Oversoul
The Tentacled One
In the Dominaria previews thread, the topic of Mark Rosewater's 2002 "When Cards to Bad" article came up. This topic has been revisited by Mark Rosewater in various media many times, and I can kind of see why.
Our context was a bit muddled: I wasn't actually citing any cards as "bad cards." That's not to say there aren't any bad cards in the set. But the pair of cards I was criticizing aren't ones to which I'd append the label "bad cards." Hell, Wizard's Retort is strictly better than Cancel. I was referring to my disappointment that they chose a design I do not feel will offer players something exciting. Basically, Dominaria as a set is kind of a big deal because it represents the "return" to where the game grew up. My preference would be for the power level to be pushed, for more risks to be taken in order to live up to the expectations set by classic Dominiarian sets. But even if that option is off the table, I'd at least hope the card design would offer players something tantalizing, something that at least shows the potential to do something powerful, even if the actual implementation means the set isn't pushed on the basis of overall tournament power-level. The point I was getting at, which may have been lost in all this, is that it's possible to have a card that is middle-of-the-road in terms of its overall "power" and to have that card offer something enticing. One of the examples I gave was Galvanic Blast. It's not some amazing card sweeping Legacy gameplay by storm or anything. But it's a fairly flexible direct damage spell with a bonus befitting the theme of the set it comes from, and that bonus offers a high power level. In contrast, Wizard's Lightning looks more like it evokes a sensation of "Instead of Lightning Bolt take this conditional Lightning Bolt." It's perhaps too subtle a distinction, but a card that feels like it's OK on its own and rewards you under the right circumstances is more fun than a card that feels kinda lame on its own and goes back to the "normal" level of power under the right circumstances.
In any case, I'm trying not to be too hyped up over Dominaria what with the context of the set and the return of Richard Garfield and all that. No sense responding to an otherwise "OK" set in the wrong way and being dejected that it's not the best thing ever. I do wish they'd erred on the side of pushing boundaries here and they seem to have chosen not to do that, but the set might still be fine. Those "Wizard's" spells won't be the best cards in the set and they won't be the worst, but they struck me as a bold example of approaching cards in a grandiose way with the art, the flavor text, the role they'll presumably serve within the set, and then only delivering dull designs. That really doesn't have much to do with outright bad cards, but we wound up on that tangent because Spiderman is always willing to check what I'm saying and question whether it's right. When it comes to the Dominaria stuff, he seems to be more reserving judgment (can't fault that!), and perhaps he's not invested in the set too much anyway. We'll see how that part goes, I guess...
But then there's the issue of bad cards. Years ago, I was listening to Mark Rosewater's podcast (based on the article I linked to) on this and at some point, something he said set me off and I was trying to argue with him while I was driving to work. Alas, the recording of Mark Rosewater did not magically respond to my feedback. I forget what the exact bone of contention was in that instance. Whatever it was, I think the article itself is worth a read. He responds very eloquently to the question and insightfully breaks the issue down into categories, into different explanations for why a card might seem "bad." I won't attempt to comprehensively address his categories or come up with my own. I suspect that in theory there should probably be more categories. But that's not where I'm going with this. His main points are these...
1: I agree with this. It's fundamentally true.
2: I agree with this as well. Card "quality" depends on context. A card I might scoff at could be just what someone else is looking for in that player's EDH deck or something.
3: I do not see how this notion holds water at all. Pretty sure I could teach a reasonably intelligent person the game using only Mark Rosewater's hypothetical "all good cards" set. Like, he reasoned that new players were drawn to cards such as Throne of Bone and only came to realize, over time, that the cards were bad and that this learning experience was why they kept putting the cards in the core set. I think that's wrong. I do not like it at all. I contend that it is completely unnecessary.
4: His explanation for this one is terse and I'd stipulate nuances and caveats and blah, blah, blah. But I mostly agree with him on this one.
5: His explanation on this one is really geared toward draft formats, which aren't my specialty. Perhaps I'm missing something here and I forget how he put it in the podcast, but I don't like this one. The notion seems to be that you, as a skilled player, need to have hidden bad cards in the draft pool so that your less-skilled opponents will be tricked into picking those bad cards. Then you'll beat them because you are more skilled. Well, in that case, if you're so skilled, can't you beat them without some cheap trick?
6: I agree with this one.
7: Well, here's where it gets troublesome...
At the time I heard the podcast, the card that was on my mind was this little common from the then-current core set...
It was originally printed in Legions and made its way into a whopping four core sets as a common. Lots of people opened this card in packs of M15, and while I can't speak for all of them, none of them liked it. Oh wait, I guess I can speak for all of them. I just did. But it's true! This card had nothing going for it. Ignoring the art and I guess the flavor text, there's nothing about this card that would appeal to anyone. That's why the Gatherer comments on older printings of the card (from when Gatherer comments were still available) are almost exclusively sarcastic.
Now, Merfolk of the Pearl Trident is also a 1/1 with no abilities for U. Other than arguably being less useful due to tribal mechanics, Fugitive Wizard isn't really worse. In principle how bad is a 1/1 for a single blue mana? Is it a bad card? Well, I do agree with Mark Rosewater that these things are relative. It's not as bad as some other cards. It's also more bad than some other cards. I mean, duh? I'd argue that its place on the spectrum should probably be somewhere in whatever part of the spectrum is generally "bad." Certainly not "good."
Our context was a bit muddled: I wasn't actually citing any cards as "bad cards." That's not to say there aren't any bad cards in the set. But the pair of cards I was criticizing aren't ones to which I'd append the label "bad cards." Hell, Wizard's Retort is strictly better than Cancel. I was referring to my disappointment that they chose a design I do not feel will offer players something exciting. Basically, Dominaria as a set is kind of a big deal because it represents the "return" to where the game grew up. My preference would be for the power level to be pushed, for more risks to be taken in order to live up to the expectations set by classic Dominiarian sets. But even if that option is off the table, I'd at least hope the card design would offer players something tantalizing, something that at least shows the potential to do something powerful, even if the actual implementation means the set isn't pushed on the basis of overall tournament power-level. The point I was getting at, which may have been lost in all this, is that it's possible to have a card that is middle-of-the-road in terms of its overall "power" and to have that card offer something enticing. One of the examples I gave was Galvanic Blast. It's not some amazing card sweeping Legacy gameplay by storm or anything. But it's a fairly flexible direct damage spell with a bonus befitting the theme of the set it comes from, and that bonus offers a high power level. In contrast, Wizard's Lightning looks more like it evokes a sensation of "Instead of Lightning Bolt take this conditional Lightning Bolt." It's perhaps too subtle a distinction, but a card that feels like it's OK on its own and rewards you under the right circumstances is more fun than a card that feels kinda lame on its own and goes back to the "normal" level of power under the right circumstances.
In any case, I'm trying not to be too hyped up over Dominaria what with the context of the set and the return of Richard Garfield and all that. No sense responding to an otherwise "OK" set in the wrong way and being dejected that it's not the best thing ever. I do wish they'd erred on the side of pushing boundaries here and they seem to have chosen not to do that, but the set might still be fine. Those "Wizard's" spells won't be the best cards in the set and they won't be the worst, but they struck me as a bold example of approaching cards in a grandiose way with the art, the flavor text, the role they'll presumably serve within the set, and then only delivering dull designs. That really doesn't have much to do with outright bad cards, but we wound up on that tangent because Spiderman is always willing to check what I'm saying and question whether it's right. When it comes to the Dominaria stuff, he seems to be more reserving judgment (can't fault that!), and perhaps he's not invested in the set too much anyway. We'll see how that part goes, I guess...
But then there's the issue of bad cards. Years ago, I was listening to Mark Rosewater's podcast (based on the article I linked to) on this and at some point, something he said set me off and I was trying to argue with him while I was driving to work. Alas, the recording of Mark Rosewater did not magically respond to my feedback. I forget what the exact bone of contention was in that instance. Whatever it was, I think the article itself is worth a read. He responds very eloquently to the question and insightfully breaks the issue down into categories, into different explanations for why a card might seem "bad." I won't attempt to comprehensively address his categories or come up with my own. I suspect that in theory there should probably be more categories. But that's not where I'm going with this. His main points are these...
- Some cards will always be stronger than others, so by definition there will always be a worst card or cards.
- Different cards are made with different people in mind. A card you can't use might be a real gem to someone else.
- The experience of comprehending for oneself that a card is bad is an important step in learning the game.
- Some cards are "diamonds in the rough" and only seem bad until one day they don't.
- Having cards of varying power levels rewards the players who correctly ascertain which ones are better.
- Some players are driven to try to "break" seemingly bad cards that no one else can find a use for.
- Sometimes WotC just plain mess up.
1: I agree with this. It's fundamentally true.
2: I agree with this as well. Card "quality" depends on context. A card I might scoff at could be just what someone else is looking for in that player's EDH deck or something.
3: I do not see how this notion holds water at all. Pretty sure I could teach a reasonably intelligent person the game using only Mark Rosewater's hypothetical "all good cards" set. Like, he reasoned that new players were drawn to cards such as Throne of Bone and only came to realize, over time, that the cards were bad and that this learning experience was why they kept putting the cards in the core set. I think that's wrong. I do not like it at all. I contend that it is completely unnecessary.
4: His explanation for this one is terse and I'd stipulate nuances and caveats and blah, blah, blah. But I mostly agree with him on this one.
5: His explanation on this one is really geared toward draft formats, which aren't my specialty. Perhaps I'm missing something here and I forget how he put it in the podcast, but I don't like this one. The notion seems to be that you, as a skilled player, need to have hidden bad cards in the draft pool so that your less-skilled opponents will be tricked into picking those bad cards. Then you'll beat them because you are more skilled. Well, in that case, if you're so skilled, can't you beat them without some cheap trick?
6: I agree with this one.
7: Well, here's where it gets troublesome...
At the time I heard the podcast, the card that was on my mind was this little common from the then-current core set...
It was originally printed in Legions and made its way into a whopping four core sets as a common. Lots of people opened this card in packs of M15, and while I can't speak for all of them, none of them liked it. Oh wait, I guess I can speak for all of them. I just did. But it's true! This card had nothing going for it. Ignoring the art and I guess the flavor text, there's nothing about this card that would appeal to anyone. That's why the Gatherer comments on older printings of the card (from when Gatherer comments were still available) are almost exclusively sarcastic.
Now, Merfolk of the Pearl Trident is also a 1/1 with no abilities for U. Other than arguably being less useful due to tribal mechanics, Fugitive Wizard isn't really worse. In principle how bad is a 1/1 for a single blue mana? Is it a bad card? Well, I do agree with Mark Rosewater that these things are relative. It's not as bad as some other cards. It's also more bad than some other cards. I mean, duh? I'd argue that its place on the spectrum should probably be somewhere in whatever part of the spectrum is generally "bad." Certainly not "good."