lot of ways you could make small alterations to the game and potentially get more out of it is all I'm getting at.
I bring this up because this group has done that with cube actually (so I half expected more traction). Someone came up with the idea cube way back whenever and decided originally it was singleton and powermax. And there are guys dogmatically following that 10 years later like it's a holy institution, but other guys (here in particular) realized that's kind of retarded and decided you could make a better cube if you broke singleton and didn't run all the most powerful cards ever. And so cube has evolved. Well, how about evolving magic the actual game in a similar way? Some guys here are already running completely fabricated magic cards, adding small tweaks to the gameplay really doesn't feel like a huge stretch to me.
This has totally derailed from the thread topic and I apologize. I should probably start a new thread at this point.
magic actually originally started with 40 card decks, the 60 card minimum was introduced at the same time as the 4 card limit.
the problem with micromanaging numbers on a card-by-card basis is that it is overly complex for no reason.
as far as going down to 3 card or 2 card instead of 4, i don't see the point, if anything, it would encourage goodstuff type decks more. I'm a big fan of goodstuff type decks but the game doesn't need to encourage it even more
you say the 4 of rule lets people "assemble very consistent decks that can exploit the inevitable weaknesses of the card pool." except the same thing happens in singleton formats very very very often. the hermit druid combo decks in edh are basically the tier 1 of the format and they don't even rely on casting a commander except as a vague backup plan (usually a 5 color guy they just pick so they dont have restrictions during deckbuilding)
consistent decks aren't even inherently evil, in fact, i'd argue, they are quite an admirable goal
the problem with micromanaging numbers on a card-by-card basis is that it is overly complex for no reason.
as far as going down to 3 card or 2 card instead of 4, i don't see the point, if anything, it would encourage goodstuff type decks more. I'm a big fan of goodstuff type decks but the game doesn't need to encourage it even more
you say the 4 of rule lets people "assemble very consistent decks that can exploit the inevitable weaknesses of the card pool." except the same thing happens in singleton formats very very very often. the hermit druid combo decks in edh are basically the tier 1 of the format and they don't even rely on casting a commander except as a vague backup plan (usually a 5 color guy they just pick so they dont have restrictions during deckbuilding)
consistent decks aren't even inherently evil, in fact, i'd argue, they are quite an admirable goal
Well, you have to remember that every cube is its own draft format, and is self-contained. You can make up whatever wacky house rules you want for the cube contents, the structure of the draft itself, and the deck construction, and only the eight people at the table have to adapt to that ruleset, and only for three hours at a time.
Meanwhile, it doesn't do anyone any good to invent a constructed format without getting a number of other people to agree to it up front. You can create a new fifty-card, max-three-of format, but who are you going to play against? Now, of course, that's not to say it can't be done. Without knowing anything about how it originated, I imagine this is how EDH started - a bunch of guys (well, judges, really) agreeing to a one-hundred-card singleton format, with life totals adjusted to forty. Before Modern began, a player organized the community and kicked off the Overextended format, which became popular enough to convince Wizards that a non-rotating, non-Legacy format was worth supporting in official capacity.
So there are examples in history of this working out for the best. At the same time, the road is littered on both sides with dead self-created constructed formats that never took off beyond birth. From my viewpoint, inventing constructed formats is less about game design and more about rallying a large number of people behind your cause, so that you gain enough momentum behind the format until it becomes self-sustaining. That's way easier said than done.
Meanwhile, it doesn't do anyone any good to invent a constructed format without getting a number of other people to agree to it up front. You can create a new fifty-card, max-three-of format, but who are you going to play against? Now, of course, that's not to say it can't be done. Without knowing anything about how it originated, I imagine this is how EDH started - a bunch of guys (well, judges, really) agreeing to a one-hundred-card singleton format, with life totals adjusted to forty. Before Modern began, a player organized the community and kicked off the Overextended format, which became popular enough to convince Wizards that a non-rotating, non-Legacy format was worth supporting in official capacity.
So there are examples in history of this working out for the best. At the same time, the road is littered on both sides with dead self-created constructed formats that never took off beyond birth. From my viewpoint, inventing constructed formats is less about game design and more about rallying a large number of people behind your cause, so that you gain enough momentum behind the format until it becomes self-sustaining. That's way easier said than done.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Being as cool as I am: evidenced by me owning a copy of Bradly Games Totally Unauthorized Magic the Gathering: Advanced Players Guide from circa 1996, duck-taped together and well-read: I may perhaps be able to shed some light on the question, through referencing this tome.
No less a name than Mark Justice, on page 153, informs us--when discussing his sweet Type 1 winds of change deck--that "the first lesson any Type 1 player needs to learn is that the magic number is 60. The number should be as sacred as 10 was to Moses, or 23 is to bulls fans. Never, under any circumstances, should you pullute your deck with a single extra card...Very rarely are you going to have an easy time making the choices necessary to cut your deck down to 60. But these choices separate the elite players from those who are merely very good. If you want to rely on pure luck, play at 70. If you want to be a rebel, play at 61. But if you want to maximize your statistical advantage and overall winning percentage, stick to 60."
I'm not sure what the rational for a 60 card minimum was, but at least the idea for a 60 card maximum seems to have come from the players themselves.
Also, his list of top 10 best creatures in Type 1 includes Orgg and Sol'kanar the Swamp King--how times have changed.
I feel that this idea is somewhat antiquated now. In limited, if you want to maximize your statistical advantage, there are times when it is reasonable to run 41 cards. Case in point: let's say that after drafting, you use math and/or computers to determine that there should be 56% nonlands and 44% lands in your deck. Running 17 lands provides a 42.5% land percentage, whereas 18 gives 45%. Running 18 lands in a 41 card deck, however, gives you 43.9%.
Obviously this needs to be tempered with the overall consistency of your deck. If you deck is more reliant on drawing your 1 or 2 bombs, sticking with 40 is probably your best bet.