Ancient Archive - The Eternal Format Only Set

[freakish777]

There's still the issue that they have to, ya know, be making more money by making this set then the money they could make designing a different set...

[Titanium Dragon]

I could come up with 10 cards, in about 10 seconds, that would reduce the utility of the cards you mentioned to virtually nothing, and make their worth less than the paper they are printed on. I'm sure you could too. If they don't have to worry about breaking T2, limited, extended, etc., they could print cards that are that powerful. To do so in a meaningful way, though, would require time, effort, and balancing. But it *can* be done.

Printing cards better than moxen and lotuses is simply unacceptable, and that’s the only way to make them “worse”. Even then, though, they’d still get run. Let’s look at cards which make them worse:

Chalice of the Void – Costs 0, still hasn’t gotten rid of them
Mox Monkey – Costs R + 1 per mox/lotus; still hasn’t gotten rid of them
Shattering Spree – Costs R per artifact, difficult to counter, isn’t even heavily played
Null Rod – blanks them proactively. Has it gotten rid of them? No.
Ect.

Their effect is so powerful that the only way to get rid of them is to superscede them. Repeatedly. To the point where they aren’t good enough. You don’t want to play in that format. Hate simply cannot possibly be good enough.

Frankly, I think this set would be HUGE among casual fans. A whole new scale of power for them to tool with, metagame be damned. Every card, in every pack, would be, "OMG Chuck, check this thing out. omgomgomg....." I remember that, and it was exhilarating.
 

No. Casual players get excited over cards like Razia, Boros Archangel. In fact, Razia is a far more popular card than Dark Confidant is, despite Dark Confidant being one of the five strongest cards in Ravnica block and Razia not even being playable in Ravnica Block Constructed. That you think power excites others means that power excites –you-. It doesn't particularly excite the average player, and many couldn't really tell you why Black Lotus is a better card than random jank X.

And here’s an even more important question: you have said you and other T1 players buy few cards. Doesn’t it benefit WotC to make fewer players like you? Of course it does, but you apparently don’t understand that aspect of your argument. They aren’t going to try and push people into Vintage by printing an uber set, and moreover, they try to print sets which appeal to lots of people. Unhinged cards and Unglued cards are fun, and thus they can make them. This set would not be fun, would not be interesting, would not attract a large segment of the populace, and would generally be a failure. Either its overpowered and screws up Vintage permanently, and screws up casual play for years and years, or its weak and screws up casual play for years anyway. That it won’t sell well is a foregone conclusion.

They have limited manpower and an Un-set would sell far, far better than this set would. Therefore, they should never make this set. You simply don’t get it. They have better things to do with their limited resources. They try and shift the format from time to time, but they aren’t trying to define it forcefully like you are.

Fundamentally Vintage is the way it is because of the Moxen and other restricted cards, along with a few others. You cannot and do not want to make cards more powerful than them, and they will always, always, always be a requirement. You cannot get rid of them without banning them, and WotC doesn’t want to ban them. They won’t reprint them, they won’t ban them, so Vintage cannot get bigger without using proxies. But WotC cannot and will not support proxies. So in the end, it all boils down to this: sanctioned Vintage tournaments have a maximal size, and there cannot be more than 15,000 or so optimized Type 1 decks existing at any given time.

If you really want to expand T1, I’d say the best way would be to encourage WotC to run a tournament once every X amount of time that gives out promotional power cards to the top 8; maybe even encourage them to make a judge promo Black Lotus, Mox Sapphire, ect. This is the only way I think more power can come into circulation that is acceptable to WotC.

[Imzakhor]

The cards you mention that affect moxes, etc. negatively do so in a secondary way... They were not DESIGNED to defeat those cards, they were designed with their blocks in mind. Any effect on T1 was an aftereffect.

It is not be hard to create cards that are balanced, interesting, and punish 0CC mana.

I am not trying to get rid of moxes, or say they are bad. (where did I say they needed to be removed?) I'm just saying that Wizards would do well to sell me cards... Since currently, they don't.

This set would not be fun, would not be interesting, would not attract a large segment of the populace, and would generally be a failure. Either its overpowered and screws up Vintage permanently, and screws up casual play for years and years, or its weak and screws up casual play for years anyway. That it won’t sell well is a foregone conclusion.

I contend that it would be fun, would be interesting, and would generally be a success. The rest of your argument is just hyperbole, and you simply don't get it. Yes.

[diopter]

The cards you mention that affect moxes, etc. negatively do so in a secondary way... They were not DESIGNED to defeat those cards, they were designed with their blocks in mind. Any effect on T1 was an aftereffect.

It is not be hard to create cards that are balanced, interesting, and punish 0CC mana.

These cards already exist. They are called Null Rod and Chalice of the Void.
If you make more powerful Mox hosers than these, they would be unbalanced.

I'm just saying that Wizards would do well to sell me cards... Since currently, they don't.

Wizards would do well to sell you a box of Eternal-only cards. They would do better to sell 10 boxes to Limited players.
Limited players > Vintage players in terms of population, and in terms of buying power.

I contend that it would be fun, would be interesting, and would generally be a success. The rest of your argument is just hyperbole, and you simply don't get it. Yes.

No, it would not. What you're really proposing is adding a bunch of cards that would make unpowered decks better, as evidenced in this post:

Type 1 *is* a popular format. It's just the cost of entry is prohibitive. What if WotC created a set that eased the entry into fully viable decks? It would be so easy to do. All you have to do is make small, simple spells that have utility, and counter-defeat high powered decks. Such as:

1WU creature , 2/2 null rod on legs.
2UU Storm sorcery, take control of target creature.
XR Storm, destroy target artifact with casting cost X.
GGGG creature, can't be countered, 5/5.
1 artifact, artifacts can't be played.

If you get a whole set of cards like this, that will create an environment where powered decks are equal in winability to unpowered. It's really not that hard to do.

To accomplish this, you'd have to clear the already very high bar set by Null Rod and Chalice of the Void. You're talking about printing very application-specific hosers. Sure, dozens of cards could be printed in this vein:

1U
Sorcery
You gain control of all nonland permanents with converted mana cost 0.

XXR
Instant
Split second
Destroy all artifacts with converted mana cost X or less.

UW
Creature - Wizard
Artifacts come into play tapped.
Artifacts don't untap during their controller's untap step.

These are powerful, sure. Tournament worthy, yes. But they are BOOOOORING. No engine cards, no cards with internal tension, no interaction with other cards other than to reinforce mana denial, no creativity in deck design. Just a whole bunch of "don't play mox" cards that would be, quite frankly, stale, uninspired, unfun, and unimaginative.

[brianpk80]

Well, it's possible that the "anti-Mox" examples listed here and then described as not being creative or fun reflect a lack of creativity on our parts.  How about:

Artifact

Players may only cast spells with converted mana cost equal to or less than the amount of lands, creatures, and enchantments he or she controls. 

This would be a very effective "Mox hoser" not because it shuts off Moxen but actually limits their ability to unfairly accelerate high CC bombs into play at an early stage.  It also has a very strong symmetrical ability that favors players running creatures and non-Mox mana sources.  It's also one of those unusually strong state-based abilities that we find in cards thought of as some of the most exciting and unique in Magic: Stasis, Winter Orb, Howling Mine, Mana Flare, and so forth.  If it's too subject to abuse, designers can think about ways to mitigate that aspect beforehand and actually work towards making it happen rather than outright dismissing an otherwise fertile idea. 

There's also the option of Mox-alternative strategies instead of anti-Mox hosers.  For instance, we could have high powered bomb or creature that required revealing your library to an opponent when played and "if your library contains more than eight artifacts, counter [this] spell."  Others could go further with a quasi-Leyline effect, "If [this] is in your library at the beginning of the game, you may begin the game with it in play provided you reveal your library to your opponent and your library contains no more than [or no less than] X [whatever]s."  If one can accomplish bringing strategies to the table that are equally comparable with P9 fueled strategies, yet mutually exclusive with them as well, then an entirely new dimension has been opened.  It's not impossible nor even that farfetched.  And remember that it's infinitely harder to expand an idea and make it feasible than it is to dismiss it for "this reason and that reason." 

Imzakor's ideas have problems of course, but he's done a good job rising up to the task of presenting a thoughtful and undeveloped idea in a very critical forum and defending his platform point-by-point.  It sets a good example.

-BPK

[jro]

Artifact

Players may only cast spells with converted mana cost equal to or less than the amount of lands, creatures, and enchantments he or she controls.

How could that not just be a rare in a normal set?  Why does it need a special "Eternal only" set?  And that's just a hoser anyway, it doesn't enable new archetypes so much as screw old ones.  It kicks Workshop hard in the nuts, as well as shutting down Force and MisD.  Was the goal of this set to make the Vintage format 4x Mega Hoser decks vs. Power decks?

"if your library contains more than eight artifacts, counter [this] spell."

That particular mechanic is really horrible design.  It's awkward as hell to actually perform that search, and it's both overbroad (affects any deck that plays artifacts, not just SoLoMoxenCrypt) and ineffective (I'll just wait until I have 2 mana artifacts in hand or in play before casting the spell). 

If one can accomplish bringing strategies to the table that are equally comparable with P9 fueled strategies, yet mutually exclusive with them as well, then an entirely new dimension has been opened.

Maybe, but why should they have to be in a specialized set?  The only reason would be if they would break non-Eternal formats.  How much design space is there for cards that break Extended, Standard, etc., but not Eternal formats?  And exactly how would WotC know that in advance of releasing the set?  There are so many problems with implementing this idea, and no one has shown that it's even a good idea, let alone that it is necessary.

And remember that it's infinitely harder to expand an idea and make it feasible than it is to dismiss it for "this reason and that reason."

I think it's very easy to agree with an idea in principle and leave the hard work of implementing it up to somebody else.

Imzakor's ideas have problems of course, but he's done a good job rising up to the task of presenting a thoughtful and undeveloped idea in a very critical forum and defending his platform point-by-point.  It sets a good example.

I disagree.  I think Imzakhor has proposed a ridiculous suggestion to a set of non-existent problems.  If making such a set is a good idea, then the right way to do it is by designing the cards that would go in the set first, and then, if those cards couldn't possibly be allowed in other formats, arguing for the creation of this special set.  Saying the set should exist is meaningless without good examples of what kind of cards would be in it.

As for this idea being a good example, I don't think proper TMD etiquette is to go about making grand assertions about how things should be and then arguing for them in the abstract.  Rather, TMD seems to be about concrete demonstrations of whatever you might claim.  So if you want to propose that there should be an Eternal only set, show real examples of what cards would go in it and expect people to attack the idea.  If posters just want cheerleading for their wacky ideas about what Magic should do, there are plenty of other places where you can find just that.

[brianpk80]

How could that not just be a rare in a normal set?  Why does it need a special "Eternal only" set?  And that's just a hoser anyway, it doesn't enable new archetypes so much as screw old ones.  It kicks Workshop hard in the nuts, as well as shutting down Force and MisD.  Was the goal of this set to make the Vintage format 4x Mega Hoser decks vs. Power decks?

It only addressed some of the "Null Rod on a stick" ideas that were bashed here as uncreative and then led some to conclude that it was impossible to foil P9 strategies in a way that wasn't boring.  The card above has problems sure, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone that would legitimately see it as "boring."

That particular mechanic is really horrible design.  It's awkward as hell to actually perform that search, and it's both overbroad (affects any deck that plays artifacts, not just SoLoMoxenCrypt) and ineffective (I'll just wait until I have 2 mana artifacts in hand or in play before casting the spell). 

Something more along the lines of "include this card in your deck only if it fits the following criteria: 10 or more creatures, 20 or more land" is what I was going for but then it occurred to me that maybe the library compliance should be demonstrated by revealing to opponent.  Revealing cards from your library to an opponent is not "awkward"; it's commonplace.  Consider Extract, Extirpate, Jester's Cap, Oath of Druids... And any imagined additional inconvenience shouldn't be a real hassle in tournaments; assuming the decks are registered properly, I'd think any legit decks supporting such library-restrictive cards would be pretty standardized and the reveal would be waived or brushed over most of the time.  I find library compliance restrictive cards would open up some interesting design space.  You say it's "horrible."  *shrug* 

Maybe, but why should they have to be in a specialized set? 

Well, it wouldn't have to, but it's here because I was putting out an idea that related to this particular hypothetical set. 

The only reason would be if they would break non-Eternal formats.  How much design space is there for cards that break Extended, Standard, etc., but not Eternal formats?  And exactly how would WotC know that in advance of releasing the set?  There are so many problems with implementing this idea, and no one has shown that it's even a good idea, let alone that it is necessary.

"Necessary [to Vintage]" is not the criteria.  This was a broad idea for the type of set we may hope (or more realistically imagine) to see one day, and perhaps a springboard for some pragmatic justifications for it.  It appears the best we could hope for was that this discussion might plant the seeds out there of a Vintage-oriented set (susbstituting for an Unglued variant) sometime way down the line.  Perhaps that idea would percolate enough that someone would communicate it to someone at Wizards or help submit a real proposal for this type of set, best case scenario and probably wishful thinking.  Still, the discussion is abstract because we're starting with the objectives, not the specific cards.  What are the goals?  To bridge the gap between T2 and T1?  To appeal to nostalgia?  To give both the actual and the potential Vintage community a product for consumption?  Giving concrete specific examples of cards would in fact be the worst thing we could do in this thread if we hoped for the set to materialize due to (bs) intellectual property issues. 

I disagree.  I think Imzakhor has proposed a ridiculous suggestion to a set of non-existent problems.  If making such a set is a good idea, then the right way to do it is by designing the cards that would go in the set first, and then, if those cards couldn't possibly be allowed in other formats, arguing for the creation of this special set.  Saying the set should exist is meaningless without good examples of what kind of cards would be in it.

See above on specific card examples.  This post was originally placed in the card creation forum.  I don't see anything foul in an enthusiastic  contributor submitting a broad idea for a Vintage-oriented Magic expansion to a Vintage-oriented community.  I can't imagine what would motivate anyone to actually make time to cut down the assertion that he did a generally fine job staying positive, providing reasons, and responding to critiques (failure to follow up and respond being a huge problem in other forums). 

As for this idea being a good example, I don't think proper TMD etiquette is to go about making grand assertions about how things should be and then arguing for them in the abstract.  Rather, TMD seems to be about concrete demonstrations of whatever you might claim. 

We're in the Basic Forum.  The standards for posting here don't even include a Magic-related requirement.

So if you want to propose that there should be an Eternal only set, show real examples of what cards would go in it and expect people to attack the idea.  If posters just want cheerleading for their wacky ideas about what Magic should do, there are plenty of other places where you can find just that.

Harsh.  I agree that some of the objectivity you're looking for has its place in deck presentation, critique, and commentaries on the Vintage metagame, etc. but not so much in the Basic Forum or Card Creation Forum where good humor, plain old discussion, and imagination are the driving factors.  Gratuitous brutality under the guise of "honest criticism" isn't actually what The Mana Drain is all about.  If you feel otherwise, there's some reading material you can find in the forums above.   

-BPK

[Imzakhor]

I find it amusing that anyone here can claim to know a thing about the employment structure at WotC, and what they can and can't develop because of manpower constraints.

Generally, I ignore the hyperbolic, and just focus on the concrete criticisms. Anyone who simply says "it will fail" does not turn my ear. Ever. No matter how loudly it is screamed. Not in real life, and certainly not in a forum for a card game. It's certainly not PLEASANT, which is generally the way I like my associations, but on an open forum (this one in particular), I don't have that option.

I had hoped for more interesting discussion, especially from the detractors. Something like "This is ridiculous, Imzy, BUT, if it DID work, it would have to incorporate the following:". Stopping at "This is ridiculous", no matter how long-winded, is worthy of little debate, or consideration.

Don't hang your hat on Rod and Chalice. Those simply stop 0CC mana... They do not PUNISH it, as I was suggesting.

I was able to glean a few good points, though.

1. The set would need to have good answers for fast mana, yet apply to an overall strategy (i.e. no DIRECT hosers)
2. In the current set of keyword abilities, there are no good ways to ensure unpowered viability. New keywords/effects are going to be needed.
3. Replacing an Un- set would allow it to fit in seamlessly with the rest of their products.

Another point to consider: since this set would be made for a group of people that are already dedicated collectors, They might do well to include more rarities, like:

Common
Uncommon
Rare
Ultra-Rare
Chase
Ancient

I had thought the Ancient cards could be like "Ancient Lightning Bolt", R for 4 damage to any target, but the kicker is a "Unique" keyword... There is only one in the world. It could easily be signed by the designers, and the Unique keyword could cause it to be revealed before the game, etc. These kinds of things could be wonderful for collectors.

[zeus-online]

Another point to consider: since this set would be made for a group of people that are already dedicated collectors, They might do well to include more rarities, like:

Common
Uncommon
Rare
Ultra-Rare
Chase
Ancient

I had thought the Ancient cards could be like "Ancient Lightning Bolt", R for 4 damage to any target, but the kicker is a "Unique" keyword... There is only one in the world. It could easily be signed by the designers, and the Unique keyword could cause it to be revealed before the game, etc. These kinds of things could be wonderful for collectors.

That would only make it MORE expensive to play T1, 'cause you have to play with the best cards available to maximize your chance of winning....

/Zeus

Ps. Oh and personally i think that's way too Yu-Gi-Oh'ish!

[Roxas]

I find it amusing that anyone here can claim to know a thing about the employment structure at WotC, and what they can and can't develop because of manpower constraints.

I find it amusing that you don't appear to pay attention to magicthegathering.com and accuse people about not knowing WotC's employment structure. While they obviously don't give out every detail, they (particularly MaRo) have painted a very clear picture about how people work with set design within the company.

Generally, I ignore the hyperbolic, and just focus on the concrete criticisms. Anyone who simply says "it will fail" does not turn my ear. Ever. No matter how loudly it is screamed. Not in real life, and certainly not in a forum for a card game. It's certainly not PLEASANT, which is generally the way I like my associations, but on an open forum (this one in particular), I don't have that option.

I had hoped for more interesting discussion, especially from the detractors. Something like "This is ridiculous, Imzy, BUT, if it DID work, it would have to incorporate the following:". Stopping at "This is ridiculous", no matter how long-winded, is worthy of little debate, or consideration.

Do whatever you want, but you're using "I ignore the hyperbolic" as an excuse to ignore several valid statements that you still have yet to answer: why it is in Wizards' interest to directly support Vintage ("they would make more money from me than they would now" doesn't cut it; as others have mentioned, there is a major costs:rewards issue here); assuming that it is somehow in their interest to make cards specifically for Vintage, how can we be sure that it would be done correctly (the one card that they designed with us in mind, Chalice of the Void, is a card not liked by many because it increased the randomness of the format by even further rewarding playing first); and given those two are somehow the case, why do they need to exist in a Vintage-only set (which would only cause upset and confusion among the very large number of people who don't and won't care about the format) when well-designed cards like Mind's Desire, Tendrils of Agony, Gifts Ungiven, Dark Confidant and so forth can seamlessly be included in sets normally?

Don't hang your hat on Rod and Chalice. Those simply stop 0CC mana... They do not PUNISH it, as I was suggesting.

They do punish using them. Having a pile of dead cards in your hand and/or on the table along with a fairly good chance of drawing more can be quite severe. You seem to vastly underestimate the impact on the format those two cards have had.

3. Replacing an Un- set would allow it to fit in seamlessly with the rest of their products.

As others have said, while having it done this way might fit, it would be extremely difficult to design a set that is both interesting for Eternal and does either not ruin casual by being too powerful or appeal to nobody but Eternal players and thus be not nearly as profitable as other projects could have been.

I had thought the Ancient cards could be like "Ancient Lightning Bolt", R for 4 damage to any target, but the kicker is a "Unique" keyword... There is only one in the world. It could easily be signed by the designers, and the Unique keyword could cause it to be revealed before the game, etc. These kinds of things could be wonderful for collectors.

Wow, I thought the other ideas were bad. Unique cards are an absolutely terrible idea for any game that wants to have serious competition. This would turn the format into a "haves vs. have-nots" format, even more so than it already is in non-proxy events.

[Implacable]

Some ideas simply do not work.  Many valid objections to this idea have been raised in this thread.  Instead of addressing them directly, you've focused on 'ignoring the hyperbole', even though said hyperbole is anything but.  This idea won't work simply because it only appeals to the tiny population of Vintage players, instead of the huge casual demographic that so enjoys the Un-sets.

[diopter]

I had hoped for more interesting discussion, especially from the detractors. Something like "This is ridiculous, Imzy, BUT, if it DID work, it would have to incorporate the following:". Stopping at "This is ridiculous", no matter how long-winded, is worthy of little debate, or consideration.

OK, I will refer you to a card in the Card Creation Forum that looks quite interesting to me:

Swipe

This type of card is interesting, is not overpowered, and provides what could be a powerful alternative option for Mox-"hosing". Perfect for your set.

Thing is, imagine making 50-100 cards in this vein to hose powered decks. There are only so many ways you can do the "you'll pay for playing that Mox" effect before it gets repetitive. Plus, Vintage players will only use the best of these cards, so really, you're essentially going to be printing 5-10 cards for Vintage. You can do that in normal sets. Vintage needs quality, not quantity.

Not to mention the fact that the real agenda behind this idea is to hose powered decks. Yuck. You want to bone powered players by printing things like "1 - Artifact - Artifact spells can't be played", you at least have to give them something back. "2UU Storm, you control target creature" doesn't cut it. I'd probably warm up to this idea more if you were to actually trying to increase the playable card pool in Vintage, by suggesting cards like "1U - Instant - You draw 2 cards" or "1B - Sorcery - Demonic Tutor, pay half your life". Instead, this is coming off as a very blatant "kill power in Vintage" campaign.

[Matt]

About half of the cards suggested so far fall into the same trap Chalice did: as good as they are in unpowered decks, they're EVEN BETTER in powered ones! After Chalice was printed, people thought for about five minutes whether they should play fewer Moxen or not, then realized that playing both Moxen AND Chalice meant you could do things like Chalice=1 on turn 1.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate why Wizards needs your business. Fact is, even if a set such as you propose is a good idea for the format, AND if it could be done in a way that won't annoy their larger customer bases, AND if you were certain to buy packs of the set and not just single cards (some VERY large 'if's), they're just isn't enough of a market for the set to justify production; not compared to what else they could be doing with those resources.

This idea is a non-starter even if it's possible, which it's not looking like is the case.

[freakish777]

I find it amusing that anyone here can claim to know a thing about the employment structure at WotC, and what they can and can't develop because of manpower constraints.

Other than, you know, Wizards JUST HAD TO HIRE ALL 3 OF THE TOP FINISHERS FOR THE GREAT DESIGNER SEARCH BECAUSE THEY'RE PRESUMABLY UNDER-STAFFED!

And Noah Weil - Godder

Quit suggesting that your idea is good "because Wizards would get my money."  Way to be selfish and not realize that Limited, Standard, Extended players (each format by themselves) out-number Vintage players (I'd throw Block Constructed in there too, but I'm not sure on that, we'll see when the Block Con PTQs roll around later this year).

Seriously, Wizards is doing well as a business, I'm sure since they, ya know, make a living doing this, they've considered many possible avenues for selling cards, and actively attempt to maximize sales.  To suggest that they haven't thought of this "wonderful" idea is childish in my opinion.

EDIT:

Additionally, the idea of this replacing an Un-Set isn't that bright in my opinion anyways.  Do you personally know how many boxes of Unhinged have been sold thus far?  Can you honestly say that you can accurately predict the number of boxes of "Vintage-Only" set would sell?

[jro]

I had hoped for more interesting discussion, especially from the detractors. Something like "This is ridiculous, Imzy, BUT, if it DID work, it would have to incorporate the following:". Stopping at "This is ridiculous", no matter how long-winded, is worthy of little debate, or consideration.

Here's what it would have to incorporate: some Magic cards.  So I'll say it again: which Magic cards would go in this set that couldn't go elsewhere?  If there was some valid design reason of why there should be such a set, I could support it.  But all you've given is some specious reasoning regarding value to WotC, and some very ill-defined ideas about putting "powerful" cards in the set.  Oh, and now you want to make super chase rares, because certainly if there's one thing Vintage needs its a higher barrier between the haves and have nots!

Imagine for a second that everyone in this thread said "Okay, that's a great idea!"  What would you do?  Would you lobby WotC to get it done?  Do you think they'd be convinced without having some idea of what cards would go in the set?  But since WotC would probably never do this anyway, what do you hope to get out of suggesting this?  Would you like to design cards for such a set?  You don't need anyone else's approval to make up Eternal-only cards if that's what you want to do, and you don't need to justify the existence of such a set to try it out as a design exercise.

Revealing cards from your library to an opponent is not "awkward"; it's commonplace.  Consider Extract, Extirpate, Jester's Cap, Oath of Druids...

There is no card in Magic that requires you to verify the contents of a library.  What's supposed to happen when you play this?  You flip over your deck and start piling up "creature, creature, creature, land, land, creature, etc."?  Is the goal to kill your opponent with tedium?  What happens when the game goes long and your library is down to 30 cards?  Your spells don't work anymore?

And any imagined additional inconvenience shouldn't be a real hassle in tournaments; assuming the decks are registered properly, I'd think any legit decks supporting such library-restrictive cards would be pretty standardized and the reveal would be waived or brushed over most of the time.

Except that your opponent gets to look at your decklist, sideboard decisions, etc.  Which they would certainly do.

I find library compliance restrictive cards would open up some interesting design space.  You say it's "horrible."

It's horrible because it's a total kluge.  If the goal is to design cards that can make unpowered decks competitive in Vintage, then design cards that do that.  If the only design solution you have to a problem is to introduce an entirely new concept to Magic and Magic rules, then, yes, that's horrible design and you need to try harder.

Still, the discussion is abstract because we're starting with the objectives, not the specific cards.  What are the goals?  To bridge the gap between T2 and T1?  To appeal to nostalgia?  To give both the actual and the potential Vintage community a product for consumption?  Giving concrete specific examples of cards would in fact be the worst thing we could do in this thread if we hoped for the set to materialize due to (bs) intellectual property issues.

Your concern about "intellectual property issues" is completely misplaced.  Would Wizards seriously be like "Oh, we were TOTALLY going to make an Eternal only set, but then someone posted a possible card for that set in a thread on some Magic board, so now we can't!"  It's fine if you want to talk about the goals of such a set, and if someone was suggesting some serious goals that aren't achievable through normal sets, I wouldn't be so negative.  But frankly I think the best suggestion of what goals the set might have so far is my own: cards that would break non-Eternal formats, but not break Eternal formats.  I doubt that such cards exist in great enough quantity to support even a small set.

Harsh.  I agree that some of the objectivity you're looking for has its place in deck presentation, critique, and commentaries on the Vintage metagame, etc. but not so much in the Basic Forum or Card Creation Forum where good humor, plain old discussion, and imagination are the driving factors.  Gratuitous brutality under the guise of "honest criticism" isn't actually what The Mana Drain is all about.  If you feel otherwise, there's some reading material you can find in the forums above.

The thread that actually says what TMD is all about doesn't say that the attitude of the Vintage forums should or shouldn't be applied elsewhere.  I think it should apply elsewhere, because while other boards have Vintage forums, only TMD has the most rigorous, well-studied, smartest user base in all of online Magicdom.  What's the point of the non-Vintage forums if not for that same user base to apply those same critical thinking skills to other ideas (particularly, other Magic related ideas)?  You're right that the thread started in the Card Creation Forum, and in the CCF, there's always lots of criticism of card ideas, and no one takes it personally.  If you really think I or anyone else here is engaged in "gratuitous brutality", please notify a moderator, as I'm sure that's against site rules.  Otherwise, stop bellyaching just because many of us think an Eternal only set is a dumb idea and we're not bashful about saying it.

[Norm4eva]

They should TOTALLY do this.  And then they should TOTALLY ban Yawgmoth's Will.  Fuck that shit.
Actually, to be serious, Matt and others are correct when they say that printing a block's worth of Vintage-tailored cards will only result in making the current decks even better.  As a matter of fact, Vintage stands on an interesting precipice where a critical mass of incredible cards exists, yet every set that comes out can only make them better.  I don't think I've seen a single card in here that a previously established deck wouldn't just absorb and utilize; that WU guy is basically a Fish player's wet dream, it's a Null Rod that doesn't look like shit next to Kataki and pitches to Force.  You could try and make a set out of these, but for them to have any real impact you'd have to build the decks into the set (think Madness/Affinity/etc) and how many decks could you really squeeze into a block that present true alternatives to powered decks of today?

[brianpk80]

I find it amusing that anyone here can claim to know a thing about the employment structure at WotC, and what they can and can't develop because of manpower constraints.

Generally, I ignore the hyperbolic, and just focus on the concrete criticisms. Anyone who simply says "it will fail" does not turn my ear. Ever. No matter how loudly it is screamed. Not in real life, and certainly not in a forum for a card game. It's certainly not PLEASANT, which is generally the way I like my associations, but on an open forum (this one in particular), I don't have that option.

Hmmm... watch out cause when posts get to this level, it sounds like you're using arrogance as a defense mechanism.  Your reasoning will be much stronger without using like-kind condescension.

Revealing cards from your library to an opponent is not "awkward"; it's commonplace.  Consider Extract, Extirpate, Jester's Cap, Oath of Druids...

There is no card in Magic that requires you to verify the contents of a library.  What's supposed to happen when you play this?  You flip over your deck and start piling up "creature, creature, creature, land, land, creature, etc."?  Is the goal to kill your opponent with tedium?  What happens when the game goes long and your library is down to 30 cards?  Your spells don't work anymore?

The degree of real or imagined hassle would vary with the requirement.  In a Leyline type of library compliance card, something like "Include only if your deck contains no artifacts" is pretty straightforward.  Giving an opponent the opportunity to scour your indiv. card choices and sideboard choices is a drawback; no one's denying that.  However, all the same, no one can deny that accessing that information is both commonplace and still supported (Extirpate being so recent). 

It's horrible because it's a total kluge.  If the goal is to design cards that can make unpowered decks competitive in Vintage, then design cards that do that.  If the only design solution you have to a problem is to introduce an entirely new concept to Magic and Magic rules, then, yes, that's horrible design and you need to try harder.

 

I disagree.  The need for a new design concept more evinces that the earlier design problems were horrible than it says the same of the solution. 

Your concern about "intellectual property issues" is completely misplaced.  Would Wizards seriously be like "Oh, we were TOTALLY going to make an Eternal only set, but then someone posted a possible card for that set in a thread on some Magic board, so now we can't!" 

Actually the existence of such cards in community forums or card creation forums has long been seen as a deterrent to those cards actually seeing the light of day.  Wizards employees are expressly discouraged from reading such forums and because they err on the side of caution, sending them a list of specific cards nearly guarantees that those cards would never materialize.  My comment on the IP issues was appropriate. 

The thread that actually says what TMD is all about doesn't say that the attitude of the Vintage forums should or shouldn't be applied elsewhere.  I think it should apply elsewhere, because while other boards have Vintage forums, only TMD has the most rigorous, well-studied, smartest user base in all of online Magicdom.  What's the point of the non-Vintage forums if not for that same user base to apply those same critical thinking skills to other ideas (particularly, other Magic related ideas)? 

Well, it's one thing to prefer that the well known stringent TMD standards apply in the community forums, but it's another thing entirely for that to be true.  From your link:

"For just shooting ideas and half-tested decks around, we have a Vintage Improvement Forum, but the main goal of TMD is to be that "medical journal" of Vintage where ideas and decks are thought-out and criticized at the highest level.  If you can't deal with that, or think all of that through, or use proper English/grammar/punctuation/express yourself clearly, then perhaps TMD is not for you.  I don't mean that in a "go-away" type attitude, but if that's not similar to your own goal in posting Vintage content on TMD, then you're not going to enjoy the experience (the community areas aside)." (emphasis added)

I admire that you have some familiarity with the general thrust of the standards applied to the Drain at large, but you're mistaken if you believe that the CCF or Basic User Community is the appropriate place for reaming out enthusiastic albeit less-than-polished contributors, especially when they actually take the time to follow up their critiques with responses (where many posters fail to do so).  Admidst a series of negative dismissals, I give the guy some encouraging feedback and commend the positive aspects of his contribution and then you put him down further and actually make a point of questioning my judgment for encouraging him.  You need to figure out why it is you're pressing this issue.   

If you really think I or anyone else here is engaged in "gratuitous brutality", please notify a moderator, as I'm sure that's against site rules.  Otherwise, stop bellyaching just because many of us think an Eternal only set is a dumb idea and we're not bashful about saying it.

Well you left out the important "under the guise of 'honest criticism'" modifier in my phrase "gratuitous brutality under the guise of honest criticism."  I haven't seen anything so overtly inappropriate that it would require a mod's intervention. 

Anyway, I'm not interested in becoming heavily invested in this thread and have said all I needed to.  If you think it's alien or contrary to TMD guidelines to advocate for less experienced posters (in the Basic User Community of all places) and help them develop the positive attributes of presentation, then send me a PM.

-B   

[jro]

The degree of real or imagined hassle would vary with the requirement.  In a Leyline type of library compliance card, something like "Include only if your deck contains no artifacts" is pretty straightforward.  Giving an opponent the opportunity to scour your indiv. card choices and sideboard choices is a drawback; no one's denying that.  However, all the same, no one can deny that accessing that information is both commonplace and still supported (Extirpate being so recent).

The difference is that most players don't cast Extirpate on themselves, and they certainly don't do so in the course of casting spells that (presumably) have nothing to do with the library, artifacts, or whatever else the restrictions on these cards would mention.  And the comparison to Leylines is weak at best.  The cards would be more like Relentless Rats, in that they have special deck construction rules attached to them. 

I disagree.  The need for a new design concept more evinces that the earlier design problems were horrible than it says the same of the solution.

Really, I'm flabbergasted.  No one has demonstrated a "need" for this "new design concept".  It may be a solution to the problem, but that doesn't make it the only solution.  Finding a horrible solution to this problem doesn't say anything about the existence of other, potentially non-horrible solutions.

Actually the existence of such cards in community forums or card creation forums has long been seen as a deterrent to those cards actually seeing the light of day.  Wizards employees are expressly discouraged from reading such forums and because they err on the side of caution, sending them a list of specific cards nearly guarantees that those cards would never materialize.  My comment on the IP issues was appropriate.

If WotC is concerned about liability for individual cards, how could they not also be concerned about liability for a set concept?  Or let's say this thread is purged of any potential cards and WotC took a look at it.  What would they see?  It seems like most people aren't really keen on the idea.  That's not going to help the set get made.  But, if you convince people in this thread that it should be made (which you'd have a better chance of doing by using card examples), they might pass along the idea elsewhere, etc.  So which approach is actually more likely to promote getting the set made?

"For just shooting ideas and half-tested decks around, we have a Vintage Improvement Forum, but the main goal of TMD is to be that "medical journal" of Vintage where ideas and decks are thought-out and criticized at the highest level.  If you can't deal with that, or think all of that through, or use proper English/grammar/punctuation/express yourself clearly, then perhaps TMD is not for you.  I don't mean that in a "go-away" type attitude, but if that's not similar to your own goal in posting Vintage content on TMD, then you're not going to enjoy the experience (the community areas aside)." (emphasis added)

I stand by my assertion that it doesn't say whether those standards should be applied or not.  It certainly doesn't say "But anything goes in the Community Forums!"  And this started off in the Card Creation Forum, which is generally pretty damn rigorous, so I don't think it's wrong to apply that level of rigor even if the thread got moved.

It's clear that no one is interested in actually suggesting what cards would necessitate this set.  But if Imzakhor or anyone else wants to suggest cards for an Eternal only set in the Card Creation Forum, I'd be more than happy to discuss those cards, as well as whether or not they could be put in a normal set.

[Matt]

Actually the existence of such cards in community forums or card creation forums has long been seen as a deterrent to those cards actually seeing the light of day.  Wizards employees are expressly discouraged from reading such forums and because they err on the side of caution, sending them a list of specific cards nearly guarantees that those cards would never materialize.  My comment on the IP issues was appropriate.

This is incorrect. Precisely BECAUSE R&D employees do not read our boards, they have printed many cards that look extremely similar to ones we in the CCF have made. For example, I basically created the entire Replicate mechanism in parallel to R&D, and several more cards have striking similarities.

[Titanium Dragon]

This type of card is interesting, is not overpowered, and provides what could be a powerful alternative option for Mox-"hosing". Perfect for your set.

While I’m flattered, the fact of the matter is that Swipe is also a card that could go into pretty much any modern set; every set these days has an artifact that is stealable via this spell, and it is interesting in other formats because it is very narrow and as such is generally going to be used as a SB hoser against big mana decks (and, in extended, as yet another Ravager Affinity hoser, capable of stealing their lands and equipment). I think the other upside of this card is that it actually kind of rewards you for going second, as you can play out a land, Swipe their mox, and then play your own mox safely while they don’t have mana up.

I’m sure we could come up with cards like this which would be interesting in other formats and would have some impact on Vintage. But why would we make a set denying these cards to other formats when they can be spread out through those sets and give Vintage a few cards every time. Isn’t it fun to look through a new set and try and build a new deck using some card or mechanic from that set?

[brianpk80]

Actually the existence of such cards in community forums or card creation forums has long been seen as a deterrent to those cards actually seeing the light of day.  Wizards employees are expressly discouraged from reading such forums and because they err on the side of caution, sending them a list of specific cards nearly guarantees that those cards would never materialize.  My comment on the IP issues was appropriate.

This is incorrect. Precisely BECAUSE R&D employees do not read our boards, they have printed many cards that look extremely similar to ones we in the CCF have made. For example, I basically created the entire Replicate mechanism in parallel to R&D, and several more cards have striking similarities.

I'm not sure how you intend this statement to be interpreted.  Are you saying that because they ostensibly "do not read" our boards by policy yet still actually read them that they have been able to lift ideas without the appearance of impropriety or are you saying that the existence of specific cards in the CCF somehow predicts that those cards become realized (in slightly modified form) despite WoTC having never seen them? 

If the former, then I'm in agreement and this is why sending them directly the exact cards would be thorny.  I have seen the posts there comparing CCF suggestions and actual MtG cards.  If the latter interpretation is what you're going for, then I don't see the causal connection between unseen cards in unseen forums and their later debut in Magic expansions.  If there is a third way of reading your statement, then forgive me for not seeing it.

-BPK

[Titanium Dragon]

I'm not sure how you intend this statement to be interpreted.  Are you saying that because they ostensibly "do not read" our boards by policy yet still actually read them that they have been able to lift ideas without the appearance of impropriety or are you saying that the existence of specific cards in the CCF somehow predicts that those cards become realized (in slightly modified form) despite WoTC having never seen them?

Because a lot of ideas we would come up with which are likely to be printed are simple ones. A good example is Cascade, the Replicate analog produced by this site. Its worth noting that they are actually quite different; Replicate allows you to copy the spell in response to it being countered, whereas Replicate works like storm, being triggered. Replicate is obviously miles stronger, as it is much more difficult to counter. However, it is a somewhat "obvious" mechanic. I had made a card similar to Lotus Bloom, which I called Frozen Lotus; it came into play with ice counters and one was removed at the beginning of each of your upkeeps until they were all gone and you could use it. If something seems to be fairly obvious, there's a good chance they'll do it at some point.

This is also why you can tell what -sort- of mechanic WotC is likely to come up with which duplicates something someone else has done; Kicker, Entwine, Replicate, and a number of older mechanics did fairly "obvious" things. Conversely the more obscure and complicated mechanics (for instance, Haunt) are much less likely to be replicated independently unless they've already been done on a card without it being keyworded (Morph vs Illusionary Mask).

[brianpk80]

Because a lot of ideas we would come up with which are likely to be printed are simple ones. A good example is Cascade, the Replicate analog produced by this site. Its worth noting that they are actually quite different; Replicate allows you to copy the spell in response to it being countered, whereas Replicate works like storm, being triggered. Replicate is obviously miles stronger, as it is much more difficult to counter. However, it is a somewhat "obvious" mechanic. I had made a card similar to Lotus Bloom, which I called Frozen Lotus; it came into play with ice counters and one was removed at the beginning of each of your upkeeps until they were all gone and you could use it. If something seems to be fairly obvious, there's a good chance they'll do it at some point.

This is also why you can tell what -sort- of mechanic WotC is likely to come up with which duplicates something someone else has done; Kicker, Entwine, Replicate, and a number of older mechanics did fairly "obvious" things. Conversely the more obscure and complicated mechanics (for instance, Haunt) are much less likely to be replicated independently unless they've already been done on a card without it being keyworded (Morph vs Illusionary Mask).

I see what you are saying: some mechanics and cards are so obvious for designers that irrespective of their appearance in a community forum, they are bound to be discovered independently.  In that case, their appearance in a forum should neither increase nor decrease their chance of actualization.  This makes sense but contradicts Matt who draws a connection between forum appearance and set actualization, writing:

"Precisely BECAUSE R&D employees do not read our boards, they have printed many cards that look extremely similar to ones we in the CCF have made."

Given that my belief, and yours incidentally, seems to align more with "Independently of whether R&D reads our boards, they have and are bound to print many cards extremely similar to ones posted in the CCF," I am confused by the above.  The causal connection in the above is what I'm not seeing, and I'm not sure contradicts anything I had written previously.   

Either way, this addresses only cards with obvious design mechanics.  For nonobvious mechanics, I would still hold that the appearance of a highly unique nonobvious card design in a community forum would, if anything, diminish the chance of that card materializing.  My reasoning:

1. If the design is that unique, the chances are it's "discovery" was not independent (especially if we actually mailed or emailed the ideas directly to Wizards).  Wizards discourages its employees from reading CC forums because it is overly cautious about threats of IP violation and therefore would not likely print a card known to have been lifted.  This is in fact the only reason I am aware of that Wizards discourages employees from reading CC forums.  They certainly wouldn't want to arbitrarily limit their designer's creative breadth without good reason and that good reason is the threat of IP litigation.
2. Even if the discovery was independent, creating that card creates an appearance of impropriety and misappropriation of the poster's idea that may not justify the risk of creating it. 

So in sum, either posting cards in a CC forum has no effect on their chance of materializing (since their obvious nature predicts they'd appear eventually) or diminishes it to some indeteriminable degree.  I do not believe it encourages their appearance, UNLESS:

Wizards publicly discourages designers from browsing while tacitly encouraging or ignoring it.  If this is what Matt was saying originally, then there is an argument that posting cards does in fact promote their later appearance.

I hope that clarifies my view.

-BPK

[Matt]

Actually the existence of such cards in community forums or card creation forums has long been seen as a deterrent to those cards actually seeing the light of day.  Wizards employees are expressly discouraged from reading such forums and because they err on the side of caution, sending them a list of specific cards nearly guarantees that those cards would never materialize.  My comment on the IP issues was appropriate.

This is incorrect. Precisely BECAUSE R&D employees do not read our boards, they have printed many cards that look extremely similar to ones we in the CCF have made. For example, I basically created the entire Replicate mechanism in parallel to R&D, and several more cards have striking similarities.

I'm not sure how you intend this statement to be interpreted.  Are you saying that because they ostensibly "do not read" our boards by policy yet still actually read them that they have been able to lift ideas without the appearance of impropriety or are you saying that the existence of specific cards in the CCF somehow predicts that those cards become realized (in slightly modified form) despite WoTC having never seen them? 

If the former, then I'm in agreement and this is why sending them directly the exact cards would be thorny.  I have seen the posts there comparing CCF suggestions and actual MtG cards.  If the latter interpretation is what you're going for, then I don't see the causal connection between unseen cards in unseen forums and their later debut in Magic expansions.  If there is a third way of reading your statement, then forgive me for not seeing it.

-BPK

What I am saying is that, contrary to the quote I provided, posting a card idea online is no barrier to that idea seeing print. It IS, I suppose, a barrier for Wizards using your card as inspiration.

Typing a card on TMD has no relation, positively or negatively, on Wizards' making that card, because they do not read such boards. The text I quoted implied that there was a negative effect, which I am refuting (and this refutation can indeed sound like I am suggesting a positive effect, but I am not).