Ask Wizards is a column that I love but tend to forget. Every month or so, I take a look at the questions asked and answered. Sometimes, they're funny (either intentionally or unintentionally, which are often the best) and/or give a glipse of R&D's secrets. Anyway, here's a couple that caught my eye.
Q: "When the design team is in the process of designing a card, do they consider all the cards it could possibly combo with?"
--Dan
A: From Matt Place, Magic R&D:
"Hi Dan,
"Yes we do consider all the cards a new design might combo with. There are over 10,000 Magic cards and a new design could combo with any one of those cards, so considering possible combos with a new design is no small task. Each member of R&D is responsible for a set of cards. For example, I am responsible for Tooth and Nail through Zzzyxas's Abyss (I was out sick the days they designed Darksteel Colossus and Kiki-Jiki). I know you are still thinking that there is no way we could consider every possibility with every card for every new design. Well you would be right except we have a few shortcuts to make the job easier. One example of a shortcut is we don't consider interactions with artifacts. This has worked out well so far with only a few mistakes. Hope this answers your question, Dan!"
Talk about understatements
I have the distinct feeling he's being sarcastic, but if it's true, this would definitely explain 50% of the decks in Vintage
Q: "Can someone please explain to me the big 'WOW' about 'Lion's Eye Diamond'? I don't understand why the card is so great but based on other comments I know I'm missing something. Please help!"
--Willem
Florida Glen, Johannesburg
A: From Nate Heiss, Magic R&D:
"Well Willem, let's see....
"Zero-cost artifact:
33% historical chance of being broken (9 out of the 27 in Magic have been at least restricted)
"Artifact that produces 'Lotus Flavor' mana:
50% historical chance of being broken (2 out of 4)
"Resemblance to Black Lotus:
100% awesomeness.
"However, mere resemblance to great cards doesn't make a card great (you can ask Lotus Vale about that one). Indeed, Lion's Eye Diamond has hidden treasure in its play value.
"While some naysayers might view Lion's Eye Diamond as being strictly worse than Black Lotus, some people have turned their lemons into lemonade and abused the Lion's Eye right into restriction in Vintage. Just imagine a Black Lotus that lets you discard your hand, allowing you to do things like play madness cards, play flashback cards for less, or dump dredge cards into the grave...heck, I would at least pay for that! Just imagine if you could play 4 of these in the Ichorid deck in Extended! There are other cool things you can do with it, like make infinite mana with Auriok Salvagers or just negate the drawback with Yawgmoth's Will, making even more juicy mana to play your tasty spells from the grave.
"Truly, Magic is the only game where you can take one of the best cards ever, throw two drawbacks on it (discard and instant speed), and make it even better in some situations.
"I hope that clears some confusion up!"
C'mon....he mentions Madness and Salvagers, but fails to address Burning Wish and only mentions Will in the passing?
Q: "I've noticed that 2/2 wizards, such as the Meddling Mage, tend to be very handsome. I've also noticed that 1/3 wizards, such as Shadowmage Infiltrator, aren't so nice to look at. I would think that, these being the high-profile Invitational cards that they are, you would be careful in this area. Is this a trend you plan on continuing?"
--Chris P.
New York, NY
A: (...) It's funny though, this is the only email we've gotten that claims the Meddling Mage could be even remotely considered as an attractive man. Conversely, we are bombarded by emails (mostly from adoring female fans, actually) about how cute the Shadowmage Infiltrator is. (...)
Heeheehee
