|
The star wars tcg did that poo poo too and its always the dumbest poo poo lol Idk why banning stuff is so verboten to some games
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:The star wars tcg did that poo poo too and its always the dumbest poo poo lol Opening banned cards feels bad and hurts sales a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
If we do get some Standard bans, it should help a lot that the problem cards are from over a year ago instead of being from the new set.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
"Please stop making Standard be midrange value piles!" *the monkey's paw curls"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Jesus, those top eights being almost entirely two decks is pretty grim. But look at this Japanese tournament. https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=32582&f=ST The guy won with a Temur Deck and look no Alrund's Epiphany in it.. oh wait there's Esika's Chariot... But what about this Dimir Control deck that placed 5-8... certainly that's a little diff.. oh it has Alrdun's Epiphany in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
born on a buy you posted:Opening banned cards feels bad and hurts sales a lot. Tbh I think I'd feel worse if I opened a powerful card, built a deck around it, played it in a game, then found out my opponent has a card that makes me instantly lose the game because I played my good card. I had to look up the "banned" cards out of curiosity, and I can't decide if this wording is quaint or just janky. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:But look at this Japanese tournament. https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=32582&f=ST So if every single deck at Worlds has one of those two cards, does that make them both get banned?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
Ban epiphany, then the meta will open up because there are answers to chariot and wrenn that don't get played because they don't fit into the two viable meta decks and possibly have homes in decks that would be played Like grixis delver or jund werewolves
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Good news everyone, I’ve decided to ban Epiphany
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
I think it's pretty hard to ban Epiphany while letting the card that's probably winning more games stick around, even if it's hypothetically the fault of the first card. Something I think would be cool is if Wizards used some variation of Standard Shakeup as part of their decision-making process on bans. LIke if a problem card or two shows up, throw up a new queue where people can beta test the post-ban environment to see if it's a marked improvement. I guess it's hard to get definitive answers on those sorts of things in an optional queue in a reasonable amount of time, but it would have to be more data than they have now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:Good news everyone, I’ve decided to ban Epiphany
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
And I said what about Alrund’s Epiphany She said I think I remember that card And as I recall, I think we wanted to ban it And I said, well that’s one thing we got
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
and i said we'll ban esika's chariot
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
Was Part the Waterveil played in standard at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
fadam posted:Was Part the Waterveil played in standard at all? 4 of maindeck at worlds 2016: http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=13406&d=278673&f=ST
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:Good news everyone, I’ve decided to ban Epiphany 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Tbh I think I'd feel worse if I opened a powerful card, built a deck around it, played it in a game, then found out my opponent has a card that makes me instantly lose the game because I played my good card. Janky, but a wild improvement over what else was out there. 90s tcgs would have benefited a lot if they were all this explicit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think it's pretty hard to ban Epiphany while letting the card that's probably winning more games stick around, even if it's hypothetically the fault of the first card. I dunno, they did it to Time Warp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Tbh I think I'd feel worse if I opened a powerful card, built a deck around it, played it in a game, then found out my opponent has a card that makes me instantly lose the game because I played my good card. "literally ALL" is so funny lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
"Unless Anti-Time Anomaly destroyed first" has some real "Gronk design you card game" energy.
Cactrot fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
Watch them ban galvanic iteration instead just to be perverse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
That reminds me of how my brother and I from 1995-2000 got totally into CCGs, starting with MTG and then the Star Wars and Pokemon CCGs. We picked up MTG pretty quickly and really enjoyed it, playing it a bunch, but when we saw that there was a SWCCG our minds were blown because it was like that, but with Star Wars characters. We naturally started collecting it, building decks, and picking up issues of Inquest and Scrye magazine to learn about what sets were upcoming. The problem was that despite our enthusiasm I think we actually properly played only like a dozen games ever because we could never fully understand the rules, constantly got bogged down in minutiae of card interaction, and were often missing key hyperspecific cards that were essential to be able to play others (as in one unique card required that you owned another unique card to do anything). I don't remember any SWCCG cards as bad as that STCCG, but I remember that I had like 4 Jedi Tests from the Dagobah set but was never really able to use them because I didn't have the others:  Many of these were rares, too, so you'd crack a pack hoping for a Luke or Yoda and get some card like this that was basically as useful as a single puzzle piece until you got all the others. Years later my brother and I picked up a couple of cheap booster boxes from different SWCCG sets to try it out again and realized that the game was just poorly designed and not much fun to play unless you owned every key rare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 06:28
|
|
|
It had some cool systems, but yeah it was not good as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
that card text/font has all the stylings of late 90s design in it. no kerning. no anti-aliasing so there's jagged edges everywhere. a low-res screenshot from the movie.. ahhh also while i was trying to figure out if the card was real.... lmao 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:that card text/font has all the stylings of late 90s design in it. no kerning. no anti-aliasing so there's jagged edges everywhere. a low-res screenshot from the movie.. ahhh To be fair, that's a low-res digital facsimile of the card, not an actual scan of a card, hence the lack of anti-aliasing and lovely screencap for an image. The actual cards looked looked a lot better in real life. There were a bunch of cards that included really dodgy photoshops or lovely CGI images of things not represented in the movies, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 07:12
|
|
|
The Star Wars CCG was an impenetrable mess, and that's BEFORE you got to space combat or traveling between planets
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
The most baffling element of the game for me even when I was actively trying to play it were the mission cards, which you could play at the beginning of the game IIRC and basically required you to meet a bunch of very specific criteria akin to some development in the movies, and then you could flip the card and get very specific bonuses. Like look at this poo poo:  These were the very definition of Magical Christmas Land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 08:38
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:The star wars tcg did that poo poo too and its always the dumbest poo poo lol Magic was juuuuust getting into banning stuff when several of the early CCGs (Decipher's Star Trek/Wars, FRPG's L5R) started realizing how much the early players resented bannings (remember: these were the wild west days when you could mail your banned cards back to WotC for boosters). So, these companies were taking out full-page ads in Scrye/Inquest about how their game had "No Banned Cards" as a way to poach customers. And it worked. Except that these games were generally even worse at design and balance and started having to print a ton of silver bullets and/or adopt rotations, because they couldn't walk back on bans after all the ads (in part because they were scared of getting sued). Nibble posted:Tbh I think I'd feel worse if I opened a powerful card, built a deck around it, played it in a game, then found out my opponent has a card that makes me instantly lose the game because I played my good card. That card was printed in 1994, which lines it up with about when Antiquities was dropping, so it's actually pretty standard for the era. I'd say that the Star Trek CCG still ranks in the top 10% of CCGs, of all time, in terms of "Reading the card, explains the card". I go to GenCon every year and see 10 new trash CCGs in want of an editor. And, yes, back in 1994 you really did have to hammer home that effects were symmetrical and that removing the card removed the delayed trigger. People were, at best, logging into usenet to download raw text files of single-card rulings. And most Americans did not have home internet access at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
Silhouette posted:The Star Wars CCG was an impenetrable mess, and that's BEFORE you got to space combat or traveling between planets I loved a lot of bad CCGs in my day, and pine for certain dead-rear end mechanics from back then (side decks, Pregame setups). But I could never feel anything but loathing and contempt for the Star Wars CCG. Even as an avid Star Wars fan, it missed every mark with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 08:56
|
|
|
once you were up and playing it it was one of the better ccgs but i agree that getting to that point was a journey, especially if you didnt have an existing playgroup to guide you
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
Wizards have got a lot better at templating over the years too. Remember the jank of early cards? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 12:53
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:That reminds me of how my brother and I from 1995-2000 got totally into CCGs, starting with MTG and then the Star Wars and Pokemon CCGs. We picked up MTG pretty quickly and really enjoyed it, playing it a bunch, but when we saw that there was a SWCCG our minds were blown because it was like that, but with Star Wars characters. We naturally started collecting it, building decks, and picking up issues of Inquest and Scrye magazine to learn about what sets were upcoming. There used to be a great thread in this subforum for assorted old TCGs and some of the designs people posted there were fascinating. Has that wound up in the archives? I used to have it bookmarked but lost it and can't figure out what to search for, but if anyone has a link handy I'd appreciate it
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:Wizards have got a lot better at templating over the years too. Remember the jank of early cards? I really really like picturing some kid getting really excited and then suddenly let down as he reads the text and realizes he doesn't get to keep his opponent's card after the game is over
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
A kid at the summer camp I went to in middle school convinced me that the Star Wars CCG was the hottest thing in the world and everyone at his school played it so I got really into it for a while. I can probably count the number of times I actually played a game on one hand but I was obsessed with Star Wars so just having all these weird rear end cards with pictures from the movies was good enough for me
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:Wizards have got a lot better at templating over the years too. Remember the jank of early cards? These are actually pretty straight forward, where's Chains of Mephestophois? Sylvan Library? Illusionary Mask? (Illusionary mask kicks rear end and if you have mtgo it and dreadnought are both like a cent)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Nowadays, if you want to play a Star Wars CCG the best one is Star Wars: The Gathering. Magic's mechanics are just really solid, it's like an RTS game as a card game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
Balduvian Shaman looks bizarre but the actual use case is fairly straightforward: switch the color of your circle of protection to the color opponent is playing. You can’t switch any circle more than once. It’s not a good card by any means, but in the context of kitchen table deck building at that time it’s a card that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
The oracle text on it basically the same as written T: Change the text of target white enchantment you control that doesn't have cumulative upkeep by replacing all instances of one color word with another. (For example, you may change "black creatures can't attack" to "blue creatures can't attack.") That enchantment gains "Cumulative upkeep 1." (At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, that player puts an age counter on it, then sacrifices it unless they pay its upkeep cost for each age counter on it.) It's less a templating issue as a "why does this need to exist" issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Yeah I conflated bad templating and "oddly specific and verbose rules text" Illusionary Mask is a great one, I should have put that instead. Did the face-down creature's static abilities somehow secretly apply back in 1993?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:Yeah I conflated bad templating and "oddly specific and verbose rules text" I think so? So you'd have Ali From Cairo in play face down and your opponent would bolt you at 2 life and you'd said "ok I'm at 1 life" and they'd have to figure out what happened lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 17:17
|
|