Hello and welcome. This is an opinion editorial of the new Dark Ascension set. It has statistics, and I write mean (but true) criticisms. You get information on combos and playable cards. I think I know design, but feel free to comment on why DKA is the best set ever. OP Ed here. Main resource used -- official published visual spoiler.
Ok, let's begin.
Dark Ascension opens with prize reduction! Mayor of Avabruck in Innistrad wasn‘t showing off the double-card-face because Garruk Relentless was shy. It’s official. No more mythic rare pre-release promos. Never again. Promo quality is a major factor determining my attendance in a paper event, so I’ll be skipping this pre-release and waiting for the online draft queues. The promo is Ravenous Demon /// Archdemon of Greed, which is a 4/4 vanilla for 5 mana which transforms when you sacrifice a human… into a 9/9 Flying Trample Lord of the Pit variant that taps AND deals 9 damage to you if he isn’t fed humans. I do not enjoy parasitic drawback cards, and would have designed/picked the pre-release card better. Look At Promos in their alternate art glory for confirmation. I may attend a Gameday event, but my decks won't use the launch party or pre-release cards.
Innistrad was gothic and horror, dealing with a white vs. black conflict on a plane with exceptional monsters. How does Dark Ascension build on this? Not well. Dark Ascension reminds me of “The Dark”, the fourth ever Magic the Gathering set from August 1994. Thematically, Dark Ascension's art is trying to do the same as "The Dark" art, but the current art department doesn’t have an abstractionist like Drew Tucker. The art struck me as a few good pieces among the despairing and uninspired close-ups of werewolves, vampires, and zombies. Much black and darkness. I think the art direction focused too much on close-ups of creatures and faces, instead of letting the setting shine.
My top five art from the set are (Jar of Eyeballs) by Jaime Jones, (Somberwald Dryad) by Jaime Jones, (Black Cat) by David Palumbo, (Increasing Devotion) by Daniel Ljunggren, and (Thalia, Guardian of Thraben) by Jana Schirmer and Johannes Voss. I also like (Heavy Mattock) by Winona Nelson, and (Moonveil Dragon) by Todd Lockwood. The latter two use art styles that are different from the rest of the cards in Dark Ascension. They are fresh air against the face close-ups with heavy tones.
Dark Ascension (158 cards):
White (26) - Blue (27) - Black (27) - Red (27) - Green (27) - Multicolor (9) - Artifact (11) - Land (4)
Commons (64) -- Uncommons(44) -- Rares (38) -- Mythics (12)
Reprints -- Evolving Wilds, Fling, Ray of Revelation, Divination
Functional Reprints -- Hill Giant -- renamed Russet Wolves as a wolf, and Gravepurge is Bone Harvest the cantrip, not a slow-trip
DKA Amalgamated (28/158 = 17.72% useful)... Recommended singles buylist...
Commons (11/64 = 17.19% useful):
Crushing Vines x4 -- 2G instant, destroy an artifact or flying creature (sideboard card)
Dawntreader Elk x4 -- the new Sakura-Tribe Elder
Faithless Looting x4 -- red Careful Study with flashback
Highborn Ghoul x4 -- 2/1 Fear… er “Intimidate” for BB, power level would be uncommon 3 years ago
Loyal Cathar // Unhallowed Cathar x4 -- WW 2/2 vigilance, after ‘killed’ flips into 2/1 can’t block zombie, great with dark Mikaeus
Midnight Guard x4 -- Infinite creatures for you when enchanted with Presence of Gond, pauper combo for online!
Saving Grasp x4 -- Rescue with white flashback, the original does 'any permanent' instead of only creatures
Torch Fiend x4 -- variant on Hearth Kami, only R instead of converted mana cost to shatter
Tragic Slip x4 -- -13/-13 for one black (morbid)
Thought Scour x4 to replace Mental Note because it can target any player
Young Wolf x4 -- Undying 1/1 for only G
Uncommons (7/44 = 15.19% useful):
Lingering Souls x4 -- a Midnight Haunting with flashback… nearly; it’s a sorcery
Secrets of the Dead x4 -- Burning Vengeance is a real deck, use flashback... draw a card for 2U, Enchantment
Strangleroot Geist x4 -- GG, Undying 2/1 Haste
Diregraf Captain x4 -- lord of zombies
Drogskol Captain x4 -- lord of spirits --> Amazing! +1/+1 and hexproof your spirits.
Immerwolf x4 -- lord of werewolves
Stormkirk Captain x4 -- lord of vampires
Rares (6/38 = 15.8% useful):
Geralf’s Messenger x4 -- BBB 3/2 zombie, Undying
Ghoultree x4 -- zombie treefolk 10/10, casting cost decreases with creatures in the your graveyard, intro pack foil rare
Grafdigger’s Cage x4 -- a graveyard hating must for sideboards everywhere
Gravecrawler x4 -- zombie, B, 2/1 can't block, can be cast from the graveyard if you control a zombie
Predator Ooze x4 -- finally an indestructible Ooze
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben x3 -- a better Glowrider for classic/modern sideboarding
Mythics (5/12 = 41.67% useful):
Elbrus, the Binding Blade x2 -- big numbers (should have been the pre-release card)
Mikaeus the Unhallowed x3 -- Intimidate, No Mercy on humans, gives all your other non-human guys Undying... comborifffic
Sorin, Lord of Innistrad x3 -- chase planeswalker, may be a standard deck archetype b/w tokens
Vorapede x2 -- 5/4 Vigilance, Trample, Undying; overrated though might see play -- Thunderblust is what this reminds me of
Hard to Evaulate -- Havengul Lich -- mythic -- 3UB Zombie 4/4 1:You may cast target creature card from a graveyard this turn. When you cast that card this turn, Havengul Lich gains all activated abilities of that card until end of turn.
EDH only when they get cheap later (not counted toward ‘useful’ cards)…
Call of the Kindred -- rare -- 3U creature type based ‘put it into play from library’ blue aura
Counterslash -- rare -- 4UU, allows ‘Show and Tell’ for caster based on spell type countered
Fiend of the Shadows -- rare -- 3BB 3/3 flying vampire that can ‘steal’ cards from opponents
Increasing Vengeance -- rare -- Reverberate that only targets your spells, but has flashback for double
Increasing Savagery -- rare -- sorcery 2GG for +1/+1 counters (5), flashback 5GG for 10!
Drogskol Reaver -- mythic -- seven mana draw cards when gain life 3/5 5WU doublestrike, good with Drogskol Captain
Vault of the Archangel -- rare -- land, 2BW for death touch and lifelink: Your Army





















For your personal reference, “The Dark” had 119 Cards Total (4 Lands, 20 Artifacts, 3 Multicolor, 19 White, 18 Green,18 Red, 18 Black, 19 Blue), and above are pictured the ‘useful cards’ from that set. [(Tivadar’s Crusade)(Barl’s Cage)(Tormod’s Crypt) are omitted due to website problems with the apostraphe.] My number crunch has ‘useful’ original Dark at 24/119 or 20%. In other words, a greater percentage of “The Dark” is playable than “Dark Ascension”. The Dark is considered to be a design failure. I believe Dark Ascension to be the same.
The Dark vs Dark Ascension
| Goblins |
Primary Creature Focus |
Zombies |
| Generic Monsters -- Frankenstein's, Leviathan |
Horror Thematic |
Vampires, Werewolves, Demons |
| Squire, 1W vanilla 1/2 |
Wasted White Common |
Sanctuary Cat, W vanilla 1/2 |
| People of the Woods |
Hated Useless Green Cards |
Favor the Woods, Lost in the Woods
|
| Whippoorwill |
Art Featuring Green Bird That Doesn't Fly |
Crushing Vines |
| Tormod's Crypt |
Named Artifact People Complain "Broken" (Graveyard Hate) |
Grafdigger's Cage |
| Maze of Ith |
Most Expensive Card |
Sorin, Lord of Innistrad |
| Martyr's Cry + Heaven's Gate |
Bad White Rare in Exile-Wrath Combo |
Sudden Disappearance + Sundial of the Infinite |
| Niall Silvain |
GGG rare |
Predator Ooze |
| The Drowned |
1U Blue Common Zombie |
Screeching Skaab |
| Blood Moon |
Amazing Red Card to Help the Color |
Faithless Looting |
| Blood of the Martyr |
Distrubing Art on Bad Rare |
Jar of Eyeballs |
| Have you seen cards from 1994? |
tons of Overcosted Spells |
The Curses, the 'Increasing' cycle, many commons |
Parallels between DKA and DK abound, and I didn't name them all. But perhaps it isn't fair to compare 2012 design to 1994 design. DKA is another set like Worldwake. Flavorful, fun in limited without much substance, and will be under-opened in the paper form. The power level is low, the casting costs high, and the designs lack originality. I am not excited. So, how would I improve Dark Ascension?
“Faithful Hour”, the turn-on bigger effect mechanic, should begin at 7 life and not 5 life. And it was templated wrong. It should read Faithful Hour:X, indicating Faithful Hour at X life. I remember a design article specifically bemoaning how Threshold isn't Threshold:7, making re-use of the mechanic clunky. R&D didn't learn from their own history. Why 7? Brimstone Volley means it's too risky to run in constructed. Hit five life and die from a topdeck. If only the set had targeted instants/effects with small life gain, to save yourself and break an opponent's Faithful Hour... but it doesn't. Thematically, from a Vorthos perspective, the unlucky 13 is the ’evil’ side of Innistrad block, so why shouldn’t the good side get the traditionally lucky 7? Faithful Hour could have been a contender! Could have been playable! Intuitive flavor-wise support even existed.
Faithful Hour? GG.
Mark Rosewater was the lead designer of DKA. He likes cycles, and he pretends cycles are good design. I think cycles are lazy design. Filler design. Weak design. Case in point, Flashback Cycles -- The Increasing at Rare, Enemy Color Sorcery Flashback at Uncommon, and Allied Color Instant Flashback at common . (Tracker's Instincts) would have been amazing as an instant; not sure if it's playable as a sorcery. Flashback is a beloved mechanic that could have made the set. I like Flashback. Dark Ascension did not do interesting things with it. I mean if the set wanted to showcase flashback, make it mythic. Make it memorable. Don't just say "It has flashback let's fill some design holes."
Another Rosewater cycle to recognize as ‘bad’ is in red -- Alpha Brawl (6RR rare), Blood Feud (4RR uncommon), and Wrack with Madness (3R common) -- mana expensive variations on ‘fighting.’ Compare against Prey Upon, one green mana for a fight. On templating, I think instead of copying and color-shifting Repentance, Wrack With Madness should read "Target creature fights itself." Make it cost one red. That's elegant. Someone at Wizards wrote, inconsistently, they wouldn’t do anymore variations like these after keywording ‘fight’. What happened? Why do these cards need so much colorless mana in their casting costs?
The Pre-release card! I mentioned it before, but a legendary equipment that can turn into a 13/13 flyer is awesome. Much more awesome for Wotc’s market’s researched pre-release demographic than what is offered. This is lost sales.
Undying. Amazing mechanic -- a reverse persist where they come back stronger (+1/+1). (Elgaud Inquisitor), (Sanctuary Cat), (Beguiler of Wills), (Tower Geist), (Black Cat), (Farbog Boneflinger), (Hellrider), (Russet Wolves), and (Hollowhenge Beast) needed it. They don’t have it. None of them would be broken with Undying. I consider this bad design. The best mechanic isn’t in the set enough. My rapture for Undying makes me want to buy single paper playsets. If the mechanic was better populated, I'd want to buy booster packs instead.
My goodness, is there a playable curse upon the set? Innistrad had (Curse of Death’s Hold), Curse of the Pierced Heart, and Curse of Stalked Prey for constructed and Curse of the Bloody Tome as a limited deck. Dark Ascension has got nothing. Nothing! Curse of Exhaustion costs one more mana than both Arcane Laboratory and Rule of Law, which have already been superseded in sideboards by Mindbreak Trap and Ethersworn Canonist, and Curse of Exhaustion was the best one! Is it *that* hard to make good uncommons which players want to build around?
Curse of Exhaustion 2WW -- Rule of Law on one player -- playable cost WW
Curse of Echoes 4U -- all players get to Fork your instants/sorceries -- better cost UUU ( fine for EDH)
Curse of Misfortunes 4B -- gets MORE curses from library to attach to target player -- playable cost 1B, “Makes this a cool deck archetype in block and maybe standard”
Curse of Thirst 4B -- does damage to target player equal to number curses attached each upkeep -- you don’t ever want to play it, you want to put it into with Curse of Misfortunes; still make it 3B
Curse of Bloodletting 3RR -- double all damage to that player -- playable casting cost RRR
A colorless answer to stop those curses if they were actually playable…
One last note, I think the red werewolves in the set are fine transformed, but all need better stats or casting costs at the 'vanilla' state. If one of the untransformed werewolves reduced mana costs for double-faced cards, that would have been fun. These new werewolves aren't good in constructed unless you flip them, which is hard to do.
Cards I believe could get changed for the better:
(Archangel’s Light) -- reduce the casting cost to 2W and add ‘self exile’ like Time Spiral, or reprint Ancestral Tribute
(Gather the Townsfolk) -- be an instant
(Séance) -- add “…unless it’s controller pays 5WW” at the end of the ‘exile this’ clause
(Skillful Lunge) -- should also gain 2 life
(Sudden Disappearance) -- reduce the casting cost to 3W
(Bone to Ash) -- change casting cost to 3U so it’s not strictly worse than Dismiss
(Call the Kindred) -- increase the number of cards looked at to seven, for the trouble of setting it up, make it hit more
(Geralf’s Mindcrusher) -- increase the milled cards to eight, change power toughness to 8/4... make it crush like Crash of Rhinos
(Mystic Retrieval) -- I'd replace this entirely... make a spell that messes with Faithful Hour somehow instead
(Havengul Runebinder) -- removed tap symbol, allowing ability to be used immediately and multiple times
(Saving Grasp) -- made it a better Rescue, e.g. “any permanent”
(Deadly Allure) -- add “Draw a card”
(Fiend of the Shadows) -- change to 1/7, adding "Strike from shadows and retreat" flavor while making the ability relevant
(Gruesome Discovery) -- lower casting cost by 1
(Ravenous Demon) -- in flipped form, be ‘Greedy’! Take any two creatures, not just one human
(Reap the Seagraf) -- lower casting and flashback costs by 1
(Vengeful Vampire) -- lower casting cost by 1
(Zombie Apocalypse) -- tribal sorcery -- “Zombie”
(Afflicted Deserter) -- start at 2/2 for 2R instead of 3/2 for 3R to distinguish from Mondronen Shaman
(Hinterland Hermit) -- make it more distinct from a strictly worse Reckless Waif
(Russet Wolves) -- we don’t need more Hill Giants… add morbid targeted life gain to mess with Faithful Hour
(Scorch the Fields) -- reduce casting cost by 3, non-basic lands only... standard needs useful answers for the dominating new non-basic lands
(Shattered Perception) -- Winds of Change was not used, why would someone play this?
(XXX the Woods) -- eliminate these cards, reducing set size to 156
(Lambholt Elder) -- give it lifelink while not transformed
(Wolfbitten Captive) -- needs Madness: 0
(Altar of the Lost) -- I don't think it would have been broken at either 2 mana, or without the 'come into play tapped' restriction
(Grim Backwoods) -- reduced activation cost to 1BG OR should be "draw a card and gain one life"
(Haunted Fengraf) -- would have removed ‘random’
Finally I’ll close with what I really *liked* about the set. Loved the ‘Undying’ mechanic (wish it was used more), and I thought the Raise Dead variant on it -- (Undying Evil) was excellent design. The uncommon gold Tribal Lords are a good cycle that will help sell singles and packs. Both commons which use the number 13, (Tragic Slip) and (Chant of the Skifsang) are good designs. The combination of Mikaeus and Loyal Cathar looks interesting to try and set-up in a block deck. Ghoul Tree and Predatory Ooze are both going in personal decks when I get my copies. And finally, I liked that Sorin isn’t obviously broken like Worldwake’s planeswalker, meaning his value will stay more sane, in the $15-25 range once the hype dies off.
Thanks for reading, all images used belong to the named artists and Wizards of the Coast. All opinions are my own.
29 Comments
While I may not agree with your assessment I actually really enjoyed the editorial
I think its a tough sell on your comparison of "playable" cards due to the difference in set size (and I think your math was slightly off as I counted 29/158), but I do feel you left out some playable commons at the least in undying evil (which you didn't count as playable, but applauded at the end) and stormbound geist
and less "editorial".
Admittedly, most of the complaints were backed up at least, but the overall feel was very whiny to me. And I disagree with a number of the complaints to begin with.
I think, if you're going to write an article detailing design, you should first have at least a modicum of design experience - whether vicariously or physically - and I feel a lot of what you're saying should be done is the opposite of good design. Have you read the Making Magic columns or the various other design forums at the Wizard's site? Or have you tried making cards yourself in the monthy Custom Card contest in the MTGO Forums? I think it would do you good to see the difference between designing for yourself / your play style and designing for the world at large. It would also show you about the idea of designing as a whole set vs designing individual cards.
I think that Dark Ascension, while not outstanding, had a number of really well-thought-out design choices - and some questionable ones too - but the overall feel to me was positive. I agree about the the demon sword 1000%, and I agree that both cats should have had undying just for the flavor of it, but some of your complaints, like "wasted white common" or "generic monsters" is pointless. And then you have to think about the themes of the set - complaining about Shattered Perception, in a block that needs things in a graveyard? Or "We don't need more hill giants" when it's a wolf in a block that pumps wolves, and you also need common vanilla creatures in every set?
I think this could have been a great article, but how it was written and the arguments therein left me wanting.
I've designed cards since I first started playing in 1994, participated in the their GDS searches, and won a few design contests along the way. I've designed my own games (mostly video games). Have *you* read "The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell from cover to cover? If not, you don't have a clear picture of what good design can be, especially if you believe "Making Magic" articles are the pinnacle of design advice.
Warned readers at the beginning that it would be a critical article.
I disagree that set-specific enablers should be useless outside their sets. I also disagree that vanilla creatures are necessary in non-base edition sets. They are fine if constructed playable, but I've never played Hill Giant in constructed, even with cards that pump Giants.
The term "Generic Monsters" was used in the table describing the monsters in 'The Dark' from 1994, referring to Leviathan, Frankenstein's Monster, Nameless Race, Goblin Hero, and other generic or easily-recognizable-as-real-world-analogue monsters. DKA is trying to cash in on the current vampire/zombie/werewolf fad in fantasy fiction. I thought people could get that. Maybe I was wrong.
The 'arguments therein' you dislike are disputes on fundamental design theory, which I could write about, but is off topic in a set critique article. See... we aren't talking about DKA right now. I think if DKA followed my advice, it would have much stronger sales.
As to how it was written, I'm always open to advice on improvement... can you give specifics which do NOT involve opinions you disagree with?
Wait, you really expect every vanilla creature in non-core sets to be CONSTRUCTED-playable??
The bar for constructed playability for vanilla creatures is outrageously high - even french vanilla (it took months to realize that a conditional 3/2 flyer for 1 is pretty amazing in the right deck). Put another way: would Serendib Efreet see constructed play in standard today?
Vanilla creatures are necessary to fill holes in limited. Since limited is one of the key driving forces behind pack sales (as well as a strong portion of high-level organized play), raising the bar to constructed playability would either:
A - Take a dump all over one of the cornerstones of current play
B - Require inelegant additions of low-power/no-utility text just to make them non-vanilla (and unnecessarily eat up future design space)
I appreciate that you've designed a bunch of cards and submitted some of them to GDS, but while you're clearly well-versed in design theory, it seems like you're absolutely missing the mark on actual application to a set, at least in a 'holistic' sense.
I expect vanilla creatures, when printed, to make me want to play them somehow, somewhere. In expert-level expansions, I believe they are a poor design choice unless they are efficient AND in-theme. I believe 'french vanilla', creatures with one ability which is relevant or interacts with the mechanics spotlighted in the expansion set, should be the default. For example, if Russet wolves were printed as a vanilla 3/1 for RR (bad curve-pushing), or 4/1 for 1RR/2R, they'd be great.
You can save the Hill Giants for newbies and core, they add nothing to the game, either in strategy or in collectibility. I do not see vanilla as a 'cornerstone of current play', I see it as lost opportunity to strengthen expert sets.
While I agree that the final reveal of the set was pretty dissappointing given that the previews had led us to expect something awesome, I disagree that it is as bad as "The Dark". Fisrts off, you are missing quite a few cards that are playable outside major formats (there is A LOT here for commander players) and your list of Dark "playables" takes the term playable pretty loosely. Even back then, half those cards never made the cut into actual decks.
I also think that you might have gone a bit far on a lot of the redos o the cards. A non-symmetrical Rule of Law for WW would be very busted, talk about major tempo!. You could soft lock the other player out turn 2 with this + couterspells. If the accepted cost for this effect on a symmetrical card is 3, then 4 for the nonsymmetrical version is a fine deal, especially when it gets the bonus of being a curse that can go with other curses.
'Curse of Law' at WW would be fair in legacy/modern. In standard, there are not enough cheap counterspells to stop everything, especially with all the flash, flashback, and instants going around. Plus you'd have to be heavy white, which doesn't have counterspells on it's own (Mana Tithe ignored). Plus it's not like Curse of Law is ever winning the game by doing damage or milling.
But even if I'm wrong, part of making a set exciting is pushing limitations. If they printed Curse of Law, and people said it was super broken like you just did, but it turned out to be not such a big deal like I think... it would really sell the set! That sort of exciting controversy is missing in Dark Ascension, except for maybe Graf's cage.
How on earth would permanently stunting your opponent's tempo and ability to answer threats for the rest of the game which also ensures that every counter you play will resolve for 2 mana (playable on turn one easily) be "fair" in Legacy/Modern exactly?
One major aspect of design is to follow past guidelines so that you don't constantly make your previously designed cards complete crap. You have two different benchmarks for correct costing of the Rule of Law effect, knocking down the price by a mana AND making the effect significantly better is not doing that at all.
This type of controversy is what tells me the card design is on the right place in the envelope. How much more exciting would DKA have been if it had a few more cards which inspired this type of discussion aside from Graf's Cage?
Remember Isochron Scepter+Mana Drain (vintage) or Isochron Scepter+Orim's Chant (legacy)? How on Earth is stopping your opponent from casting spells, or gaining mana from your opponent's every action, fair in their respective formats? In fact, both those archetypes are *barely* played. They don't win. By the way, that's the answer... they don't win the game.
Sure, cast your first turn Curse of Law. Aether Vial doesn't care. Man-lands don't care. "Can't Be Countered" enjoys it. If you spend every turn playing a counterspell, how are you winning the game? Simple: you aren't. And if the archetype does start winning, suddenly every one is playing 4 Ray of Revelation (also in DKA, but pointless without good Curses) or other 2 for 1 efficient answers and fringe SB cards Leyline of Lifeforce, and the metagame is fine.
To answer your 'two benchmarks' riddle, the WW version, Curse of Law, is inferior to Rule of Law because it only hits one player in a multiplayer game.
Counterlash is the blue EDH card, not Counterslash. Best EDH card in the set IMO.
I never once said Making Magic articles are the pinnacle of design advice. I mentioned it because it shows the motivations that underlie a lot of the choices MTG designers make / are sometimes forced to make. Additionally, no matter who wrote it, no book is the end-all, be-all that you claim "The Art of Game Design" is. Case in point, Gary Gynax, Steve Jackson, Richard Garfield, and countless others have designed dozens of great, heavily played games before Jesse Schell wrote that book, so I doubt it's required reading.
I think a lot of people agreed with what I said, so I don't need to rehash those arguments, but I really think what clinched my argument for me is this :
But even if I'm wrong, part of making a set exciting is pushing limitations. If they printed Curse of Law, and people said it was super broken like you just did, but it turned out to be not such a big deal like I think... it would really sell the set! That sort of exciting controversy is missing in Dark Ascension, except for maybe Graf's cage.
The point of Magic designing is not to stir controversy at every turn. If they did, the game would die because it would advance to a point of ridiculousness. Those of us that have been playing since the days of the Dark - like myself - have already had issues adjusting to the "power creep" that permeates every set. Now you say that it should be even faster? If they went with "pushing limits" every single set, you'll end up with Primeval Titans as commons and god-knows-what as rares. Maybe they have just learned from the Big-Jace fallout, and have lightened up a bit on the power levels just to be cautious.
About the only defense you threw out that I actually agree with is that the block is likely trying to grab some of the dark-fantasy themes that have been flying around as late. The difference, however, is that I think it's somewhat inevitable, and ultimately I'm fine with it as long as they don't sell out in the process - and to me, they haven't.
So now it's not about what I think makes a good designer or good design, it's about your arbitrary opinion that I'm a bad designer just because? You can't have it both ways. You can't say I'm bad designer because I don't have work recognized or know the field, and then when I give examples of work and prove I *DO* know the field, 'doubt it's required'.
The point of designing magic is to make a good game. Good games inspire passion. Good games change and evolve. Magic can change by pushing limits or redefining them. I don't think making a good curse deck viable in block is 'power creep'. I think it's using new design space... but at the same time making the curse deck competitive *does* require it be powerful. Part of my personal design philosophy is if a card can't win by itself, and changes the style of play an opponent uses, then that is a 'pushable' area that won't result in 'power creep'. You need to remember standard has bad countermagic and other formats have Aether Vial and spells which 'can't be countered' and two card win-the-game combos, some of which have flash. So despite your protests, WW for Rule of Law isn't broken. It isn't even as good as Counterbalance.
Part of selling a product is making people passionate about it. Artificial controversy over a previously 'undone' design is great way to do this. Design doesn't exist in a vacuum, marketing also matters! That's why I stress making both good sets and sets that *sell*.
Have you ever watched "Thank you for Smoking"? Your arguments are very reminiscent of it. My issue was never with your "proof of knowledge" - it was with this line :
Have *you* read "The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell from cover to cover? If not, you don't have a clear picture of what good design can be, especially if you believe "Making Magic" articles are the pinnacle of design advice.
Had your argument basically said "I've done X and Y and Z", you would have been fine. But then you throw in a clearly false statement and expect everyone to accept it. So basically, simply by not reading that book, you can't do good design? The second you use absolutes, you lose the argument, hands down.
Now, that part aside, you and I agree that good games inspire passion, and that (some) good games change and evolve. Unless you're going to try to argue that Chess is a bad game, it's NOT a given that a good game needs to change and evolve. That is not to say that you can't take a good game, change it / evolve it, and have another good game - Archon from Chess, for instance - but it is definitely NOT a requirement.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the end to our agreements, as I am very much against the idea that so long as a card doesn't win by itself, it must therefore be in a "pushable" area. Your arguments are all based upon and dependent on *YOUR* personal opinions and wants, whereas Mark Rosewater and Wizards do not design the game specifically for *you*. This is why I said that the article felt whiny - because it was "this card is bad because I don't like X or Y about it" rather than "This card is badly designed because it warps a specific metagame or deck type" or "this card is bad because it doesn't properly fit the theme of the set".
Part of selling a product is ensuring that said product will last. Part of selling a product like MTG is ensuring that as many people as possible like it, both older and newer generations.
Part of selling a product like Dark Ascension is ensuring that as many archetypes and formats are supported by the cards in the set - and I feel (as do a lot of others) that that goal was reached.
I have never watched "Thank You for Smoking." I'll try and check it out. No promises, I've been busy lately.
"The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses" by Schell is my game design bible. There is no better book for game design. Reading it will make you a better designer. It is not a false statement, it what I genuinely believe. I would not hire a designer who is unfamiliar with that book.
And yea, this *OP ED* article is based on my personal opinions, which in turn have been formed during my tournament magic career, which has included pro points. When I don't like X or Y, it is usually because it could be playable in a specific metagame, but isn't. I don't want my articles to run too long, so I don't write essays on every card. The point of the article is about design of the new set, not how to properly evaluate cards at a tournament level, though the two are connected. But thank you for the advice regarding 'This card is badly designed because...' I'll try and take it for the next set.
Jyalt, you are generally an outstanding writer and I usually look forward to your articles. This one, however, even before I opened it, made me cringe a little. Why? Because the set was just spoiled and it hasn't for most of us had time to really settle into our consciousnesses and here you are preparing to deride it and its designers.
I am in agreement with some of your assessments of cards and disagree with a bunch of others. I won't argue about who is the best qualified to make sets because everyone has opinions and to me this seems to be somewhat of a matter of opinion.
(We can talk till we are blue in the face about what the correct criteria are for determining this and you might actually even be totally correct but that won't be convincing by itself. Game Design is not a science as of now.)
Also many mtg players have some experience either as designers or expert users of game design and have at least some intuitive knowledge of what works and what doesn't. For those of us who have done deeper work in the field this is even more true.)
One of the patterns we have seen with Wizards when it comes to set power over a long period of time is there is an ebb and flow to power creep. Sometimes a set comes out like Urza's Saga and everyone freaks out, and then we get sets like Mercadian Masques. And then Invasions and so on. This pattern repeats itself over and over again in the history of sets.
To complain that this set is as bad as the Dark was is really imho missing the mark. Not that I hated the Dark at all. When I opened Dark packs I really enjoyed finding Frankenstein s monster and Maze of Ith. I loved the Elves of Dark Shadow and Witch Hunter. There were plenty of less spectacular cards but also plenty of interesting stuff.
However, back then, set design was very primitive without much nuance at all. Mirage is probably the first time a magic set seemed gel. In my opinion DKA is fairly good for what it is. It is the 2nd set of a cycle and imho is fairly spot on. I don't care for the art the way I did ISD (Wow!! that set has lots of great art!) but everyone has different tastes.
I agree that excitement is important for initial sales and if a person really loves a set deeply they will likely get very involved with it. But I don't agree that a set always needs to knock our socks off. (Wasn't Grafdigger's Cage a good enough example of that?) I don't see DKA as being boring but then again there are at least a dozen cards I really like a lot (which seems to be about the right number per set for me).
I think one of the reasons this article gets me down is the highly negative tone your text seems to take only marginally lightening up at the end with the few things you do like about the set. If you'd started with that, maybe this wouldn't feel so much like just a rant from a disgruntled player.
In fact this article reminded me a lot of the one by Blau from last year after the GDS was over. He had some legitimate points but they seemed to drown in the vitriol of his personal vendetta against Mark Rosewater. I get it. Not everyone loves the guy but really...is he solely responsible for all the ills players perceive?
My preference would have been that you take a more neutral stance and actually maybe go with a positive tone so that your criticisms could be taken more seriously.
By the way if you are going to tell us you have designed games you know your audience is going to want to check them out. Why not post some links?
Thanks for writing.
When they print another set I like, I'll take an overall positive tone. Comments are along the lines of 'who do you think you are to criticize wizards!' -- I expect that. It is hard for me to take a neutral stance in an OP ED, because then it wouldn't be my actual opinion. With Innistrad, I took a positive tone in the beginning, and got even *more* flack about being a negative nelly. This point of a design critique is to critique... not cheer lead the set. At least this time I was clear about it being an OP ED.
Mark Rosewater is actually a great guy in person, and I don't have any vendetta against him. But I don't think he did a good job as lead designer with this set. More of a case of 'like that man, dislike his work on *this* job.' And Rosewater has had great sets too.
I don't feel comfortable marketing my own creations in a MTG article. They aren't magic, and when I read self-promotion like that in other articles it makes me feel dirty. I'll think about it more for the future... maybe when I need the money more. Maybe when certain projects have shipped.
Thanks for commenting.
I'm kind of agree with you on this one Paul. This article did come out stage one negative criticism in tone.
What isn't talked about, as far as the design of sets go, is how this is the 2nd of ISD Block. I won't pretend I know much about game (let along Magic) design, but this fact seems extremely important to me.
It's the 2nd act and is by purpose, kind of boring. It needs to add, support and re-enforce act 1 - so we can be spun around and bought to rethink once act 3 is finished.
Upon final reveal of DKA my reaction is a bit "oh... that's it?", but I think every set has some real interesting sleepers and I get a feeling we aren't going to know where DKA's strengths lie for a couple months yet.
To get cards with apostrophes to show up, you have to edit the article in html mode, then find the word with the apostrophe. You'll find that the site has inserted the html code for apostrophe (& apos ; but without the spaces). Delete the html code, put in an apostrophe, and the card will show up.
Rofl at Deprecated Entities eh? Nice catch!
but will give 3 fireballs for alot of content that is , at least, opinionated and grammatically well done. I disagree whole heartedly with the Dark comparison and question very much if you actually played Magic at that time, or simply read the cards and compared them with the timeframe that you do play Magic. To me that is a huge mistake, comparing sets, from 10 years ago even, to today. Magic as a game has had a HUGE power creep for many years, so aside from the broken cards of the Beta era and around 40-50 other cards(FOW, LED, etc.) there is nothing from sets of days gone by that "compare" with sets of today, regardless of the arbitrary titles you may apply.
but I started during legends and bought a whole booster box of the Dark when it came out. My first event deck was 115 cards, my 2nd one 73. Then I made Land Tax/Land's Edge. My fifth deck, Ball Lightning/Blood Lust mono-red nearly won something at an event (but didn't)... really needed Berserks to push it up a tier (had the Taigas).
And I even mentioned in the article that perhaps the comparison with the Dark wasn't fair, which is why I also compared extensively with Worldwake.
I remember in my area, The Dark had several layers to it, after Legends it seemed underpowered - all the obviously powerful stuff sucked to use (such as Leviathan) but it took a while until people picked up on how awesome Maze of Ith and Witch Hunter were. It still sticks out as one of my favourite sets.
But the feel of magic then was entirely different, in hindsight it really did seem like a different game (I just got back into it online 6 months ago).
I like mtgo. It's fun. These cards seem fun. I like them. They are not as good as they could be, or as good as the past block. I think they are more fun though. Som block was fun but to broken and I think Mtgo needed to step back off the ledge. No annililator, No infect (thats a 2hg ref). I am gonna draft the daylights out of dark.
While I dont think the set is so bad, my expectations were really high, perhaps because of how great innistrad was.
Just to see the metagame in Block or the archetipes in draft (burning, mill, GW, UB, etc) is enought to recognize innistrad was one of the best sets ever designed. Also the flavour was great and the drawing too.
But DKA falls a bit behind, at first glance it seems like the only defining card will be Sorin, and some other cards will get some play. In standard for example i dont see more than 10 cards finding a place.
Maybe im wrong, i hope im wrong.
The mechanich fateful hour doesnt seem interesting for constructed. I think the author made a point with the brimstone volley. Why would you want to be at 5 just to be eaten by a volley...
Undiying certainly is interesting, i look forward to it.
Then we have the curses, almost all unplayable, except for the -1/-1 and Curse of the Bloody tome, curses are not even playable in limited....I dont understand why they put so much effort creating a "possible deck" with enablers, sinergy, and all, if they make the power level so low
I don't understand many things about this article. For example "useful cards". In what format? And you just describe what they do, no reasoning why they are useful and why the others aren't. Some other cards which might be useful: Increasing Devotion (to human decks, instead of the Monk), Undying Evil, Hellrider, Markov Blademaster, Huntmaster of the Fells. And additionally if some decks are played, like werewolves, spirits, curses, then those cards.
In general: there are several new cards every year. Do you really want all of them to be playable? And not just as a possible sideboard card, but really good card? That would just mean that older cards would fast become unplayable. Do you think that would be good?
Fateful hour: I'm sure the designers considered other possibilities and choose 5 as the best. It works only the real dark times, when there is immediate danger. That's why they choose the number which can be easily reached by single spells.
Curses: I think lot of people underestimates the power of Curse of Misfortunes. Suppose you play one, and the opponent doesn't destroy it immediately. From your next turn you can have mana to counter everything what would destroy it. First turn you search for something which messes with the plans of the opponent (Curse of Death's Hold if he has many creatures, the blue one to automatically counter his counters, or the white one, which you have in your blue-black deck as a singleton and couldn't even play otherwise). Next turn Curse of Thirst (3 damages on his turn), then the red curse (again, you cannot play it normally), that's 8 damage next turn, and any other Curse next time. If curse of Misfortunes would cost 2, you could play it before he has mana to counter it, and then you could counter everything he tries to do against it. He's dead at the beginning of his 6th turn.
Wrack of Madness for one red: that card kill almost everything it can target, including Titans and Blighsteel Colossus.
Hellrider with undying? That's a powerful finisher for red decks with small guys even this way. Black Cat with undying? If you have any sacrifice outlet, it is a hymn to tourach at worst. Yes, I think I would put that in basically any deck with sacrifice outlets. Tower Geist gives you an acceptable body and a card now. Should it also give you a good body and another card in case it dies?
Curse of Exhaustion: Rule of Law is a possible sideboard card, make it one-sided but cost 1 more, that's perfect. This card is good against basically every deck. It it was cheap, it wouldn't be broken, but still it would change the whole Legacy metagame. Do you counter my threatening spell? Well, I have another one, and you cannot do anything.
Gather the Townsfolk as an instant wouldn't be broken of course. But there is such a card without the fateful hour thing, Raise the Alarm. Is it a bad card? No, it is not. Why would you make a strictly better version then?
Deadly Allure with draw a card? You know, Think Twice draws a card for 1U and 2U. Now you would add other good stuff to this spell, and change the costs to B and G? I'm glad you are not the head designer for the set.
tribal: it would make sense, but they decided they won't use tribal ever again. It didn't make too much sense, didn't add to much and was a bit confusing.
madness: they won't use a keyword on one card in the set, and they don't want to add too many keywords.
There are plenty among your suggestions which I could agree with (especially about the xxx Woods cards), but I think Wizards did a better job than you.
I get the impression I'm the only one that thought the article was spot-on.
Once I digested the spoiler, I canceled my plans to go to the prerelease.
The set is very weak and not at all what I was anticipating for the follow-up
to Innistrad. I thought that innistrad was a great set and I was looking
forward to the prerelease and I have to admit that I was disappointed with
what WOTC cooked up. The set is weak. I don't look forward to cracking open packs
that are full of cards that have no practical application anywhere.
Personally, I liked his opinions (and that is the key here: "his opinions")
on how to jazz up some of the cards in the set. I'm sure everyone has opinions of
their own on how to fix cards. There's no reason to flame him over that. Here's an
idea: write your own article and include your ideas on fixing some of the crap in
Dark Ascension!
People, don't make excuses for Wizards of the Coast. They pay flunkies good money
to do that already. Don't put a flunky out of work!
You're not alone, I really liked this editorial too. I don't claim to be the best at analyzing what the effects of the author's revisions would mean for the game, but I 100% agree that much of the card design is overly cautious, disappointing, and feels like it misses a lot of opportunities on innovation and mechanic~theme synergy.
I was very excited when the initial spoilers rolled in, but have since cancelled the box I preordered and switched entirely to singles purchases (was planning on +/- $110 for the set, but reduced to about $30). I'm now just waiting for the huntsmaster and lich to fall in price, which I think will be inevitable. None of the deck archetypes I started working for standard got the support I was anticipating; no new quality burn spells, and not many good pod finishers (maybe vorapede).
My comment is on only one card suggested to have undying: hellrider. Really disagree it wouldnt be broken. Add simian shaman and hellrider in the signal pest/memnite/mox deck and you have a 3/3 undying, haste + memnite and pest in second turn dealing 3+4+2= 9 damage. Third round end the game. Except for mono red, only blue and/or white can deal with that. Even in that case you must have spell pierce or path to exile in the starting hand or be dead if your oponent starts the game. Hellrider would have to be banned in modern as soon as released. Thought they were cautious with modern format in many cards, that's why they are not so powerful within the block.
Thank you for the comment.
It is a nice opening, but if you want to play Simian Spirit Guide, generally it's in the Living End deck, where you Spirit Guide out a Cascade Spell on turn two, wrath their board, and get high power cycling creatures (including Street Wraiths) into play.
The Pyromancer's Ascension/Past In Flames deck can also win on turn two. Some versions play Spirit Guide, but most use traditional red rituals like Seething Song, Manamorphose, etc..
Additionally for that opening, you need a combination adding up to four of Mox+Spirit Guidex2+landx2 AND Hellrider, Pest, and Memnite. That's 7 cards.
With choosing any 7 cards in modern, winning on turn three is easy... so while Hellrider might be competitive with Undying, I do assert it wouldn't have been broken, even in the Signal Pest deck. Additionally the way Hellrider is *now* despite the coolness of that combo (which still goes off without the 'undying'), I doubt Hellrider will make the cut. I don't see adding Undying changing that. The Galvanic Blasts and Shrapnel Blasts would make even undying Hellrider slow/not the most efficient damage for the casting cost. He'd be competing with Cranial Plating and Ravager.