General Oh god it's my two least favorite topics in magic

[Chris Taylor]

Well, I'm likely going to regret this, but:
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/the-face-walker-problem

So first things first: Saffron Olive is a great author, go check out his articles.
However, this one is (In a veiled way) about MTG Finance and Standard, both topics I've never found particularly uplifting. Interesting in the way following the american election process can be as a foreigner, you know?

The basic thrust is that WtoC's push to make planeswalkers the face of magic is damaging the game part in service of the brand part. A powerful gideon sells funko pop figurines (Hell he's sitting on my desk right now) but standard is pretty damn miserable for his presence.
They're pushed specifically to make sure people see them when they tune into starcity opens and the like, but they tend to be so powerful they push out similar options
He specifically mentions these two cards as an example:



And while I laugh at the fact they share half a name, I hadn't really drawn this conclusion myself, despite currently cubing both cards

However, the reason I'm actually sharing this with you all (Other than to plug an author I like) is the solutions at the end of the article:

1) Slightly weaker planeswalkers (Chandra, Pyromaster more than Tibalt, for eg)
2) Evergreen Planswalker hate
3) Less total planeswalkers
4) Narrower planeswalkers

And while some of these problems aren't really applicable to cube designers like us (Players don't just choose the cards they're running for example, so obviously worse versions of given cards can still see play, for eg) I'm sure some of these might be helpful.

#1 Weaker Walkers is easy, and mirror's what Grillo's been saying for years now: lower your power level

#2 is easy for us and hard for wizards: Just keep adding cards that can interact with walkers. Maybe pithing needle isn't great for your format, but how many of us are still running dreadbore? Maybe double up on Hero's downfall? Add another Oblivion Ring? Cross out one of the White mana Symbols on planar cleansing perhaps?

#3 is also easy, literally just remove walkers from your cube. Exact numbers are obviously subjective.

#4 is the part that's interesting to me. I've always been of the opinion that planeswalkers aren't UNILATERALLY bad, despite a few of my friends insistence.

Part of this suggestion is that most of the typically good planeswalkers are so broadly applicable that they end up being the best card you can draw when you're behind, and the best card you can draw while you're ahead (I'm practically quoting the article there), and as such there's basically no reason you shouldn't include them in a deck.

However, when you switch from something like Chandra, Torch of Defiance to something like (on the extreme end) Tezzeret the Seeker, realistically you won't have 7 walker decks because they all put different demands on your deckbuilding.

So look, maybe this sounds like Starcitygames select's most generic babies first cube guide to planeswalkers, but I had a player tell me that Dreadbore was a card that should NEVER leave my cube. And to be perfectly honest, I thought dreadbore was generic as hell, really boring and overlapped a lot with Kolaghan's Command (You know, red/black killspell that also hits a hard to remove permanent type) and that I didn't need both.

But considering it, and given how many of the flagship walkers I've cut recently, I think it serves well to be reminded every now and again, and maybe act as a guide for anybody trying to make walkers of their own.

Also Inb4Ahbadans

 

[ahadabans]

I feel obligated to reply. Read the article and - unsurprisingly - quite enjoyed it. Thanks for posting.

Predictably perhaps... I'm reminded how great Cube is as a format because I can continue to pretend the card type simply does not exist regardless of how hard Wizard's pushes them and completely irrespective of whether they address the problem or not.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The main problem with WOTC's design right now is that they don't know what they want for the game--other than to create really easy reasons for people to buy packs, and I think some people are starting to get frustrated with it.

They don't know if they want the game to be a real e-sport--somewhat bland, with ultra low variance--or if they want a fun casual experience with broad variance, and bright swingy plays. The flagship format is standard, which is promoted in a way where it absurdly has to appeal to a goofy FNM crowd, and also people looking to be sharks at the pro-tour. They are so out of touch with the core appeal of their game, that they brilliantly printed these two cards for the same standard:



Genius! One is a wacky high variance card that is good for casual play, but miserable for competitive. The other completely wreaks casuals, who get to feel like actual idiots for running that sweet woodland wanderer that WOTC is also telling them to run. EUGINE TO THE PRESSESS!

You see that split intent with the way they run the pro-tour. While I am 100% for the idea of using competitive events as marketing events, I am also 100% against placing the focus on the product rather than on the competitors.

What I wish they would do is just copy what gears of war 4 did, and just promote separate casual and competitive experiences.

However, we found that what the serious competitive players wanted and what the core Gears players wanted were too different to try to make a single tuning set.

Rather than trying to please everyone and end up pleasing no one, we decided that we would split the tuning into two sets, Core and Competitive. We want Gears fans to be able to play the game that we all know and love while simultaneously ensuring we provide a Competitive experience that can stand up to coordinated team based play at the highest level. This way, we hope Gears fans will be happy in being able to choose the experience they want to play, and really hone their abilities in an environment that takes more than just individual skill to excel in. Players can move between the tuning sets and their skills will still transfer between the two. The less lethal Competitive Settings mean landing consistent shots, making smart decisions and coordinating as a team become more important, but the fundamentals of the game are still the same. This approach also provides a clear step of progression for players looking to take their skills to the next level.

As always, maintaining a balanced experience that still rewards skilled players absolutely remains a fundamental pillar of our design for the Gears Versus experience.

They basically made an accessible version of the game with high variance and play diversity, so that less skilled players could still have fun and feel good about themselves (Cards not Decks). You have lots of individual excitement, the gameplay is less predictable, grows stale much slower, but the broader the variance the more it minimizes the importance of skillful gameplay. Thats fine though, because its just a bunch of nobodies playing, running around having fun. (as an aside, this is why power max cube, as deplorable as it is, still maintains appeal.)

Than their competitive format is basically nerfing the weapons so you actually have to work together as a team (Decks not Cards). We minimize the variance that cheapens competition, but at the cost of excitement, the gameplay becomes more predictable, and might even come across as bland. Thats, fine though, because the focus of the audiance is shifted to the competition between personalities, while the spikes can nerd out on their "interesting decisions."

I feel that this is a hard pill for a lot of magic players to swallow, who still want to have a good competitive experience, but are at the same time going on and on about the importance of format diversity, and saffron falls for the same trap.

Perhaps the most obvious problem with planeswalkers is that they greatly reduce the number of cards that are playable in the format because they are just so much better than everything else.

Apart from decreasing diversity, planeswalkers have another major impact on the game: they tend to push everything to the middle of the curve.

Planeswalkers aren't the only reason for the shift to the midrange-on-midrange-on-midrange metagame that has become common over the past few Standards.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of walkers being powerful, none of these points he mentions are actually bad if we are trying to craft a truly competitive format. I've been thinking about this a lot since the min/max, but if we were to craft magic from the ground up as a competitive format, it probably would be midrange on midrange, a carefully tailored jund fest, with maybe slight tugs of the curve up or down, to reflect aggro or control. This is reflected in another--I would argue similarly misplaced article--by Brian DeMars.

I was having a conversation with my teammates about Standard and the potential bannings, and my friend Kyle Boggemes made a point about the nature of Standard that I’d like to unpack.

The first problem with Standard is that midrange is just too good. Believe me, I've mocked midrange and the motivations of those who devote their lives to it when it isn’t good. But the times have changed—midrange is the king of Standard and has been for a while now.

Midrange being OP is a direct function of the cards that Wizards has produced over the past few years. Midrange cards are just better than the cards that do other things. To be clear, Mardu Vehicles is an aggro midrange deck, B/G Constrictor is a pure midrange deck, and Saheeli is a midrange deck with a combo kill.

In a rock, scissors, paper metagame Mardu is aggro, Saheeli combo, and B/G midrange, but in actuality all of these play midrange game plans.

Which is consistent with my own experiences in cube--aggro is can or worms if you run it how we traditionally think of aggro, and even if you do push curve-outs its neither fun nor particularly good for competitive play. Traditional aggro's entire miserable gameplan is built around exploiting the game's absurd levels of natural negative variance. ugh. It probably should never have existed, and magic is filled with a litany of vestigial mechanics, decks, cards, and themes that reflect this.

When you build around a midrange concept, yes you get much less format diversity, but you get much more format consistency. Games go longer, there is more time for decks to work through their natural quirks and spasms created by bad hands, mulligans, and mana flood or screw. But at the same time its active, things are occurring, its not like a boring hard control mirror with players staring at each other for 45 minutes hoping not to time out.

The main actual issue going on, is that because WOTC is unilaterally changing standard as an entity, rather than splitting the experience into two camps, is that they are starting to alienate players. And you can see that in the absurdity of some of the recommendations, coming from players like Saffron and DeMars, who I speculate are more core casual players, and find this sudden shift uncomfortable.

The best tell of this is when DeMars absurdly starts waxing nostalgic for the diversity of Ravinca standard and to bring back "not fun strategies." I can't think of a more self-defeating statement, other than to note that the reason we got planeswalkers in the first place was because RAV-TSP standard was so diverse and off-putting to players, that tournament attendance suddenly dropped.

 

[Diakonov]

It might also be useful to consider--in a game as complex as Magic--how many different axes of gameplay there are to each individual's enjoyment, and that each of these axes are truly a spectrum.

For an example of spectrum, I wouldn't consider myself "casual" or "competitive", as I am somewhere in between the two. I'm playing the game to win, hopefully through interesting mechanisms and decision-making. However, I don't want to dedicate the time and effort required to truly play the game competitively. I would even argue that this is essentially the case for most people on this forum.

If we apply this idea to the general population of Magic players, a simple splitting can be tough to do. I agree that it's probably still a good idea, but you'd have to take extreme care to not alienate the middle group in doing so. (In WOTC's defense, they have at least done a very good job of providing support for the casual market over the last few years.)

To consider the other axes: in another recent thread the question of whether or not aggro can be fun or even necessary came up. The common response seemed to be that "aggro is easy and for new players." I could relate to the sentiment, but I couldn't escape the knowledge that I DO enjoy playing aggro sometimes.

Reason #1

The richness of a Magic draft is in its many layers of game.

Layer A. Draft the best combination of cards (Strategic & Creative)

Layer B. Build the best deck possible with those cards (Strategic & Creative)

Layer C. Play the games (Tactical)

My friends and I really enjoy the speculation aspect of a Magic draft. Looking at the packs and connecting the dots between what the strongest available deck is with no discrimination is super fun, with the accompanied bragging when you know you managed to draft an incredible pool. This slides right into deckbuilding, my favorite aspect of the game, which could arguably be included with layer A.

I'm pretty certain that our group has an overall preference for the strategic side of the game. I have a friend who loves to participate in odd-numbered drafts (i.e. 9 man) just so he can bow out after building his deck. The existence of aggro contributes to this part of the game.

Reason #2

I enjoy games which provide me with a variety of strategies to try.

Although I tend to prefer mid-range strategies, I do not want to always draft mid-range. I like being able to mix it up and play the game in very different ways. If I know that the dominant archetype is, let's say, mid-range pod, then I want to be able to make a strong strategic decision to counter that through smart deck-building. Also, just for the sake of the spice of life, and allowing players to exercise creativity. This is what drew me to Magic in the first place.

To bring it back to my initial statement, we can't dismiss the fact that some players enjoy variety more than others. It's a totally different axis than casual vs. competitive. Some players may specifically want to play mid-range decks, forever, while others may feel prohibitively constrained by this. I'll tell you one thing: Jon Finkel wouldn't be happy with an e-sports-style format.

 

[Chriskool]

I've been looking into older competitive formats in an effort to scale-up to cube-based grid design, and I wonder which planeswalkers would be acceptable in the era of pre-rotation Extended:

http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=EX&meta=41

Some events, like PT NOLA 01 and GP VEGAS 01 have many deck lists in the source link.

Look at some of these decks! Instead of titans, Griselbrand or Eldrazi, creatures like Multani, Maro-Sorcerer, Verdant Force, Morphling, Spiritmonger or Avatar of Woe saw play! A deck like The Rock, Three-Duece or PT Junk won games with River Boa or Yavimaya Elders. A planeswalker that would offer interesting lines of play in this environment is one I would be happy to include in a grid/cube.

 

[Salmo2]

Part of the major appeal for cube to me is the diversity of decks. And it's interesting to see what hits the table after a draft. If every time we sit down and draft it turns into mid-range v mid-range, that starts to become a really boring format.

See: current MTGO Modern Cube. There are a variety of reasons why that cube is lacking, but anywhere you look the main criticism is that it's always mid-range vs mid-range, and that's a very real criticism. The control options are severely lacking, the aggressive decks only exist in mono red or R/x, and the best decks are midrange decks and that is almost always. There is a consistency, sure, but it is a mega boring consistency,

I can't speak to standard, and thankfully I'll never have to do that since cube is the best and we just get to leach off the Reflector Mages and Emrakuls of the magic world. I understand the appeal of consistent games and interesting decisions, but there is a lot more appeal to big swingy plays too from all theaters and that's what I really enjoy and it seems like what most people who approach cube want.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

It might also be useful to consider--in a game as complex as Magic--how many different axes of gameplay there are to each individual's enjoyment, and that each of these axes are truly a spectrum.

For an example of spectrum, I wouldn't consider myself "casual" or "competitive", as I am somewhere in between the two. I'm playing the game to win, hopefully through interesting mechanisms and decision-making. However, I don't want to dedicate the time and effort required to truly play the game competitively. I would even argue that this is essentially the case for most people on this forum.

If we apply this idea to the general population of Magic players, a simple splitting can be tough to do. I agree that it's probably still a good idea, but you'd have to take extreme care to not alienate the middle group in doing so. (In WOTC's defense, they have at least done a very good job of providing support for the casual market over the last few years.)

In GOW, they use the term "core" rather than "casual" which sidesteps a lot of the semantics issues going on here, but I was reluctant to use it as it would be an unfamiliar term. I would say that you represent the type of environment that the vast majority of mtg players would enjoy--the "core experience" with deck diversity reasonable variance, and varied archetypes. Modern to me seems like a good example of how such a format would feel, and I would cite its popularity as proof that players respond well to those variables.

See: current MTGO Modern Cube. There are a variety of reasons why that cube is lacking, but anywhere you look the main criticism is that it's always mid-range vs mid-range, and that's a very real criticism. The control options are severely lacking, the aggressive decks only exist in mono red or R/x, and the best decks are midrange decks and that is almost always. There is a consistency, sure, but it is a mega boring consistency,

This is a good example of why such split intent (in this case I am sure unintended split intent) is so bad in cube design. The format should appeal to a casual crowd, and unless there is prize money or buy-ins suddenly involved, a designer shouldn't forget that. This cube makes the mistakes of trying to please everyone, and in effect, pleasing no-one.

 

[whobetta]

I just wanted to chime in, that I am pretty against Planeswalkers in general... it is somewhat a bias, but as I have incrementally kept increasing the powerlevel of my cube I just don't like what they represent and how they just overarching affect games... i don't like that they sit there as an overpowered ticking clock that can usually do too many strong things.

It is one thing I am currently refusing to ever introduce to my cube and would need very very good reasons to add them

 

[InfinityBlack14]

I am for planeswalkers, but feel there should be better removal. Why don't we have a WoG or Wildfire variant (aggressively costed, too) that wipes them out too? Can we not have burn that when damaging a PW, it can't activate next turn? I feel WotC do indeed put them on a pedestal. All I want is more sledgehammers to bring them down to creature level.

 

[ahadabans]

The only walkers I've ever hesitated on running are the flip walkers. And that's only recently since I've decided to try running DFC. I still vehemently dislike the physical card design, but I really like the mechanic and flavor (talking DFC). It's like morph but a lot less janky and way more colorful.

What is sort of neat about the flip walkers is that they start as creatures. And you have to do something to flip them. And there are only 5 of them. I compare this a bit to running swords in a way. If you run 5 swords, they are pretty much everywhere and your meta is drowning in them. If you just run 1 or 2, they pop up but it feels substantially less oppressive.

Those running flip walkers, how often are they main decked? How often in a game are they flipped and end up dominating the board? I'm sure it varies by walker (some seem easier to flip than others). But if you liked the idea of walkers but really wanted to bring them down to "creature level", maybe that's the solution? Just run the 5 flip walkers only.

Just a thought.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Those running flip walkers, how often are they main decked? How often in a game are they flipped and end up dominating the board?

All of them are good enough for the main if the archetype of your deck fits, but I Gideon and Chandra probably see a little less maindeck play than the other three. I've seen all of them flip, but Jace and Nissa are the easiest in a generic deck to trigger. All of them, however, are awesome to play with imo

 

[Salmo2]

I would rank them:

1. Jace - Extremely good. Looters are good in cube, and flipping him early can be a massive tempo swing. Copying spells and shutting down creatures is a pretty insane backside for a creature that started out as a looter. There isn't a blue deck that doesn't want Jace.

2. Gideon (kytheon) - While it's the most binary in terms of where you want it, it by far gives you the most for its cost and is the one that is the most good in a vacuum when you don't look at the back side. A 2/1 that could be indestructible for 2W is probably good enough as is, and then the fact that it flips into a legitimately offensive threat for a variety of reasons is awesome. It both is it's own lil mini gide on top of forcing your opponent to open to path for your creatures, something white needs since it can lack reach. Doesn't make it into white control builds but is a staple otherwise

3. Nissa - While it doesn't always flip since it's pretty fragile, a borderland ranger is a pretty good floor and wouldn't be an embarrassing card without a planes walker attached to the back. While it realistically just functions as the 4/4 it flips into most of the time in my experience, the other modes are nice. It's hard to find a green deck that wouldn't play Nissa unless it was because it was the best green deck ever and had better options at 3.

4. Liliana - I think overall Liliana has a better backside but is a bit less good in a vacuum for its base stats. It does protect itself with an auto token, but not being able to control when she flips at times is a huge bummer. It's not out of the question to kill another creature and then swing into the now-exposed liliana. Probably less needed now that there are two lili PWs. Don't run in reanimator or creature-light black builds, but always makes the creature decks.

5. Chandra - By far the worst, it's just tough to flip her. If it was a pinger and not a fireslinger I'd like it a lot more.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Flipped Chandra is so awesome for the red deck though. It's just more of a puzzle to flip her than the others, save perhaps Liliana (because timing is important there). I really like the sequencing puzzle, trying to trap your opponent into not leaving behind enough defenses, attacking with her and then using instant speed burn to untap her mid-combat, carefully curating the curve of your deck so you can actually cast multiple spells in a turn to flip her on the untap trigger alone. Stuff like that

 

[japahn]

Images for reference.

I have only run Jace in enough drafts to have an opinion, he's pretty damn good. I don't find him busted even at a low power level though, since he dies to almost any removal/board wipe.

 

[CML]

Yeah those cards are all pretty good

Who knows, there were balance issues well before this. No one wanted Skullclamp (or JTMS) to be the face of the franchise ...

Big changes in Organized MTG coming up soon

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Yeah those cards are all pretty good

Who knows, there were balance issues well before this. No one wanted Skullclamp (or JTMS) to be the face of the franchise ...

Big changes in Organized MTG coming up soon

Sam Stoddard was uncharacteristically frank in his mothership article today, basically admitting Standard is not where they want it to be. Apparently they were unsure though if further banning would have had a net positive effect on Standard, which is why they did nothing instead. That is to say, they say they learned some lessons for the near future. I'm expecting more pushed (sideboardable) removal/answers and less pushed linear themes in the future. Should be interesting.

 

[RavebornMuse]

Sam Stoddard was uncharacteristically frank in his mothership article today, basically admitting Standard is not where they want it to be. Apparently they were unsure though if further banning would have had a net positive effect on Standard, which is why they did nothing instead. That is to say, they say they learned some lessons for the near future. I'm expecting more pushed (sideboardable) removal/answers and less pushed linear themes in the future. Should be interesting.

I feel like you're giving him a bit too much credit; he certainly admitted that Standard was bad, but that much is obvious. Seeing him flaccidly wave Dampening Pulse felt like a cry for help; the whole development team must be on suicide watch after this. On the upside, this standard's miserable failings has helped me forget about what a massive, steaming pile BFZ block was. I'll take a good limited format with an awful Standard over a dull Return block that any day.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

As an entrepreneur, its kind of encouraging watching this. Its nice to see them so human, learning on the job, stumbling, making mistakes, and having to reinvent themselves in real time.

A lot of people will get negative, call them idiots, but this is what its like in the real world. You never actually know the answer, and have to chart the best course, while the peanut gallery predicts doom. After over a decade of doing this, this still don't have all of the answers, but being perfect is a much less important trait than being persistent.

Hope they figure it out.

 

[Laz]

So, I went hunting for that article on standard, and got distracted. So, as an aside, can we appreciate how awesome the art for the promo Servo Exhibition is (disclaimer, I have no idea what that card is or does):

Spoiler

 

[CML]

As an entrepreneur, its kind of encouraging watching this. Its nice to see them so human, learning on the job, stumbling, making mistakes, and having to reinvent themselves in real time.

A lot of people will get negative, call them idiots, but this is what its like in the real world. You never actually know the answer, and have to chart the best course, while the peanut gallery predicts doom. After over a decade of doing this, this still don't have all of the answers, but being perfect is a much less important trait than being persistent.

Hope they figure it out.

oh COME ON man they suck at what they do and a million people could do it better

it's a defensible position when it comes to things like Goldman Sachs where there is no (or negative) social utility to doing it better or when no one naturally wants to do it better but this is MAGICAL CARDS

 

[shamizy]

Eh, I wouldn't give Stoddard (or the rest of the development team) much credit. They've been actively fucking around with bad in-house testing and given us shitty Standard formats for an extended period of time now. All while waving precious market research (who the fuck are these test dummies really) in the face of anyone questioning moves that they've been making. Just about every article where they preview FFL decklists has been lolworthy with what they've cooked up. It's like they're just trying to create cutesy decks instead of doing what any good developer would do by trying to break and force interactions to their limit to uncover problems and potential weaknesses. I don't expect them to break Standard in-house, but I do expect some semblance of accurate projection of future formats. They've just been flat-out off and terrible for the most part. I've enjoyed certain card designs that have been churned by the design team each block, but I absolutely despise the ineptitude of the development team in creating a suitable game environment. They've utterly failed.

Missing the interactions of cards like Aetherworks Marvel CASTING huge creatures from previous blocks with game changing abilities is downright indefensible. They straight up missed the Saheeli-Guardian combo that literally took ONE FREAKING HOUR to identify by the peanut gallery on the day it was previewed. They forgot to keep checks and balances in place for clearly pushed cards within the last two blocks (Emrakul and Copter) and had to standard ban for the first time in nearly a decade. A year back, they somehow didn't realize that a format of 2/3s was going to be grindy as all hell or that stapling above average abilities to 3cmc creatures would be oppressive with a card that lets you cheat on mana costs at instant speed. Oh, and there is the continuous fetchlands critique where they're all like we don't want to re-introduce these again anytime soon based off how BFZ Standard turned out. That was because of fetchable duals, which should have been obvious from the start. But they probably missed it while forcing jank like BR Devoid in their testing.

On that note, I really don't understand their testing process whatsoever. The gist of what I've gotten from various articles is that their decks are from whatever working versions of cards they had at the time, but then those cards go through further development to reach their final stages. However, at this point, they apparently don't have enough time to thoroughly test the environment further and just ship it off in most cases. Tweaks here and there like changing a cost by one, adding a power or toughness, etc. That's apparently why they've missed so many key cards from the last few sets; their in-house environments weren't fully testing these new variables. Why would you do that? That's just terrible, you'd get the boot in most other occupations when you've consistently been screwing up so badly in the most important stages of an iterative process.

 

[anotak]

wait

they didnt notice the saheeli combo??

i thought that was intentional

i dont really play magic anymore but sometimes i watch cfb vids if it's calebd or lsv still and like that seemed like a pretty hard thing to miss

 

[Chris Taylor]

wait

they didnt notice the saheeli combo??

i thought that was intentional

i dont really play magic anymore but sometimes i watch cfb vids if it's calebd or lsv still and like that seemed like a pretty hard thing to miss

They did, and it is

 

[anotak]

so wait they did notice? now i'm confused

 

[Chris Taylor]

so wait they did notice? now i'm confused

Dangit teach me to try and be clever
Nah they've admitted this slipped through