Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 110

Author Topic: MTG  (Read 84069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #80 on: April 29, 2009, 01:50:50 PM »

the key difference between alara reborn and legends is that alara reborn isn't full of shitty cards

Matter of opinion there, son.

No, everything gold in legends sucked, and that's pretty much a fact. Was there even one good gold card from that set?

opinion


Also, the other side of that coin was: Who says Alara Reborn is full of a good cards? On the whole, it's a fairly weak set for the modern era.

EDIT: Thank you Zara.

If what you mean by good is "has an awesome name or awesome art" then you would be right that it's a matter of opinion.. Ramses Overdark and Tuknir Deathlock are pretty awesome names. If what you mean by good is "something that could might be played in a deck that is designed to win." then no, it's not a matter of opinion. The power of a card is objective, it may vary by environment, but it's objective. I just looked over all the gold cards from legends and Nebuchadnezzer, Rasputin Dreamweaver, Rubinia Soulsinger, and Gwendlyn Di Cordi are the only gold cards from that set that weren't straight up horrible, and none of them were ever actually good. There were some good single color cards in legends, but not gold cards.

Well, you'll note that although we were talking about Alara Reborn, Dreth didn't bother to make the distinction between gold and monocoloured cards. And yeah, I think that the flavour of Legends was pretty damned awesome. All those funy Legends with Richard Kane Ferguson art, oh man. Finally, power levels in 1993 and power levels in 2009 are not directly comparable. More than a few of those gold cards were solidly playable for a while.

...

Man, what the hell? People gotta go and argue with me even when I state straight out that I am saying something that is pure opinion?
Logged

Kashan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 9
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #81 on: April 29, 2009, 02:24:29 PM »

I took the conversation to be about gold cards since there was the previous dicussion of all the cards in Alara Reborn being gold, my mistake. And while you're right that powerlevels in 1993 and 2009 are different, it still wouldn't be correct to say there were any good gold cards from legends, even by the power levels of the time. Creatures mostly sucked back then, and they hadn't figured out how to price gold cards yet. Look at the decks in the finals of the 94 gencon. Very few creatures, most of which wouldn't be anything special by today's standards, lots of spells that would be considered way way too powerful by today's standards, lots of free mana which is broken by today's standards, and no gold cards. Really the game may have been more busted back then, just less combo intensive and creatures sucked more.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #82 on: April 29, 2009, 04:31:11 PM »

Oh, don't get me wrong. Plenty of the gold cards in Legends were complete ass, even by the standards of the time. But some of them were good, and the set as a whole broke a hell of a lot of new ground. In spite of everything else, the set lived up to it's name.

Back then the game was really in a long and wild experimental stage right up until maybe Mirage-Visions, which were the first sets that really began to resemble modern sets in any meaningful way.

Also, the game as a whole today is much more creature-intensive because about 5 years ago, Wizards made a very very deliberate decision that they wanted creature combat to be a bigger part of the game. As a result, we began to see deliberately engineered power creep on creatures.

I don't mind too much, but I think we've gone a bit too far. I think Magic still has a place for strong non-creature spells that cost < 4 mana and that the game should not be ALL about creature combat, but oh well, I'm not the R&D dept.

Sixteen years of my life wasted on this silly hobby. OH GOD WHY.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #83 on: April 29, 2009, 06:35:01 PM »

Oh, don't get me wrong. Plenty of the gold cards in Legends were complete ass, even by the standards of the time. But some of them were good, and the set as a whole broke a hell of a lot of new ground. In spite of everything else, the set lived up to it's name.

Back then the game was really in a long and wild experimental stage right up until maybe Mirage-Visions, which were the first sets that really began to resemble modern sets in any meaningful way.

Looking through the encyclopedia, I can see about 80% of the rares in Legends were awful. Adventurer's Guildhouse? Mold Demon? Spinal Villain? Yuck. I always though it was tragic that awful cards got nice pictures, though.

Also, the game as a whole today is much more creature-intensive because about 5 years ago, Wizards made a very very deliberate decision that they wanted creature combat to be a bigger part of the game. As a result, we began to see deliberately engineered power creep on creatures.

That was Onslaught, wasn't it? You know, I was out of the game at the time, but from what I can tell, it was a popular experiment across the board. It also seemed to be a way to pull in the Yu-Gi-Oh crowd (big, simple critters, facedown cards). I've also heard that it was a fairly frustrating time for people who liked to make weird, experimental decks.

I don't mind too much, but I think we've gone a bit too far. I think Magic still has a place for strong non-creature spells that cost < 4 mana and that the game should not be ALL about creature combat, but oh well, I'm not the R&D dept.

Yeah, R&D likes to bandy about terms like "design space" and "interactivity." Apparently, interactivity means turning creatures sideways. It's also why we haven't had an efficient counterspell since counterspell. I think they're afraid of making the next Skullclamp or Tinker.

Strange. The mentality seems to be that getting the crap kicked out of you by a table full of goblins is somehow better than getting decked by a millstone.
Logged

Kashan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 9
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #84 on: April 29, 2009, 07:14:31 PM »

Strange. The mentality seems to be that getting the crap kicked out of you by a table full of goblins is somehow better than getting decked by a millstone.

For some retarded reason it is for most people. For some reason most players hate control and hate combo. And it's not just Magic. L5R has had an entire arc of boring straightforward military decks and the player base is loving it. They did this because they scared half the player base away with a really control intensive arc. Magic is pretty good about striking a balance. Even when control is on the low end it's still there. As somebody who likes weird decks and combo/control decks this arc has been rough on me in l5r.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #85 on: April 29, 2009, 07:40:21 PM »

I always though it was tragic that awful cards got nice pictures, though.

This will probably be true forever.

-----------

It was more Ravnica that saw true power creep for creatures (see Watchwolf, Rumbling Slum and others as the beginnings of modern power creep in creatures). Onslaught block did have lots of creatures (including the gimmick set Legions), but most of those were not above the power curve. The ones that saw play (and lasted) were tricky or interesting ones, like Siege Gang Commander.

Also, I agree that they've been gun shy for years now. For maybe the first five-seven years, they did try to avoid making busted stuff, but weren't so... afraid. But they were really burned by their biggest mistakes, first in Urza block and then in Mirrodin block. R&D really hasn't been the same since. They've been kind of shell-shocked. One of the advantages of pushing more creature-based strategies is that they have fewer broken interactions. The problem is that they are very very close to going too far and an overall level of power creep across an entire card type is much, much harder to undo than a few nutty broken combo cards.

I've never seen so many goddamn timmy-fatties as have been in the last two or three blocks. Especially Alara block. Holy Christ, enough with the 6-8 casting cost behemoths.
Logged

jsnlxndrlv

  • Custom Title
  • Tested
  • Karma: 24
  • Posts: 2913
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: MTG
« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2009, 10:23:53 PM »

I am going to say "I put [card] onto the battlefield!" as much as possible if it means giving the established player base aneurysms. People are having such paroxysms over this; it's just ridiculous.
Logged
Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Friday

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65374
  • Posts: 5122
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #87 on: May 30, 2009, 12:33:06 AM »

Quote
Strange. The mentality seems to be that getting the crap kicked out of you by a table full of goblins is somehow better than getting decked by a millstone.

Getting killed by a table full of goblins takes 6-10 turns. Getting killed by a millstone takes 20+, while you can't do anything because you are locked down. That is why the mentality is the way it is.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #88 on: May 30, 2009, 12:58:57 AM »

Bonk!
Logged

  • Magic Gunner Miss Blue
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65461
  • Posts: 4300
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #89 on: May 30, 2009, 01:11:16 AM »

I once played Blessed Wind against a guy who's deck was designed to give him ungodly amounts of life (5-6 digits), even if you blew away the combo cards. Which he had done. And then I killed him with direct damage.

FOR THOSE THAT DON'T REMEMBER PROPHECY: Blessed Wind sets the life total of target player at 20. Literally, the text is "Target PLayer's life total becomes 20"
Logged

Envy

  • Tested
  • Karma: -8
  • Posts: 2286
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #90 on: May 30, 2009, 04:05:30 AM »

Nvm I was thinking of grind stone.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #91 on: May 30, 2009, 04:46:35 AM »

Yeah, the battlefield thing is pretty dumb, but that is MILES AND MILES away from being the dumbest thing WotC has ever done with MTG.

I just hear 'battlefield' in my mind's ear being said with the same kind of voice as "I cast a spell!"
Logged

TA

  • Tested
  • Karma: 29
  • Posts: 3219
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #92 on: May 30, 2009, 05:18:08 AM »

I don't understand.  What's up with "battlefield", now?
Logged
Do you understand how terrifying the words “vibrating strap on” are for an asexual? That’s like saying “the holocaust” to a Jew.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #93 on: May 30, 2009, 06:57:30 AM »

WotC is trying to return 'flavour' to the game, in their hamfisted corporate way.

Spells are once again 'cast' as opposed to being 'played'. This was actually a good move. It was an old term that was flavourful and clear and demonstrated the distinction between stuff that was 'in play' and being 'played'. Unfortunately, they decided to take this one step further and are renaming the 'in play' zone 'the battlefield'. They're also renaming the removed-from-the-game zone, but no one knows what asinine name is going to be applied to that.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #94 on: May 30, 2009, 08:17:47 AM »

WotC must hate money.

How are they reconciling stuff like this, then?

Logged

Zaratustra

  • what
  • Tested
  • Karma: 48
  • Posts: 3691
    • View Profile
    • Zaratustra Productions
Re: MTG
« Reply #95 on: May 30, 2009, 09:55:30 AM »

now we have to play with Portal Three Kingdoms cards

because



LU BU HAS ENTERED THE BATTLEFIELD.

Koah

  • Tested
  • Karma: 4
  • Posts: 1008
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2009, 10:03:19 AM »

now we have to play with Portal Three Kingdoms cards

because



LU BU HAS ENTERED THE BATTLEFIELD.

Lu Bu is a squirrel?

...

Oh shit, the secret behind Squirrel Girl's defeats of Dr. Doom and Thanos is revealed!
Logged

King Klown

  • Honk Honk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2009, 10:06:29 AM »

Wait, with their renaming of shit, is 'On the stack' and still the same term?
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: MTG
« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2009, 10:46:31 AM »

Yes.
Logged

Zaratustra

  • what
  • Tested
  • Karma: 48
  • Posts: 3691
    • View Profile
    • Zaratustra Productions
Re: MTG
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2009, 06:16:47 PM »

what? Oh, hell, I see it now too.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 110