silentone2k

[silentone2k]

I agree that shuffling into deck isn't a grest look for blue. In practice it's more "gone" than any other zone - ie, more murdery than murder.

Blue has lots of options to deal with creatures. Bounce to hand being the classic, especially followed with a counter. Enchanting allows all sorts of negation, including tapping, exile, phase out, change/remove stats/abilities, etc.

If blue needs more creature management in limited, then it needs more of the things that fit within its limitations, not to push out into things it's not supposed to do.

"Whether blue should be allowed to shuffle creatures into the library is a hot topic on the Council." What's your personal take on this debate and how do you think players feel about it?

I’m not a fan. I know blue needs some answers to creatures in limited, but I think there are better ways.

[silentone2k]

Where is elegance on the scale scale?

Where is Vindicate on the elegance scale?

What is the elegance scale?

[silentone2k]

While I definitely get "not as strong a response as wanted," I also feel like that underestimates the inertia of previous res dwarves in Magic and, as @uberplatt pointed out, the minimal tribal synergy for dwarves in Kaladesh. A strong mechanical synergy theme has repeatedly moved the resonance needle throughout Magic history.

I'd argue tepid implementation got tepid response. Spend a couple sets building some compelling mono-white dwarf options and things will probably look different. It'll never fully erase the early associations with red or the ongoing associations with mountains, but that's not really a problem.

Re: The characteristic species are all humanoid, so they fail in that category. In theory, we could consider cat people (Leonin) or dog people (Ainok), but neither are as iconic in fantasy as our other characteristic species.

I feel like Dwarves are the obvious choice. Is the reason you haven't pushed Dwarves into that role because many established worlds introduced in their absence don't have them?

We experimented with Dwarves as the white characteristic race in Kaladesh, but the player response wasn't as strong as we'd hoped.

[silentone2k]

We're all appreciative of this bullish response as Mark remains uncowed on the subject of Minotaur independence.

I appreciate you holding the line on minotaur/cow. I think Minotaur as a type has immense unique resonance (mythological and game history wise). I also think “cow” has a lot of connotations that don’t align reasonably with the central vibe of the creature type, which is to say aggression. I could see a batch at some point that includes oxes, but I’d just say that, at least as someone running Minotaur decks for a decade and a half, I’d be very disappointed in a change.

I could imagine Ox becoming Cow. I don’t see Minotaur becoming Cow.

[silentone2k]

The original book Wizard of Oz entered the public domain in 1956. However, many of the most iconic features (the green Wicked Witch, the Ruby Slippers) come from the movie which does not enter public domain until 2035.

re: the Oz post, I think they mean the difference between, like, Eldraine and Universes Beyond: King Arthur

I'm not sure Wizards of Oz is public domain.

[silentone2k]

Maybe a future Modern Horizons set could mix some of that in? They already do a lot of the mix/match, deep cut, and hyper complex things that makes Future Sight such a problem. Bringing back the frame, or an update/modification of it, and leaning into the "possibile futures" seems like the easy end.

Is a Future Sight 2 style set possible also as a Standard legal set? I'm worried that with the prevalence and popularity of Universes Beyond and Modern Horizons, there doesn't seem like there would be room or space for a Future Sight 2 supplemental set but I REALLY REALLY want one.

Last time we did it as a premier set it caused all sorts of problems. It needs a complexity higher than premier sets want to be.

[silentone2k]

This also gets into the "different formats have different power levels" conversation. Escher's staircase is about sets of comparable power level.

Everyone knows a draft format designed to enter standard is not going to have many (if any) cards that impact older, bigger formats. A set designed to enter Modern just has to have a higher level of power to not get ignored. Legacy cubes, which are probably the best comparison for legality targeted draft format, tend to be even higher powered... but comparing these to one another is just wrong.

Standard sets should be (wobbly) comparable to other standard sets. Modern Horizons sets should he comparable to one another. Comparing Standard sets to MH sets is like comparing apples and oranges; they're both round(ish) fruit (packs of Magic cards), but the differences get pretty profound beyond that.

There's a lot of cards in OTJ that are strictly better than their precedents, like the new Green four-mana 6/5. Isn't this textbook power creep, and if so, doesn’t it contradict the idea of the Escher Stairwell?

It’s only power creep if the cards they’re superseding were already at the top of the power curve.

[silentone2k]

So, no "t: deal 1 damage to any target" cycle? ;-)

So we have Goblin Balloon Brigade and Manta Riders; when are we going to see the rest of the "1/1 that can fly for C" characteristic race mega cycle?

Two dots do not necessarily form a cycle. : )

[silentone2k]

I think it's important to take a moment with the fact there are aspects to Aetherborn beyond the vampirism that makes them black. Many of those aspects are shared with red. Wizards sometimes chooses to focus on one color over another in shared areas for numerous reasons.

What makes Aetherborn Black rather than Red?

They have a vampiric nature, draining others to live longer. I do think we could make red Aetherborn on a different world.

[silentone2k]

I've constructed a whole headcannon around the old (actual cannon) descriptions of mana bonds and lands that makes some sense of this...

https://www.tumblr.com/silentone2k/675113943305502720/youve-said-that-cards-like-valakut-are?source=share

why isn't "Valakut, the molten Pinnacle" legendary?

Flavor reason: Lands represent connections to mana. Single locations can have many connections.

Mechanical reason: Legendary lands don't play great in 4 of formats.

[silentone2k]

I liked the pre-mending status quo.

I got the down-powering of planeswalkers in the mending to make them more ... mortal. But I think the loss of things like the weatherlight and *all* planar portals was too high a cost.

I like moving away from feeling that every main character *must* be a planeswalker. I dislike every major character from every plane seems to be required to show up in some sort of crossover. I don't like that letting other creatures travel planes "required" desparking so many 'walkers.

It feels like there's a pendulum that keeps getting over-swung.

Now that we've had a year of sets that explored omen paths as a plot device and an excuse to feature legendary creatures on planes they didn't originate from, how do you feel they affect the set mechanics? And more specifically, do you feel they have a noticeable affect on top-down design? (like for instance, the cowboy-themed set featuring many characters from Magic's past and attempting to stay true to their characters while working in those cowboy-themed set mechanics)

It’s a useful tool to make sets we previously couldn’t.

How do you all feel about the impact of the omenpaths?

[silentone2k]

By "kitchen table" I assume the original asker meant what I've seen you referr to as "cards I own." That not-actually-a-format-quasi-format where everything is legal, decks are technically constructed, but concious collecting and overall cost are extremely low so it ends up somewhere between sealed and pick-your-own-block-constructed in power.

"Also, Commander is the most popular played format in tabletop. I believe Standard is still the most popular format played on digital." So, ignoring kitchen table, which would be the most played overall?

I'm not sure what "ignoring Kitchen table" means. Sanctioned events? Events played in stores? Commander is the most played format with people consciously playing a format in tabletop.

[silentone2k]

I would love to see more monocolor focus. Then again, I'm an old-timer that remembers monocolor being the Way Of Things.

@jonpaulcardenas I suspect there's some causation/correlation confusion in the "Commander means multicolor," finding 100 singleton cards that synergize into a deck is far easier with multicolor than it is monocolor, and there are far more fun, interesting, and powerful multicolor legendary creatures than there are monocolor... and that's created a self-confirming and reinforcing loop. Until design values BBB at least the way they do UG in casting costs there will be scant reason to emphasize monocolor for any format. The underwhelming approach to Adamant, and the fact it's almost entirely forgotten as part of "the monocolor set" says everything.

If/when a Standard set with a strong Mono Color focus. Last one was OG Theros

Throne of Eldraine was after that. We don't do them often.

[silentone2k]

@thelifeofanoodle my understanding of the existing rules is fail to find results in their hand being revealed (which is less than discarding cards, but knowing they have a hand full of land isn't nothing) and the appropriate number of cards being discarded (0, 1, or 2). This is why it has to reveal "additional" cards - so it's clear when the action can't be repeated because there are no more legal targets.

Whats the logic behind not doing random discard of nonlands? As in, "target opponent discards a nonland card at random".

It's confusing. It's unclear what happens when you randomly discard a land. You keep the land and nothing gets discarded or you discard a second time?

[silentone2k]

This feels like something that could go down rabbit holes, but also something that gives value and relevance to iconic but powercrept cards. Are Serra Angel tokens different than 4/4 flying vigilance white angel creature tokens? Only in certain corner cases... But they feel different. And it takes less words on the card (ignoring reminder text).

The "Create a CARDNAME token" tech from MH3 actually seems to have a lot of applications outside Modern Horizons sets (Roxanne, Starfall Savant etc). Would it be safe to assume this tech creating token copies of previous cards will end up deciduous at least?

I’m not sure how much we’ll use that tech in premier sets.

[silentone2k]

Target opponent reveals a card from their hand at random. If it is not a land, they discard it. If they reveal a land, repeat the process until they discard a card.

Or, for hymn; Target opponent reveals 2 cards from their hand at random. For each land revealed, they reveal an additional card at random until 2 non-land cards are revealed. They discard all non-land cards revealed.

It's less elegant than just "discard 2 cards at random," and may reveal a little additional information by showing lands. But neither of those are massive issues compared to either the power of look-and-take or weakness of target-picks discard.

Whats the logic behind not doing random discard of nonlands? As in, "target opponent discards a nonland card at random".

It's confusing. It's unclear what happens when you randomly discard a land. You keep the land and nothing gets discarded or you discard a second time?

[silentone2k]

I still say the number of blue counters per set should be reduced and other colors should occasionally be able to counter the things they can normally interact with. It would reduce the frequency of blue counterspell piles (which are the real offender that infuriates people) and give other colors some play on the stack.

Mark, I've heard discard is not going to be used as much because it creates unfun games for opponent. But to that I say blue as an entire colour splits the community n the basis of that is counter magic. Counter magic is NEVER fun to play against but it pops up here, there n everywhere. So why favour it and dislike discard?

We still make discard like we still make counterspells. Were just careful not to enable a whole deck of either.