Theros & Born of the Gods Challenge—ReviewToday I review the mythic rare submissions for cards that might have been in Theros or Born of the Gods. Remember, I'm primarily focused on whether the card is a good addition to the block and how realistic the card is in terms of being printed in an actual Magic set.
Brimaz is certainly at exciting card, and I like how vigilance means you don't have to choose between making cats on offense or defense (even if that takes some of the fun of finding a way to give him vigilance or double strike or multiple attacks away from the player).
Obviously the card is dangerously undercosted (I'd cost this at {3}{W}{W} or maybe {1}{W}{W}{W} if we really want to push it), but that's a Dev issue. My biggest concern: I'm not sure the novelty of getting its tokens into combat immediately is worth breaking four lines of text up into seven. "Whenever CARDNAME attacks or blocks, put a 1/1 white Cat Soldier token OTB" is 90% functionally identical 90% of the time. Giving the tokens vigilance seems unnecessary, but if you were married to that, why not just give Brimaz "Cat creatures you control have vigilance"?
Champion of Stray Souls is an amped up Hell's Caretaker. There are a lot of players who will be happy to have a new way to resurrect creatures every turn, but this variant doubles down, triples down, Xs down on the repetitive game play. Not only can you recur any number of creatures each turn, but even if the opponent manages to answer Champion, you can just bring it back the very next turn. The high cost of all these abilities mitigates that to the late-game, but doesn't prevent anyone from ruining the game if you last that long. Maybe replace "Sacrifice" with "Exile" or X with 2, but the second ability adds more unfun than fun and just needs to go. Even if you did keep it, you clearly want it to match the first ability: "{5}{B}{B}, Sacrifice a Creature: Return CARDNAME from your graveyard to the battlefield."
It's great to have the UB god win via milling, but it's really weird that he cares about your creatures' toughness. It's a little strange that he cares about your creatures at all, but all the other gods do so that keeps him in cycle (except Eerebos and Mogis, hmm). It makes sense that your deck will have more creatures with high toughness so that you can withstand your opponent's assault long enough to mill them out. But why would the God of Deception be better at deception with a team of large creatures and/or defenders? I'd rather see it use a static number or maybe key off CMC—which could at least arguably relate a creature's intelligence / ability to deceive.
Good call making a Hydra green's best creature on Greek world, but these numbers are pretty wacky. Four mana for a 5/5 is very good but not broken as Deadbridge Goliath has shown, and can even have a decent upside without disrupting Standard (obv a bomb in Limited). Polukranos is usually at least a 7/7 swinging on turn 5, though, and can kill a pair of 3/1s in the process. It does totally die to Doom Blade (but only Boulderfall and Divine Verdict—if you're opponent lets you—can kill it in response to monstrosity at common in block), so maybe it wouldn't break Standard (though it would surely be an auto four-of in green decks). Ignoring power level, Polukranos' rules text is pretty awkward. XX gives far more players trouble than X does and it's inconsistent that Polukranos deals X instead of its power, but suffers its targets power. How often will this just be a green Fireball?
Always nice to see a Constructed-playable Dragon, but protection from white feels so out of place here. It feels like residual vengeance from Baneslayer, but it's neither a good reference (because the angel had pro:Dragons not pro:Red) nor relevant against her (because this can't block her anyhow). The Sudden Impact breath is cute, but again, makes no sense next to pro:White. Also, does Theros really need a Dragon? At least it doesn't stick out as badly as Innistrad's Balefire Dragon.
Underworld Cerberus is dripping with flavor. I love the card text on here, and it's perfect for Theros. That said, this probably wants to be a 3/3 for four or else cost six. Cost-reduction mechanics while potentially powerful, aren't really fun, and likewise undercosting a card doesn't make it more fun.
I'm not sure the mythos supports creatures or planeswalkers becoming gods, but assuming it does, that's a bad-ass idea. I like this effect for the red-green god, but I wish it had anything to do with Xenagos, the Reveler.
All these designs are exciting and clearly mythic rather than rare, but they're pretty wordy (one going to 9 lines) and many of them are made exciting not by having a particularly interesting effect, so much as just being undercosted for their size or being loaded up on abilities. Where the list of abilities support the flavor, like Underworld Cerberus, it's probably worth it (though even there, I have to remind you we don't have to put every mechanic that can represent a three-headed guard-dog of hell on the same card—save some for future iterations on the concept) but kitchen sink design for the sake of splashiness is a common mistake for designers, old and new. Focus on the one thing that makes a card really shine, anything else just distracts from that.
As for the instances where the card is clearly undercosted, even though that's a Development issue, we still want to get cards in the right ballpark: Not every card has to be Constructed-playable, but cards that are too good not to play in their colors reduce tournament variability as well as the fun of deck-building itself. In Limited, it's inevitable that there will be very strong bombs that demand answers and change the game dramatically, but we want to avoid cards that are basically auto-win in their own Limited format.
This is brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI concur.
DeleteYou're missing something big: almost ALL monsters are undercosted. This is extremely deliberate! Monsters start out big, to give them an immediate effect on the board and on the opponent that feels straight out of myth: "Oh my god, how am I ever going to deal with this thing and win!?" Other effects can achieve this sense of drama too, as seen on Brimaz and Underworld Cerberus.
ReplyDeleteMonsters starting bigger - and generally having 'one shot' to go crazy, like Underworld Cerberus' death trigger and Monstrosity in general - is important for that drama!
Furthermore, ALL monsters start bigger than any hero! This is, again, very important! Your heroes will feel insignificant and puny before the mighty beast - but you can beat them if you find the right cards! Heroes have infinite potential to grow, but they need the Heroic enablers to do so - which, again, is a source of fun dramatic tension.
I personally think this is one of the most subtle - and most genius - aspects of Theros. Much like how Innistrad flavorfully got across the idea of "horror and suspense", and New Phyrexia of "invasion and violation", Theros gets across the story of "overcoming great adversity".
I love the heroes vs monsters play of Theros, and I definitely want my monsters to be big. Don't know that they need to be wildly undercosted, though. (And I think only Poly is.)
DeleteHundred-Handed One is also pretty absurd in Limited. On turn 4, it stops virtually all attacks on the ground. Then it becomes monstrous and stops virtually all attacks, full stop, especially when backed up with combat tricks. Oh, and it's still attacking for 6 a turn because vigilance.
DeleteThat giant easily won a match against me last week all on his own.
DeleteI think coming down early is important for the 'arc' that Theros is trying to establish. Heroes start small and have to strive to get bigger - Monsters start big, come out generally the turn after a Hero has hit the board, and then have a set time limit until "MAKE MY MONSTER GROW" time. If all Monsters were costed 'appropriately', Monsters would show up a bit too late to establish that contrast.
DeletePolukranos, Fleecemane Lion, Arbor Colossus and Ember Swallower are relatively undercosted before monstrosity. The rest skew toward efficient, but have more bodies that are not uncommon for their costs. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?sort=rarity+&action=advanced&text=%20[monstrosity]&set=%20[Theros]
DeleteI agree Monsters don't want to start tiny, and they can't all be expensive, but there's plenty of room between those two area without making creatures that are undercosted /before/ you look at their text box.
Which is not to say that I have a problem with the power level of most monsters.
Note that "undercosted and loaded up on abilities" has always been part of R&D's definition of a successful mythic; see Baneslayer, Titans, etc. The aesthetics may not be pleasing, but there's clearly an audience for cards like Brimaz. And when push comes to shove, Wizards is a business, not an artists' collective.
ReplyDeleteI feel like there's still a struggle to find the sweet-spot when it comes to the modern ethic of pushing cards for their effect on Constructed formats. Baneslayer, the Titans, and Thragtusk each have been noted for their "in retrospect, maybe that was a little much" quality.
DeleteI don't expect perfect foresight from R&D, but I wouldn't want to disservice them by thinking they would print something as wordy and undercosted as (this version of) Brimaz.
I get why Wizards prints OP cards like Brimaz. As a player I hate it, but as a game designer, I respect that those cards sell large numbers of product that wouldn't have sold otherwise. If the choice were between accepting these things and keeping Magic growing, or losing the game through business attrition, I'd choose the former, not close. That isn't the case right now, but it's not like I'm going to leave the game just because Hasbro likes money.
DeleteThat said, they can make set-selling cards without compromising basic Design principles, and that's the message I really want Wizards to hear.
I also think you're overestimating the extent to which Brimaz is OP. Lightning Bolt was an automatic four-of in 99% of competitive decks that could produce red mana in standard. Ponder put up similar numbers for blue. Brimaz is pretty good, but he's not a four-of in ANY standard decks. He's not the next JtMS; he's the next Doran.
DeleteAlso note that the similarly "undercosted" Underworld Cerberus has seen zero play in competitive decks. It takes a lot for a five-drop creature to be standard playable, and Underworld Cerberus isn't even close.
Brimaz is $40 on SCG.
DeleteHmm, perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. My claim is that Brimaz is not at all overpowered in competitive constructed. Show me a Standard top eight with 10+ copies of Brimaz, and I might believe otherwise.
DeleteThe reason he's so expensive at SCG is that he's mad OP by kitchen table standards. Is that what you're talking about?
Standard isn't the only format. OP in any popular format is OP.
DeleteAnd Jace is by no means the bar for OP. He's the pinnacle.
Again, I'm looking for a bit more clarification; are you saying he's OP in casual? If not, which tournament formats are you talking about?
DeleteHe's OP in Standard. Not saying he's breaking Standard, but yes, he is absolutely disproportionately stronger compared to his cost than the vast majority of cards in Standard.
DeleteI find your definition extremely confusing. How can you tell if a card is "OP in Standard" without any reference to tournament results? Is it just how good it looks on paper?
DeleteAny hard line we draw will inevitably fail, but there are several metrics we can use: How expensive is the card? How many decks that can easily cast it include it? If it were printed at common, would it unbalance Limited? How does it compare with cards of similar cost / size / function?
DeleteBrimaz trips alarms for all of these tests (the only reason he's not a 4-of is that he's legendary). Are you arguing the Brimaz is of average power level?
I'm not saying the game should have no OP cards, btw.
DeleteNo, I'm arguing that he's not overpowered in Standard. (Certainly you would agree that a card can be above average without being overpowered!) I seemed to recall that Brimaz, despite the hype, wasn't actually seeing much play. To verify this with data, I checked the top 16 of the most recent large tournament, which was SCG Atlanta. I expected to find 5-10 copies of Brimaz, half in sideboards.
DeleteThere were zero.
Now, you could argue that it's just the current Standard metagame that prevents him from shining.
But if a card fails to make a splash in a particular environment, I don't see any reason to label it overpowered _in that format_.
I'm using overpowered to mean significantly above average. Brimaz is above the 96th percentile of cards in Standard in terms of abstract value.
DeleteIf there were any primarily-white beatdown decks in Atlanta, I would take his lack of appearance as significant. The the metagame doesn't currently include that deck doesn't make Brimaz weak. If there were decks running Fabled Hero and not Brimaz, that would quite damning, but no one's playing that much white.
If that tournament is indicative of the two-year period Brimaz is legal in, I certainly concede that Brimaz isn't OP in Standard but that doesn't make him any less above the curve in the abstract, and it doesn't make him not cost $40 each.
For Phenax I was thinking something like "Tap a creature you control: Target player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is that creature's devotion", but I'm afraid with devotion, unlike Chroma, you can't reference an individual creature.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Xenagos could count the number of creatures you control instead of the creature's power? This would sync up with the real Xenagos, and it's the size of the party that matters, not the size of the partier, after all.
Brimaz is really cool! I can imagine a cycle of legends for 1CCC or that really help build devotion to their particular god. Overlapping mass-vigilance with Heliod is less than super, though. I'd rather see him have something like "whenever a Cat creature enters the battlefield, gain 2 life", or something similar?
"That creature's devotion." For all the new uses I've heard for devotion, this one's new to me and I love it. Not sure it works, but I'm not sure it can't, either. It hurts the mechanic's breadth that the number will be 0, 1 or 2 for the vast majority of creatures, BUT we can use that to our advantage by linking it to effects that hate big scaling (like "draw N cards").
DeleteSee also:
ReplyDeletemondaymorningmaro.blogspot.com/2013/09/armchair-designing-theros-and-dactyla_17.html
(some of my own takes on the same cards)
The other important point someone has to raise as Dev's Advocate is that some 'shoehorn' designs solve a substantial problem in an important format. For example, maybe Stormbreath Dragon has pro:white because the red deck needs an answer to Brimaz in Standard, to Divine Verdict in Limited, or to Spectral Procession in Modern. I appreciate that need and will ultimately choose the reality where a few designs are awkward but the metagame is awesome, but I do have to wonder if there aren't other solutions to the same problem that wouldn't compromise the design integrity of the set.
ReplyDeleteThat's generally true, though I suppose if it's late enough in development you don't want to mess around with subtle hosers you're not sure will work.
DeleteI'm wondering if part of the equation isn't that W/R would be too good (esp. in limited) if it were easy to dump an Observant Alseid or a Ghostblade Eidolon on it.
DeleteWhat irks me about Stormbreath Dragon's protection isn't just that it randomly hoses an entire colour on a card that would still be maindeckable otherwise... well, okay, maybe that is a lot of it... but also that its protection cycle is woefully incomplete. Mistcutter Hydra, Master of Waves, Stormbreath Dragon... but where's the black pro-green and the white pro-black rare? (I'd love it if Master of Waves weren't mythic so the cycle could be consistent at rarity as well, but given how Wizards are happy to let even the numbers of mythics of each colour vary in each set I fear we have to accept that they treat mythic and rare interchangeably for cycle and colour-balance purposes. Except when they don't.)
Delete