Magic: The Gathering

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

The more of these I read, the more I realize that people who aren't experienced in designing magic probably shouldn't be allowed to be designing magic cards unsupervised.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Yeah I haven't been keeping up with Magic much the last several years. Still, good cards are good cards forever, unless a rules change or errata stops them.

I really like Notch's card though. Very playable without being broken.


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Hot Soup, Aggressive Mining and Cruel Sadist are the only cards in that list that don't immediately make me want to punch something.

They're all so badly designed...

- - - Updated - - -

Spoken surprisingly like an Elf, for a Goblin player.

I drafted an elf deck during Lorwyn block at a convention once. It was pretty alright. I'm more ok with elves when they're dabbling in black mana.

[Malacite]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

What about Goblin Kaboomist? That guy's just winning.


Also really REALLY love Spirit Bonds holy shit. That's going to give Boros a hell of a lot of reach, and it combos nicely with Military Intelligence.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

What about Goblin Kaboomist? That guy's just winning.

Goblin Kaboomist has way too fucking many words to be a goblin.

Malacite, I dub thee Not-a-Goblin.

The card's just fucking ass in terms of design. What happens if there are multiple Kaboomists on the field and you lose the flip? Do they all explode or just the one who placed the mine, in which case it becomes a clusterfuck of keeping track of which goblin laid which mine. The templating on it is just muddled as hell.
Also: if you're going to name the thing Goblin Kaboomist you absolutely need some sweet flavor text on the card. Miserable failure in card design right there.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Malacite, I dub thee Not-a-Goblin.

The card's just fucking ass in terms of design. What happens if there are multiple Kaboomists on the field and you lose the flip? Do they all explode or just the one who placed the mine, in which case it becomes a clusterfuck of keeping track of which goblin laid which mine. The templating on it is just muddled as hell.
Also: if you're going to name the thing Goblin Kaboomist you absolutely need some sweet flavor text on the card. Miserable failure in card design right there.

Huh? Seems crystal clear to me.

"At the beginning of your upkeep, put a colorless artifact token named Land Mine onto the battlefield with "R, Sacrifice this artifact: This artifact deals 2 damage to target attacking creature without flying." Then flip a coin. If you lose the flip, Goblin Kaboomist deals 2 damage to itself."

So you put a Land Mine token into play that you can pay R and sacrifice at any time (even if Kaboomist is off the table) for 2 damage to an attacking non-flyer.

THEN, you flip a coin, and if you do, Kaboomist deals 2 damage to itself (and not any other copies).


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

The fact that there was any ambiguity means the templating needs work.

It's still way too much text for a goblin card. Goblins aren't supposed to be wordy.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

The fact that there was any ambiguity means the templating needs work.

But... there's no ambiguity? How is it the wording's fault that you have bad reading comprehension?

The wording of the card is clear. Sure, they could add a line break before the word "then" and that might make it a bit clearer, but as you say, it already has 5 lines of text, so that wouldn't make you any happier.

It's still way too much text for a goblin card. Goblins aren't supposed to be wordy.

Blah blah blah git offa mah lawn!

Some of the bests cards in the game have seven-line syndrome. Not saying the kaboomist is (or should be) one of them, but this thought that every goblin should be simple and stupid just for flavor is boring, terrible, and limiting, and I'm glad the designing staff at Wizards understands that the boundaries of the game need to be nudged from time to time to keep things interesting.

Just look up earlier at this thread, for instance, and see Mal's dissatisfaction with what (at the time) was the revealed spoiler list for M2015. It was boring and terrible, aside from Chasm Skulker (which, as it turns out, was one of the guest designer cards that you're raging about).


Icemage

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Still not quite sure why you're so in love with that particular card, IM. Were you crazy for Lorescale Coatl, too, when that was around?

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Still not quite sure why you're so in love with that particular card, IM. Were you crazy for Lorescale Coatl, too, when that was around?

I'm not in love with it. It's a bad card. I'm just poking fun at cid because he somehow thinks it's a violation of the natural order for a Goblin to have more text than "+1/+1 when X".

Wait, are you talking about Chasm Skulker? It's like a weaker-but-splashable blue version of Voice of Resurgence. What's not to like?


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

But... there's no ambiguity? How is it the wording's fault that you have bad reading comprehension?

Because good templating overcomes that.

Goblins are all about flavor. If a goblin card fails the flavor test then it has failed as a goblin card and should be repurposed as another creature type. Case in point, Goblin Kaboomist would be perfectly acceptable if it were a Dwarf instead.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Wait, are you talking about Chasm Skulker? It's like a weaker-but-splashable blue version of Voice of Resurgence. What's not to like?

It's maybe playable, but you should maybe take a break from Magic if you think it's anywhere near the same ballpark as Voice.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Because good templating overcomes that.

Goblins are all about flavor. If a goblin card fails the flavor test then it has failed as a goblin card and should be repurposed as another creature type. Case in point, Goblin Kaboomist would be perfectly acceptable if it were a Dwarf instead.

Uh, it has a coin flip mechanic AND deals damage to you/itself, which puts it squarely on the Goblin side of the tribal traits. Dwarves generally don't do either of those.

How is this any less out of flavor for Goblins than Goblin Bangchuckers?

2RR, Creature - Goblin
(T): Flip a coin. If you win the flip, Goblin Bangchuckers deals 2 damage to target creature or player. If you lose the flip, Goblin Bangchuckers deals 2 damage to itself.

---

It's maybe playable, but you should maybe take a break from Magic if you think it's anywhere near the same ballpark as Voice.

I'm pretty sure I haven't gone out of my way to say it's as good as Voice (hence why I say it's weaker). But I do think you're selling it short. In a slow environment like Standard, it's pretty dangerous if left alone for even a brief period, even without leaning into its strengths. And again, being splashable means it has a bit more potential for abuse (unlike Voice, which basically had to be used in GW decks because of the mana cost).

Voice is broken almost on the same tier as Tarmogoyf, and I doubt we'll see another creature anywhere in its ballpark created unless Wizards makes a design mistake somewhere along the lines.


Icemage

[Malacite]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

tl;dr reading is hard?

[Malacite]

Re: Magic: The Gathering



SHENANIGANS!!!! :D The new wording for convoke also means you can use the God weapons for colored mana with this guy!