Wizards just release their annual State of Design.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/state-design-2022-2022-08-01
This time it had a look back on the following sets
Innistrad: Midnight Hunt
Innistrad: Crimson Vow
Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty
Streets of New Capenna
Commander Legends: Battle for Baldur's Gate
Here are some key sentences I've found interesting for us cubers.
I'm just hand picking the few most interesting ones in my opinion.
--------
Overall
We experimented with how to properly readjust the color pie.
This is about them experimenting with white just like they last year experimented with black.
We need to be more conscious about backwards compatibility.
They are now designing for 'Eternal World' which means they must be better about understanding how current designs play with older designs.
We need to be careful with complexity.
Wizards: "As a side effect of moving toward an "eternal world," we've upped the amount of complexity we're allowing in each set. While I understand why we're doing it, I know we need to be vigilant to make sure we don't fall into old mistakes. A new player is always going to start the game from the same place. We must be careful not to leave them behind."
Innistrad sets
Day/night wasn't backwards compatible.
They regret not having their new Werewolves play smoothly with the old ones.
Blood was appreciated mechanically.
Obviously.
Training, Cleave, and Exploit were more miss than hit.
Obviously with cleave. A bit surprised with training.
Kamigawa
Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty was the homerun set of the year.
Have read the same on https://riptidelab.com/forum/forums/cube-talk.5/
Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty was a super-fun draft set.
Wizards: "Players enjoyed all the archetypes woven into the design, from Ninjas and mechs to Shrines and the harmony theme that allowed players to play a little of everything. There was a lot to explore, and players loved how each draft let you venture down a new path."
It wasn't always clear when a creature was an enchantment or artifact.
Wizards: "While there were frames to help with this issue, many players reported being sometimes confused about the card types of certain creatures. I think this stems from the fact that the definitions of why something counted as an enchantment, or to a lesser extent an artifact, was a little fuzzy."
I personally feel like it was because some creatures didn't do anything that enchantments normally did. They were just creatures with an added type.
New Capenna
Players were excited to see the return of a three-color set.
There were issues with Draft.
Wizards: "There were some monocolor commons that were too strong, which led to the set getting a bit aggressive, making two-color decks more viable than three-color decks, which is disappointing in a three-color set. There were also some issues with color balance and swingy rares. I was also told it was a little too "samey" draft to draft."
The tri-colored lands should have been called "Triomes."
Wizards: "This is more a naming issue than a design one, but I heard it a lot."
I personally feel like they shouldn't have been in the set. Or the set should have had cycling as a mechanic. Adding a mechanic into a set where only five cards have them just to complete a cycle is too much of a fan service for me and it actually hurts the game in the long run. I am happy I have the five remaining Triomes but I could have waited for the right set.
Commander Legends: Battle for Baldur's Gate
The set had a lot of flavorful top-down D&D designs.
The draft was a lot of fun.
--------
Above was just a tiny bit of the lengthy state of design from 2022. You can read it all including their arguments here:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/state-design-2022-2022-08-01
I feel like there is a lot to learn from these articles because Wizards try to design sets just like we try to design cube sets. And these marketing researches are free information for us to leech onto.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/state-design-2022-2022-08-01
This time it had a look back on the following sets
Innistrad: Midnight Hunt
Innistrad: Crimson Vow
Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty
Streets of New Capenna
Commander Legends: Battle for Baldur's Gate
Here are some key sentences I've found interesting for us cubers.
I'm just hand picking the few most interesting ones in my opinion.
--------
Overall
We experimented with how to properly readjust the color pie.
This is about them experimenting with white just like they last year experimented with black.
We need to be more conscious about backwards compatibility.
They are now designing for 'Eternal World' which means they must be better about understanding how current designs play with older designs.
We need to be careful with complexity.
Wizards: "As a side effect of moving toward an "eternal world," we've upped the amount of complexity we're allowing in each set. While I understand why we're doing it, I know we need to be vigilant to make sure we don't fall into old mistakes. A new player is always going to start the game from the same place. We must be careful not to leave them behind."
Innistrad sets
Day/night wasn't backwards compatible.
They regret not having their new Werewolves play smoothly with the old ones.
Blood was appreciated mechanically.
Obviously.
Training, Cleave, and Exploit were more miss than hit.
Obviously with cleave. A bit surprised with training.
Kamigawa
Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty was the homerun set of the year.
Have read the same on https://riptidelab.com/forum/forums/cube-talk.5/
Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty was a super-fun draft set.
Wizards: "Players enjoyed all the archetypes woven into the design, from Ninjas and mechs to Shrines and the harmony theme that allowed players to play a little of everything. There was a lot to explore, and players loved how each draft let you venture down a new path."
It wasn't always clear when a creature was an enchantment or artifact.
Wizards: "While there were frames to help with this issue, many players reported being sometimes confused about the card types of certain creatures. I think this stems from the fact that the definitions of why something counted as an enchantment, or to a lesser extent an artifact, was a little fuzzy."
I personally feel like it was because some creatures didn't do anything that enchantments normally did. They were just creatures with an added type.
New Capenna
Players were excited to see the return of a three-color set.
There were issues with Draft.
Wizards: "There were some monocolor commons that were too strong, which led to the set getting a bit aggressive, making two-color decks more viable than three-color decks, which is disappointing in a three-color set. There were also some issues with color balance and swingy rares. I was also told it was a little too "samey" draft to draft."
The tri-colored lands should have been called "Triomes."
Wizards: "This is more a naming issue than a design one, but I heard it a lot."
I personally feel like they shouldn't have been in the set. Or the set should have had cycling as a mechanic. Adding a mechanic into a set where only five cards have them just to complete a cycle is too much of a fan service for me and it actually hurts the game in the long run. I am happy I have the five remaining Triomes but I could have waited for the right set.
Commander Legends: Battle for Baldur's Gate
The set had a lot of flavorful top-down D&D designs.
The draft was a lot of fun.
--------
Above was just a tiny bit of the lengthy state of design from 2022. You can read it all including their arguments here:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/state-design-2022-2022-08-01
I feel like there is a lot to learn from these articles because Wizards try to design sets just like we try to design cube sets. And these marketing researches are free information for us to leech onto.
Last edited: