B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020

@evouga having a companion in no way means there's no randomization. You can't be serious.

@evouga said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

Companions throw deck randomization out of the window. They let you stack your deck and put one of the most powerful cards in your deck (in the case of Lurrus) on top. If Companions had been part of the game since the beginning, I think they would have been identified as a mistake and a poor piece of game design, in the same way that getting rid of MtG's mana system (as is done in some famous non-Magic TCGs) is a severe game design misstep.

Plenty of other CCGs throughout the years, including ones that have been incredibly well received in their own right have had a mechanic mirroring Companion. The one that springs to mind right away is Legend of the Five Rings, where each player had a stronghold card that was basically a sort of land that started in play for them and provided an ability. It also provided a restriction in that your stronghold limited what cards you could and could not include in your deck. Most people who played that game loved it and accredit it to that system.

Other examples include Yughio (I think, I know they had some sort of second deck for specific cards at some point) and Hearthstone which has both quest cards as well as the cards that have a pregame effect if you play only odds or evens. Argue as much as you like as to if those games are good or not, but they have legions of players and they have managed to dabble with this mechanic as well, so it can be done without being regarded as bad design.

There are also plenty of games without a mana system, and they are perfectly fine as well. You would not call them a "severe game design misstep."

The key with these mechanics is now and always will be cost vs value, and that is not that much different than any card in the game. The calculation you need to do to determine that for these cards may be different in the new context, but it is still a risk/reward calculation. If Lurrus cost 5 would we be having this discussion? Keruga is a companion, he will never see play in vintage because his restriction is so hard to manage, but he does see play in standard and pioneer without being broken.

Decks are still random. If you wanted actually force players to adhere to deck randomization and variance, you would never have let the fetches and Dual lands be unrestricted because they throw all that randomness of mana production out the window. Outside of cards that roll dice, nothing in Magic has been random, just probabilistic, and even then I guess dice are as well.

last edited by Protoaddict

Netrunner had a controlled click and credit system instead of mana, and the FFG version, which was extremely well received, had identity cards that you built your deck around.

@maximumcdawg said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

I don't think the statement is too short, but I think a lot of Vintage players will be annoyed it didn't reference two things:

1. The Gravitas of the Moment.

It took Vintage about, what, 26 years to finally have to ban a card for power level reasons? It took awhile. Congratulations, WotC. you did it! Anyway, the fact that this is so unprecedented probably means players would have expected something in the banned and restricted announcement acknowledging this. It's kind of like if Grandma dies and you just a get a quick text messages saying "Oh also Nana died."

  1. When Will Cards Get Banned in the Future?

What exactly was the philosophy behind the Lurrus ban, and when will the rule be applied again? I feel like I know why Lurrus was banned because I observed the format with it, but I don't know exactly what the criteria will be for bannings in the future.

It truly is a historic day. But it really doesn't feel like it, does it?

Why is that?

I have to say that I was prepared to pounce on any flaw in the announcement, but I found it to be well-written and well-reasoned. I like the explanation provided, but I dislike that the historic nature of the banning wasn't mentioned.

It doesn't feel like this is an "open the floodgates" moment, for the simple reason that restriction was an ineffective tool to deal with this particular problem.

I went back and looked at the last banning, and it's interesting to note that Mind Twist was restricted for nearly two years before it was finally banned. And when they unbanned it, they simply said that Channel and Mind Twist would no longer be unbalancing.

All of that is readable here: https://www.eternalcentral.com/history-of-vintage-schools-of-magic-an-alternative-history-of-the-banned-and-restricted-list/ And the links to the official announcements are embedded herein.

A few other responses:

@brianpk80 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

This is a good observation. In my two weeks playing the Lurrus format, what stood out to me most was how much it illuminated how degenerate Paradoxical Outcome and to a lesser extent Underworld Breach are.

I don't mind the grindy Lurrus decks so much. Often the most explosive (and seemingly problematic) plays are not the best ones, as rushing him out prematurely where this environment is so prepared to remove or neutralize him is a recipe for disaster. Testing is showing me that patience is rewarded.

Although I've been enjoying Vintage recently, this seems to be a minority view and the intensity of dislike fueling abandonment is severe. Banning Lurrus as a Companion seems to be the most narrowly tailored solution. I'd be happy with action on PO as well. It's never a bad time to clean up the few remaining blights that escaped the more urgently needed restrictions in the past year.

There is alot of nuance here, and I agree with much of it. But that underscores one of the reservations I have about this banning. It feels like the problems in the format right now aren't actually Lurrus caused or even Lurrus significant, but rather Lurrus is an ephiphenomenon, that is a symptom rather than the cause. We'll see what happens now, but if Breach and PO continue to perform at those levels, or near to it, then maybe Lurrus wasn't really a "problem" so much as those two decks were problematic.

It feels very much like the Gush v. Mentor debate. Granted, they were both dealt with in the end, but many people projected Mentor's problems onto Gush, mistakenly in the first instance.

That aside, the core of my reservation on this particular point (and aside from how swiftly this occured) is that Lurrus isn't really "dominant" in the sense that a key engine part of a dominant deck is dominant. Lurrus doesn't drive or really make PO or TX Breach combo the powerhouses they are. It's mostly just an add-on - the cherry on the top or the icing on the cake. So to say that because those decks are dominant, that so too is Lurrus is really, in my view, a mistake.

In short, in the case of Lurrus, prevalence is being conflated with dominance, and they aren't the same thing. Yet people like chubbyrain conflated them in his public comments.

Stephen raises a good point about the difference in relative adaptation velocity between more frequent players and players who enjoy Vintage as an occasional pastime. It was not necessary to truncate one of Matt's threads to misrepresent him as inconsistent, but the point remains valid.

I appreciate the affirmation about my concerns, but on the point about Matt's tweets, I don't believe I misrepresented anything. Matt says I misrepresented one of his tweets by not linking directly to the tweets, or by omitting the other parts of the tweets in that thread, but it's not really a misrepresentation of any material fact (or even immaterial one). All I was trying to do was show how quickly someone who plays alot of MTGO could change their mind about this, and nothing in either thread appears to contradict that. Matt may try to elide this, but he really did have a change of opinion within those 10 days (specifically, about what should be done and on what time frame). I don't see the problem with that, or why he got so upset when I juxtaposed those tweets. It's perfectly fine and normal for one to revise one's views as evidence accumulates. I can't explain why he lashed out for doing that, and became so angry, except that I've observed in conversations like this he gets very heated/emotional.

last edited by Smmenen

@blindtherapy I think they just have to try totally new mechanics to shake things up and get more cash. Going from "flying" to "horsemanship" is not going to drive sales. They need drastic changes on the fringes of the rules to keep things exciting. WotC could print a new set of cards with protection, replicate, revolt, and morph with cards more powerful than originals with those mechanics, and Vintage and Legacy players might find a few powerful gems to jam...but standard sales would likely be the worst of all time. Pack-crackers want new, exciting, DIFFERENT, mechanics, and you sometimes break an egg while making an awesome omelet.

There are so many underexplored mechanics at this point that I stopped being able to keep track around the time of Zendikar. Haunt, Splice Onto, Meld, and DFCs are just a few of the spicy mechanics that would be fun to see revived or improved. I don’t think it’s true that everything has to be NEW to be exciting.

In fact, there’s also a huge graveyard of boring mechanics that were different just for the sake of being different, and don’t come close to pulling their weight in terms of the complexity they add to the game. Bolster, Eternalize, Megamorph, Scavenge, ...

@evouga said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

There are so many underexplored mechanics at this point that I stopped being able to keep track around the time of Zendikar. Haunt, Splice Onto, Meld, and DFCs are just a few of the spicy mechanics that would be fun to see revived or improved. I don’t think it’s true that everything has to be NEW to be exciting.

Splice had another taste in Modern Horizions, DFCs had both Innistrad blocks and Origins and whatever that one oddball Nicol Bolas one was in. I think we can give them a rest. Let's wait for that ripple comeback.

Personally I don't like using keywords as an interchangeable term for Mechanic. The seven dwarves in Eldrane have a unique and novel mechanic I would like to see more of. Dragons of Tarkir making you reveal a dragon was novel enough, or at least a continuation of the cards from Lorwyn block. Brothers Yamazaki played in an interesting space. Point is that there is all sorts of design space to explore. Does not mean they cannot break it just like they did here, existing mechanic or not.

Would be nice if they revisited historically broken mechanics and made more interesting cards around them.

Some thoughts:
Affinity for [land type]
Gravestorm
Threshold
Tribal

To name a few.

@maximumcdawg

@maximumcdawg said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

@thewhitedragon69 Three things to think about in response to that.

First, power creep in general is not a great thing for the game. It's a short-term boost in sales, sure, but it's long-term detrimental because you either have to fall back and print a Masques or Kamigawa and deal with disapointed players and disappointing sales or you keep on creeping and things get more and more unbalanced. They've tried to balance this in the past with power creeping different aspects to different sets at different rates, but that seems to have been thrown out the window recently. It's very legitimate for people to worry about what sustained power creep means for long term health of the game.

Second, perhaps by accident, WotC's recent power creep may have come at the exact perfect time to actually be the right call. With Covid shutting down paper magic hard, Arena is probably picking up steam. All the recent power-creep sets are on Arena, and having splashy, powerful cards on that platform is good for that game. I don't play Standard typically, and I like the meta on Arena right now in standard. It's powerful and flashy. Feels more like eternal, complete with combo decks, than it has in a long time. If you were going to choose a period of time to mortgage paper magic's future in exchange for a boost online, now seems like exactly the time to do it.

Third, overall, I think this power creep + ban trend is good for eternal because it means they're finally shaking off the chains restraining them from printing cards as powerful as the old hard-to-obtain cards. I've been a big advocate for helping people get into eternal by printing cards that compete with the old reserved list staples, and they're doing that. I don't think they've gone far enough into making the new cards MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Vintage staples yet, but they're certainly making sure that the Vintage metagame is chock full of new and relatively cheap cards at competitive levels. That's a good thing! But, of course, since Vintage is the Whos-Who list of Magic's Greatest Mistakes, when you print cards to compete at that level you are absolutely going to have to police the format against breaking.

Its funny that you wrote this (and I have always agreed with this as it actually empowers newer players to engage in older formats). There was a recent poll on twitter by Mark Rosewater and it split the length of Magic's existence into 4 portions, my favourite was the oldest and the newest 😛

@fsecco Someone on Reddit found a fascinating article from Mark Rosewater himself, from 2015, where he discusses an earlier disastrous attempt at designing almost exactly the Companion mechanic!

Here's the relevant excerpt:

It all starts many years ago, when R&D was working on the set called Tempest. This story is about Maro and two young interns whose names are lost to time. Most people don't know this, but Maro wasn't actually hired as a designer but rather as a developer. He was eager, though, to prove that he could design, so he got Richard Garfield to agree to work with him on a new set. That was enough to allow the head designer at the time, a man named Joel Mick, to give him a shot leading a design."

"His first time designing was leading a set? That doesn't sound very plausible."

"Let me tell my story and then you can decide for yourself whether it's true or not. Anyway, there was a lot of pressure on Maro to deliver an exciting design, so he decided to push the boundaries. He made a new mechanic that allowed you to choose to start with the card in your opening hand. If you chose to do so, you had to begin with one card fewer."

"Just one card fewer? That's all? There wasn't a life loss or something?"

"The cards were weaker than normal, so you were opting to start with cards that were of a lower power level. Maro was excited by this idea. Everyone gets frustrated when they can't get the card they need. What if you had the ability to guarantee that you could have the card you wanted in your opening hand? But it was a bit of a crazy idea, so Maro knew it needed to be playtested. Luckily, Magic R&D had two young interns who were available for playtesting. He asked them to play in a room with a one-way mirror so he could secretly observe. The playtesting went on all night and Maro had had a long day, so several hours in, he fell asleep."

"What happened next?"

"Early the next morning, Maro awoke to see a message written in lipstick on the mirror, reversed so he could easily read it. It read: 'DECK VARIANCE IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE GAME AND UNDERCUTTING IT WITH THIS MECHANIC HAS LED TO THE MOST UNFUN PLAYTEST GAMES WE HAVE EVER PLAYED. IF THIS IS THE FUTURE OF MAGIC DESIGN, WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.' The interns were gone and haven't ever been seen since. Maro took the new mechanic out of the file and never talked about it again."

Apparently you can forget a lot in five years, since Companion is a more broken version (doesn't even have the -1 card drawback) of something that Maro had rejected for leading to "the most unfun playtest games ... ever played."

last edited by evouga

Disappointed in the announcement. I have to agree with Desolutionist that the game looked more interesting than it has in years with Lurrus around.

I also don't think Zirda is really all that much less broken after doing some testing. That card did get hit with the ban hammer in legacy. (The issues with Zirda seem to stem from the difficulty of executing an infinite combo on MTGO) Any additional companion printings (and exisiting ones) are still at risk for needing to be banned now under this precedent.

DECK VARIANCE IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE GAME

Based on this story, this is the opinion of two unnamed interns from over 20 years ago, I really hope they aren't still making major game design decisions based on a couple of people that weren't even noteworthy enough to remember their names. Both those players could've even changed their minds in the last 20+ years.

Deck variance, in general, is a large reason that I have strongly favored Dredge, and what pushes a lot of players away from the game. It feels fair/fun to me to lose to your own decision making process, and your own decisions. It feels less fair/fun to me to lose simply to the game's shuffling and mulligan mechanics. I was excited to have some more options, outside of Dredge, that could give a more consistent game experience. Alas, it looks like they are now unlikely to support such a concept in Vintage/Legacy moving forward.

@vaughnbros said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

Deck variance, in general, is a large reason that I have strongly favored Dredge, and what pushes a lot of players away from the game. It feels fair/fun to me to lose to your own decision making process, and your own decisions. It feels less fair/fun to me to lose simply to the game's shuffling and mulligan mechanics. I was excited to have some more options, outside of Dredge, that could give a more consistent game experience. Alas, it looks like they are now unlikely to support such a concept in Vintage/Legacy moving forward.

Variance has a lot of levels within its range. Too much variance and the game is unfun because you have little control over what happens, you're at the whim of fate. This is the primary complain of people who play Hearthstone, where there are cards that have randomness built into them to a sometimes silly degree. Too little variance and it turns closer and closer into chess or checkers, where the way games play out is always similar. There has always been a tension about how much variance is too much or too little, as well as how to actually get us into the proper range since card design is an imperfect science.

If you look at the moves WOTC has been making over the past few years, if not a great many years, it has been to reduce variance. They have consistently felt that variance, and very specifically opening hand variance and the variance the mana system provides, was detrimental to the game. All of the following things WOTC has done has reduced variance:

  • 2-3 sets of new Mulligan rules
  • Making Scry an evergreen mechanic
  • Revisiting cycling several times and pushing it every time. Take a look at the cycling deck in standard right now for a good example, it's literally using a number of cards it cannot ever cast just to cycle.
  • The printing of enemy color fetch lands in Zendikar
  • The general push in the utility of mana producing cards (shy of reprinting true duals, which they cannot). In addition to shocks we now have Fast lands, Check lands, etc, which are all just adding power and redundancy to decks.
  • The power creep in new cards, which has overall equated to generally lower CMCs for normally more expensive effects. Gitaxian probe vs. Peek for instance, or just Oko and 3 CMC Teferi vs every other walker ever.
  • The active planting of specific cards into sets to help steer formats where they want (Modern Horizons)
  • The constant return to Free, alternate casting cost spells and the glorious way they screw the pooch and make them too good every single time (Hogaak, Once upon a time, Force of Vigor)

The addition of companion, which was intended to have a real cost to play in its requirements, is scarcely the thing that is causing a lack of variance. Honestly most companions don't even come on line until much of the game has grinded out and none of them help you if you stumble early with bad mana or excessive mulligans, which is not so much a feature of vintage because of all the other steps WOTC has taken which I listed above.

@evouga said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

@fsecco Someone on Reddit found a fascinating article from Mark Rosewater himself, from 2015, where he discusses an earlier disastrous attempt at designing almost exactly the Companion mechanic!

Here's the relevant excerpt:

It all starts many years ago, when R&D was working on the set called Tempest. This story is about Maro and two young interns whose names are lost to time. Most people don't know this, but Maro wasn't actually hired as a designer but rather as a developer. He was eager, though, to prove that he could design, so he got Richard Garfield to agree to work with him on a new set. That was enough to allow the head designer at the time, a man named Joel Mick, to give him a shot leading a design."

"His first time designing was leading a set? That doesn't sound very plausible."

"Let me tell my story and then you can decide for yourself whether it's true or not. Anyway, there was a lot of pressure on Maro to deliver an exciting design, so he decided to push the boundaries. He made a new mechanic that allowed you to choose to start with the card in your opening hand. If you chose to do so, you had to begin with one card fewer."

"Just one card fewer? That's all? There wasn't a life loss or something?"

"The cards were weaker than normal, so you were opting to start with cards that were of a lower power level. Maro was excited by this idea. Everyone gets frustrated when they can't get the card they need. What if you had the ability to guarantee that you could have the card you wanted in your opening hand? But it was a bit of a crazy idea, so Maro knew it needed to be playtested. Luckily, Magic R&D had two young interns who were available for playtesting. He asked them to play in a room with a one-way mirror so he could secretly observe. The playtesting went on all night and Maro had had a long day, so several hours in, he fell asleep."

"What happened next?"

"Early the next morning, Maro awoke to see a message written in lipstick on the mirror, reversed so he could easily read it. It read: 'DECK VARIANCE IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE GAME AND UNDERCUTTING IT WITH THIS MECHANIC HAS LED TO THE MOST UNFUN PLAYTEST GAMES WE HAVE EVER PLAYED. IF THIS IS THE FUTURE OF MAGIC DESIGN, WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.' The interns were gone and haven't ever been seen since. Maro took the new mechanic out of the file and never talked about it again."

So these young interns who have spent their entire lives studying, applying, working part-time jobs, taking loans, and navigating the waters of internship landed a dream job that requires testing games of magic for research and development. They were so offended by a game mechanic under development that they threw away their careers just after dramatically writing a detailed message with lipstick on a two-way mirror?

Rosewater's credibility just went to zero in my book.

Uh... are you sure this is meant to be a story that actually happened? It seems pretty clear to me that it's just a fable being made to make a point.

@protoaddict

Chess is objectively a better game then checkers, but neither of them have variance. The comparison here is Poker vs Chess. I enjoy both games personally, but I feel this game is much, much closer to Poker than to Chess due to the high variance game to game.

Variance reduction is attempted by a number of rules in the game. Among them, like you mention, is creating duplicitous effects, you can see a greater effect in other formats because of this since every card can be played as a 4-of.

Magic also uses the concept of a series to reduce variance (playing best 2 of 3 to decide a match; although more variance is then added by having sideboards). If high variance was truly a desire-able trait then we would not play best 2 of 3. We would just play 1 game. This concept of a series of games is taken from what Poker, Sports, and other games have used for years. Best of 3 is basically a bare minimum in terms of creating a series. The game was better, in my opinion, when they played best of 5 and it would be even better if it was practical to play even more games. Drawing conclusions from as little as 2 games as to the better player/deck is extremely fault when each game itself has as much variability as it does in a game of Vintage Magic.

The existence of companions in a format greatly reduces variation as there is no variance as to whether or not you have access to that companion. Imagine guaranteeing a land, or guaranteeing any other non-companion card. Companions themselves are just a very small subset of cards (literally 1 card in Vintage's case for the past month prior to this).

@vaughnbros said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

Drawing conclusions from as little as 2 games as to the better player/deck is extremely fault when each game itself has as much variability as it does in a game of Vintage Magic.

I'm not sure that is actually the point of a match though. We are not trying to derive who is the better player, and "better" is a very loaded and subjective term. We are only trying to determine who won. If we wanted to know who the better player was then yes you are correct, we would play a larger series, but in a world where we can quantify who is "better" do we want to play a game where the better player always wins? Not a very compelling reason for a lower skill player to want to join the game. In this regard some variance is welcome and needed.

@vaughnbros said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

The existence of companions in a format greatly reduces variation as there is no variance as to whether or not you have access to that companion. Imagine guaranteeing a land, or guaranteeing any other non-companion card. Companions themselves are just a very small subset of cards (literally 1 card in Vintage's case for the past month prior to this).

The addition of companions has no positive bearing on how good the mana in your opening 7 will be, as you are still drawing from a deck that does not include your sideboard cards, of which you had full control over in building. Players already have agency in this regard as they can choose which mana sources and how many they would like to include.

If smoothing out the opening hand and reducing the number of non-games was WOTCs goal, as it has been for some time, then companion does nothing to affect the first as you are still drawing 7 and no companion actually touches your mana, and goes a hell of a way for the second by ensuring you have access to at least one card that is relevant at some point in the game. The interaction Lurrus has with Black lotus could be argued, but there is still variance in that you need to draw lotus.

So companion does reduce variance, but just not in the way all the other moves have done in the past. It literally adds what is in-effect a new game zone for players to interact with. The point I am trying to drive home here however is that the printing of the Zendikar fetches, the new mulligan rule, the continued printing of differently named redundant effects, all these things have had a far more prominent and relevant effect on the games variance than companion has in my estimation, and it has been moving in that direction for some time.

@evouga hahaha that's pretty cool. Although Commander is the most popular format in the game, which completely disproves that theory. Also, as someone mentioned here, a LOT of other cardgames go with the "starting Hero/Tribe/Faction" card and work. L5R is a good example (in fact, it's a perfect example since their "sensei" were introduced to the game after it was already alive, just like companions to Magic.
Of course, none of those games is as famous as Magic, so maybe they're doing it wrong. I just don't see how Companion ruins variance. It just changes it - and I can't be sure if it's for the best or worse if the game became a companion game (with companions being printed almost every set). I'd agree it's probably worse, but who knows.

last edited by fsecco

@protoaddict

Yes, hands light on mana are still mulligan worthy, but not necessarily hands heavy on mana.

last edited by vaughnbros

@maximumcdawg said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

Uh... are you sure this is meant to be a story that actually happened? It seems pretty clear to me that it's just a fable being made to make a point.

Yes. Like in many of Mark's articles, the ideas and points he's making are serious, but the window-dressing is obviously not. My guess is that he designed the mechanic in Tempest as claimed, and then decided himself (after some playtesting with colleagues) that it wasn't panning out.

@fsecco said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

@evouga hahaha that's pretty cool. Although Commander is the most popular format in the game, which completely disproves that theory. Also, as someone mentioned here, a LOT of other cardgames go with the "starting Hero/Tribe/Faction" card and work. L5R is a good example (in fact, it's a perfect example since their "sensei" were introduced to the game after it was already alive, just like companions to Magic.
Of course, none of those games is as famous as Magic, so maybe they're doing it wrong. I just don't see how Companion ruins variance. It just changes it - and I can't be sure if it's for the best or worse if the game became a companion game (with companions being printed almost every set). I'd agree it's probably worse, but who knows.

Well, these are interesting points. I don't know enough about either cEDH, or L5R, to say anything meaningful, though I think for (normal) Commander the social contract is a very significant regularizing force in preventing abuse of the most degenerate commanders and strategies. If a deck is too consistent and becomes played-out within the player group, players readily and voluntarily switch to something else.

last edited by evouga
  • 206
    Posts
  • 9926
    Views