Sets [KTK] Khans of Tarkir Spoilers
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
Not surprised, isn't that your head you're holding up?
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Interesting! I didn't actually know oloro was so reviled, but I agree with the rest of it.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I like this thread.
I had a rant post all written out in the commander spoiler thread, but decided against posting it, because what's another rant on the internet? just another drop in the ocean eh? But then it shows up in this thread as well.
I think the disappointing aspect about this forum is the degrading and the hating on multi-player magic, commander etc. It's really enough to put some people off coming here, because well, when it comes to this you might as well just go back to MTGS. I know it's a cube forum, but it is clear that other aspects of magic can be discussed here with intelligence and insight. Unless it's commander. You're not playing a real game if you are playing commander.
Sure I'm probably just being precious about it all, but you certainly don't feel welcome here if you do play commander/muliplayer magic.
I think the disappointing aspect about this forum is the degrading and the hating on multi-player magic, commander etc. It's really enough to put some people off coming here, because well, when it comes to this you might as well just go back to MTGS. I know it's a cube forum, but it is clear that other aspects of magic can be discussed here with intelligence and insight. Unless it's commander. You're not playing a real game if you are playing commander.
Sure I'm probably just being precious about it all, but you certainly don't feel welcome here if you do play commander/muliplayer magic.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I wonder if Ninjutsu will be a returning mechanic...
Edit: Because out of all existing non-morph mechanics, it feels the most sneaky, and thus a good fitting mechanic for the Cunning clan (Jeskai?
in any case).
Edit: Because out of all existing non-morph mechanics, it feels the most sneaky, and thus a good fitting mechanic for the Cunning clan (Jeskai?
in any case).
Laz
Developer
I agree, there is a lot of needless hostility. Looking at it, I feel a lot of it is because we are all kind of Spikes, at least from a game-design standpoint. We want games to be interesting and decided by 'a series of meaningful decisions', however multiplayer magic undermines this a lot because of the fact that decisions are somewhat divorced from the game-play elements. The outcomes of games are virtually always decided by political factors instead. This is a painful anathema to our game-design, since we want to create environments where games are decided by drafting and play skill.
While I have had an absolute blast playing multiplayer Magic formats, it never feels that it really matters if I play good Magic or if I play mediocre Magic. While this isn't the experience I want to create for people who are obliging enough to draft and play my Cube, I understand people want to play games that way, and indeed, I too love some big silly multiplayer games sometimes (usually with beer and pizza). I couldn't really care less if people love both designing Cubes and playing Commander, though I do think the two are at completely opposite ends of the casual spectrum.
Laz
Developer
Oh, on topic post...
It has always irked me that so many of the morph cards only trigger 'when ~ is turned face-up...' and not also 'when ~ enters the battlefield'. For some, this is because you are paying a premium over the body for the effect, but for others it just makes no sense, because they are costed such that just casting the creature is a horrible option. Also, it makes them horrible with Birthing Pod, GSZ, etc...
Crossed fingers for slightly less irksome implementation this time.
It has always irked me that so many of the morph cards only trigger 'when ~ is turned face-up...' and not also 'when ~ enters the battlefield'. For some, this is because you are paying a premium over the body for the effect, but for others it just makes no sense, because they are costed such that just casting the creature is a horrible option. Also, it makes them horrible with Birthing Pod, GSZ, etc...
Crossed fingers for slightly less irksome implementation this time.
The most fun part of a game of magic is taking your turn. During games of Commander, you spend extended periods of time just sitting and watching other people take their turns. It gets really tiresome. Add to that the nonsensical banned list, the utter disrespect for mana curves, and all the unspoken rules (omg _____ is so unfun) and you have a seriously unappealing format.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
It's fun, and certainly the most variable format I've ever played.
I've had a maestro wandered deck sine he came out, and the amount of cards I've had to take out because they worked too well struck me as odd.
Worldly tutor. Brainstorm. Avenger of zendikar. Etc.
I removed them to make the games fun, but they did make my deck worse, and a lot of deck builders find that unacceptable
I've had a maestro wandered deck sine he came out, and the amount of cards I've had to take out because they worked too well struck me as odd.
Worldly tutor. Brainstorm. Avenger of zendikar. Etc.
I removed them to make the games fun, but they did make my deck worse, and a lot of deck builders find that unacceptable
Dom Harvey
Contributor
To expand on what Laz said, Commander as a format doesn't mesh that well with Magic's resource system - unless all players are consciously designing their decks to play over the board in the early game, there's no incentive to play cheap threats and it just degenerates into what might be called 'battlecruiser Magic' except it's not nearly as exciting as that - it's a slow, plodding mess where nothing happens forever.
The most interesting aspect of multiplayer - the politics - is shunned by most Commander groups, which only results in it resurfacing in the form of passive-aggressively trying to impose your own definition of fun on the other players. When all players are trying to win, there's a common goal and something to base the game around; a lot of Commander games seem to be about winning almost accidentally and not being seen to try to win before every player's had their 20 minutes to durdle around casting 8-drops lest you be labelled an asshole.
It also ruins any dialogue about new cards and does really bad things to design. Whenever a new set comes out you can be guaranteed that any discussion of interesting cards or mechanics will be crowded out by Commander players gushing about yet another 7-mana sweeper or w/e, and every set is filled with expensive multicoloured legends that they don't have to put any effort into designing because they know the Commander crowd will eat them up.
If you enjoy Commander or have a good playgroup for it, great, but in my experience it's miserable for most people involved whether they would admit it or not. </CML>
The most interesting aspect of multiplayer - the politics - is shunned by most Commander groups, which only results in it resurfacing in the form of passive-aggressively trying to impose your own definition of fun on the other players. When all players are trying to win, there's a common goal and something to base the game around; a lot of Commander games seem to be about winning almost accidentally and not being seen to try to win before every player's had their 20 minutes to durdle around casting 8-drops lest you be labelled an asshole.
It also ruins any dialogue about new cards and does really bad things to design. Whenever a new set comes out you can be guaranteed that any discussion of interesting cards or mechanics will be crowded out by Commander players gushing about yet another 7-mana sweeper or w/e, and every set is filled with expensive multicoloured legends that they don't have to put any effort into designing because they know the Commander crowd will eat them up.
If you enjoy Commander or have a good playgroup for it, great, but in my experience it's miserable for most people involved whether they would admit it or not. </CML>
Laz
Developer
Interestingly though, we remove cards from our Cubes all of the time for this very reason. Strategies become dominating and unfun, so we tweak the supporting cards to even it out. Commander is somewhat game-design by committee, except that every member of that committee then plays their definition of that game design in a competitive format.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
Unless a game specifically has negotiation as a mechanic, I really hate when people use negotiation in a game. Negotiation is basically a means to avoid interacting with the language of the game: the creation of incentive structures, emergent alliances and mastery of the mechanics all get thrown out the window and are replaced by a social manipulation/popularity contest. This is bad, because it makes all games into basically the same thing with different nouns and components. I mean, its fine if you enjoy negotiation games. I love Quo Vadis and Traders of Genoa, I just don't want all games to be that. I want to explore and enjoy different games and immerse myself in the unique language that makes them beautiful.
The problem with multiplayer Magic is that it doesn't really offer any interesting incentive structures and emergent alliances are basically only shallow "lets bash the leader so we don't lose" situations. People attempt to hack it with social contract so that it works, but as the rules are written Commander doesn't actually support the gameplay it intends on producing. Social contract hacking is particularly frustrating because it travels poorly, as can be gathered by every "I played Commander with they dudes and they did it all wrong" horror stories.
The problem with multiplayer Magic is that it doesn't really offer any interesting incentive structures and emergent alliances are basically only shallow "lets bash the leader so we don't lose" situations. People attempt to hack it with social contract so that it works, but as the rules are written Commander doesn't actually support the gameplay it intends on producing. Social contract hacking is particularly frustrating because it travels poorly, as can be gathered by every "I played Commander with they dudes and they did it all wrong" horror stories.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Of course Commander doesn't have to be free for all. Star Magic or 5 Player Collapse are fun formats for specifically 5 players, but Attack Left is also quite good.
I really hate free-for-all Magic, but some of my favorite "gaming" experiences of all time have involved free-for-all formats.
Ownage
This pubescantly named game was a 5-player, real life arena combat game won by the last man standing. Basically, you have 5 people on this small park playground arena, each person holding a tennis ball and with 10 other tennis balls scattered about on the ground. One player (the previous round's winner) starts at the center of the structure, most vulnerable to attack. The other four start on the ground, in the sand, at the four corners of the arena.
To eliminate a player, you hit them with a tennis ball. Players may legally block using the part of their arms from their elbow to their fingertips. If you catch (with one hand) an opposing throw, that player is knocked out.
Players may not hold more than one tennis ball at a time.
As a "last man standing" format, the prevailing strategy could, in theory, be to hide and avoid conflict until the end of the round. We collectively played under the cringey mantra "play to own, not to win". Rounds were quick, usually about a minute. And exhausting. Nobody kept count of the number of times each player won.
Winning happened as a biproduct. What we remembered were the amazing plays. The evasive maneuvers, creative kills. Some of the plays still remain in my memory. Here we made it work by eschewing (as players) power-max for fun-max. The game might be really dumb it played "competitively".
Phantom
I don't remember many of Phantom's rules any more. It was a 3-player pool game (pool as in billiards) we invented that used 9 balls, and some semi-complex rules for player elimination. From what I remember, upon sinking a ball, you got to choose whether you played with balls 1-3, 4-6, or 7-9 as your own. You had to shoot at opposing balls in order, e.g. you couldn't shoot at ball 5 until ball 4 had been sunk. So at the beginning you are shooting at balls 1, 4, and 7. But you could sink balls off of deflection. e.g. shoot hitting the 4, which knocks the 9 into a pocket.
If you scratched each opponent got a ball back. There were other rules I can't recall.
The mechanics of the game made it very challenging to actually "team up" on anyone. And there was never any disincentive to play your best. Shooting well and winning were very naturally correlated. Here, the rules we put in place didn't violate the underlying mechanics of pool.
Munchkin
Some of my worst gaming experiences are from this game. Some of my best as well.
Munchkin, as designed, is a terrible game that incentivizes players to hold on to their interaction until somebody is about to win, and there being some dumb Russian Roullette thing where everybody gets to Level 9 and then somebody walks it in because everyone else ran out of interaction. It's also atrocious with any more than 4 players.
In college I had a good 4-player Munchkin group. We used a number of house rules and a custom-curated stack of piles that were chosen to provide fun gameplay. This was, in a way, my first "cube"-like experience.
And we were aggressive as hell. We got started early with complex, creative and competing deals. We had deals that were "legally binding", and others that were more open to interpretation. Munchkin "working" required a perfect crucible of player count, player attitude, house rules and a custom pile to provide fun. It was a very fragile system.
Every other time I've played Munchkin has been a waste of time. It's not an inherently good game. This is how I imagine EDH to be. I'm sure there are specific conditions under which free-for-all EDH can be fun and rewarding, but it takes a lot of engineering and is all to easy to get wrong.
Ownage
This pubescantly named game was a 5-player, real life arena combat game won by the last man standing. Basically, you have 5 people on this small park playground arena, each person holding a tennis ball and with 10 other tennis balls scattered about on the ground. One player (the previous round's winner) starts at the center of the structure, most vulnerable to attack. The other four start on the ground, in the sand, at the four corners of the arena.
To eliminate a player, you hit them with a tennis ball. Players may legally block using the part of their arms from their elbow to their fingertips. If you catch (with one hand) an opposing throw, that player is knocked out.
Players may not hold more than one tennis ball at a time.
As a "last man standing" format, the prevailing strategy could, in theory, be to hide and avoid conflict until the end of the round. We collectively played under the cringey mantra "play to own, not to win". Rounds were quick, usually about a minute. And exhausting. Nobody kept count of the number of times each player won.
Winning happened as a biproduct. What we remembered were the amazing plays. The evasive maneuvers, creative kills. Some of the plays still remain in my memory. Here we made it work by eschewing (as players) power-max for fun-max. The game might be really dumb it played "competitively".
Phantom
I don't remember many of Phantom's rules any more. It was a 3-player pool game (pool as in billiards) we invented that used 9 balls, and some semi-complex rules for player elimination. From what I remember, upon sinking a ball, you got to choose whether you played with balls 1-3, 4-6, or 7-9 as your own. You had to shoot at opposing balls in order, e.g. you couldn't shoot at ball 5 until ball 4 had been sunk. So at the beginning you are shooting at balls 1, 4, and 7. But you could sink balls off of deflection. e.g. shoot hitting the 4, which knocks the 9 into a pocket.
If you scratched each opponent got a ball back. There were other rules I can't recall.
The mechanics of the game made it very challenging to actually "team up" on anyone. And there was never any disincentive to play your best. Shooting well and winning were very naturally correlated. Here, the rules we put in place didn't violate the underlying mechanics of pool.
Munchkin
Some of my worst gaming experiences are from this game. Some of my best as well.
Munchkin, as designed, is a terrible game that incentivizes players to hold on to their interaction until somebody is about to win, and there being some dumb Russian Roullette thing where everybody gets to Level 9 and then somebody walks it in because everyone else ran out of interaction. It's also atrocious with any more than 4 players.
In college I had a good 4-player Munchkin group. We used a number of house rules and a custom-curated stack of piles that were chosen to provide fun gameplay. This was, in a way, my first "cube"-like experience.
And we were aggressive as hell. We got started early with complex, creative and competing deals. We had deals that were "legally binding", and others that were more open to interpretation. Munchkin "working" required a perfect crucible of player count, player attitude, house rules and a custom pile to provide fun. It was a very fragile system.
Every other time I've played Munchkin has been a waste of time. It's not an inherently good game. This is how I imagine EDH to be. I'm sure there are specific conditions under which free-for-all EDH can be fun and rewarding, but it takes a lot of engineering and is all to easy to get wrong.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Munchkin is responsible for what is probably my worst gaming experience ever. I've played games that just didn't pan out (Thunderstone Advance comes to mind as a recent example), but none of those left the playgroup grumpy, down and irritated at each other quite like the last time I played Munchkin. I still love the humor of that game, but I just can't bring myself to play another game.
I'm assuming this will be there:
One of my favorite mechanics from Hearthstone is Secret, and this seems like the perfect time to co-opt it into Magic, through Morph. I hope to see trap-like zero-cost turn-face-up triggers, and I hope to see 2/2's morphing into enchantments, artifacts, and instants.
One of my favorite mechanics from Hearthstone is Secret, and this seems like the perfect time to co-opt it into Magic, through Morph. I hope to see trap-like zero-cost turn-face-up triggers, and I hope to see 2/2's morphing into enchantments, artifacts, and instants.
Cast it without paying its mana cost is more likely, they hate using "the stack" on cards.
IIRC at the the SDCC panel they showed this and said it was how morph was flavored in the world- the clans using 'ancient dragon magic' to disguise themselves. Sounds/looks kinda dumb to me, to be honest. A WHOLE BUNCH OF FIREBALLS COLLIDE ON THE BATTLEFIELD
