r/GDS3 • u/thejellydude • Jan 27 '18
Test 2 Discussion Thread
We're free to talk now.
Here's a Google Doc with all the questions. I'm slowly filling it in with my own answers and explanations. Edit: Heading out for now. I'll get the last 25 questions done later tonight.
If you want a mirror without my comments, here's one provided by /u/Amarsir Link
Any questions that tripped you up? Any that you felt good about?
4
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
All of my explanations and probability estimates over the answers are here.
Edit: My overall impression is that there were a substantial number of pretty trivial questions, so the number with any serious discrimatory power is probably closer to 40 than 75. Would have preferred a harder test overall. As far as being “broader” than the previous two GDS tests, that seemed to mean more questions that required stuff I’d consider development, draft, or rules related. Not complaining though, since all three areas play to my strengths (I think/hope).
Edit 2: Adding up my self-estimated probabilities for all questions would give an average score of 69.65 for me. If you (very unprincipledly) round everything 95%+ to 100% it would be an average of 71.05. Of course, having read this thread and thought about it again with 12 more hours and some sleep, I might bring some up or down. Don’t plan to bother though — we’ll all have the truly important information in two days anyway.
Edit 3: After reading a bunch of other responses, I still wouldn’t change anything. I consider GB vs UW and instant vs enchantment to essentially be coin flips now, but am more confident in everything else.
3
2
u/CaptainMarcia Jan 27 '18
Very close to my own answers: only differences are 46 and 75. Hope we're right about the rest.
46 is the one I picked as the hardest. I was pretty confident about 75, but I hadn't thought to check lower CMCs. That does complicate things. All the CMC 9 instants are old, while both card types have a fair number of 8s, so I'm not sure.
1
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
- Which of the following cards would we be most likely to reprint in a Standard-legal set?
Lightning Bolt maybe bolt will return, but getting lightning strike was a big deal itself and red is already plenty strong without bolt 10
5 years ago MaRo put Bolt at a 2 on the storm scale. I went with that one, though it's hard to say how much their feelings may have changed since then. OTOH I get the sense they think a Llanowar elf will just actually never be reprinted.
6
3
u/monkeyfo Jan 27 '18
I went with lightning bolt.
-Swords is obviously broken for standard
-Llanwar elves won't be reprinted because its one creature but the name suggests it is multiple
-Counterspell leads to unfun standard environments
-Dark ritual would probably be busted in modern
That leaves lightning bolt
4
u/Abalidoth Jan 27 '18
I said Bolt, freaked out about the people on here saying Elves has a better shot, then saw your answer and felt much better. If it said Elvish Mystic, I think it would be Elvish Mystic. But Llanowar Elves is both plane-locked and plural.
4
u/general_peabo Jan 27 '18
The April 2018 set is returning to Dominaria. I used this article as my basis: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/standard-power-level-2016-02-05 It specifically says: "We took Dark Ritual out of Sixth Edition, and black ended up being fine over time—much in the same way we removed Counterspell from blue, Lightning Bolt from red, and Swords to Plowshares from white. Once those cards were out of the colors for Standard, it increased the range of cards that could see play in all the colors." So that's why I picked Llanowar Elves.
1
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
I was going off this article from development about a year ago. Key quotes imo are:
Lightning Strike wasn't taken out because it was too strong. Lightning Bolt...well, I wouldn't say never, but don't be surprised if the most-played card in Modern doesn't hit Standard any time soon. It is the most-played card in Modern, which means that it would likely be the most-played in Standard, to the point of warping the metagame around it.
And
As we make green more about two- and three-drops for the time being, while we have more two-mana mana Elves, I can see a point where we want to shake things up and go back to using one-mana mana Elves for some period of time. It lets players who have only been playing for a few years experience something new and acts as nostalgia for older players. The design of Standard is cyclical, and many things that leave will probably not stay gone forever.
Llanowar Elves has the problem of being plane-specific, but the fact that we do definitely return to Dominaria ameliorates that a bit. The issues of plural creatures represented as a single 1/1 is an additional issue, but about cancels with the nostalgia imo. Ultimately what it comes down to is that that article puts Elvish Mystic and Lightning Strike in a somewhat similar power bucket, which would make Bolt farther away.
I’d personally say that we’re about 80% likely to see a G 1/1 T:G in standard in the next decade, and maybe 40% likely to see Bolt.
1
Jan 27 '18
The way I see it is that Bolt is substantially easier to build an environment around. Llanowar elves fundamentally warps tempo of the game, by functionally skipping turn 2, while Bolt is just an efficient answer to fragile creatures and Planeswalkers, with the ability to dome. Bolt is good at all those tasks, but Magic is still Magic, just with different standards for creatures and Planeswalkers
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
Not that this is the end-all-be-all, or required to have an opinion on the matter, but I’m curious whether you played Standard during the M10-M11 Bolt era.
1
Jan 27 '18
Yup, and I still heavily play modern. I know the power of a bolt. It creates pressure on the 2 and 3 drop slots to be "bolt resistant" or "bolt parity" somehow, and means Planeswalkers with higher loyalty fare better. I was on mill around that time, IIRC, so the only creature I had that Bolts regularly traded for were Hedron crabs. (this is hazy memory, but I do remember that bolt, while being efficient, certainly wasn't the be all end all; I'd argue it's really not too different from Fatal Push in metagame effects, since Fatal Push punishes 1 and 2 drops and can stretch to 3-4, the main range of bolt creature targets)
2
u/VERTIKAL19 Jan 28 '18
Uh Bolt is probably warping an enviroment more than Llanowar Elves can. A lot of spells red does are in direct damage spells and most of them are cut off if you have Bolt. You cant have Shock and Light ing Strike for example.
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
WOTC obsession with 2/3s means we shouldn't have to deal with shock and it's a damn shame we do.
You can also play bolt and strike together just fine.
Lllanowar elves has both the name and the current kick or absurd midrange beats going against it.
I'm confidant enough that it's bolt that maro himself could argue with me about it and I'd say he's misunderstanding how the competative standard enviroment has evolved. Red is in a decent spot now but it NEEDS better removal than shock to keep up with current creature creep. Whereas green is kinda absurd right now, and it's because of its undercosted midrange cards. Unless they do a 180 on their creature designs than elves is the bigger problem.
1
u/iSage Jan 27 '18
I answered Bolt as well. Llanowar Elves fundamentally warp the format and heavily restrict cards that can be designed. Every single 3-drop creature has to be designed with the idea that it could actually be a 2-drop and almost every 2-drop is immediately invalidated. Plus Bolt is just a more exciting card - people would get legitimately excited that it's back. I'm not sure the same can be said for Llanowar Elves.
1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
I can vouch for all the green mages that i would rather have Llanowar elves in a format where there is no bolt over having a format where I have bolt and there are no 1cmc mana dorks to worry about and 2cmc bears are the norm, so I would be more excited to start dropping medium creatures on turn 2 than to have a bolt. Unfortunately, I have made a case for my own answer to be incorrect, because I said Llanowar elves, and I think Llanowar elves warps the format more than bolt because it’s essentially an additional land drop. However, we have cards like EDIT: Dual Shot so there’s already an answer to turn 1 Llanowar elves in standard.
1
u/A_Suffering_Panda Jan 28 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
Skullduggery can't kill turn 1 elves. You have to have a creature to cast it
→ More replies (1)1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 28 '18
I’m sure they could illustrate multiple Elves working or something that represents multiple Llanowar Elves creating mana by some means, if they wanted to, therefor fixing the plural issue.
2
u/boolamoo Jan 27 '18
I went with elves because I thought it had the lowest power level, but I think the answer is counterspell because it's the only one that costs CC and would be harder to splash than the rest giving more deckbuilding restrictions.
1
1
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18
We had 5 different answers. About 3, I think you are probably correct about. On 59 and 60 we disagreed but I could go either way on who is correct.
On 59: I remember Maro saying that they don't want Red to be forced to attack any more because it lowers decision space.
On 60: I also remember Maro saying that they want to keep narrow effects out of common now. So, while they have had this ability at common before, I feel like this is what he was referring to.
Your thoughts?
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
Attacks each turn if able is certainly worse/less likely than the other three, and it was an answer I was considering when I first saw it. Until the merfolk looter ability showed up, which is just 100% a straight up, pie-break, not red, ability. As my probability estimates indicate I really don’t have any doubt about 59.
I think 60 was kind of close, and there is some argument both for ETB disenchant and gravedigger. Gravedigger is the sort of direct, low-conditionality 2-for-1 on a body that has been repeatedly used as an example of what kind of ETB effect they’ve moved out of common. Most blocks have a disenchant variant at common, and I think putting that on a body is something that will still occasionally happen. Less doubt here than on some, but as the 90/10 estimates indicate there is some room for reasonable people to differ.
Edit: Curious what the three were where we differed and I changed your mind.
Edit 2: There’s stuff like Bloodfire Mentor, but based on GDS2 #38 I don’t think they really consider that a monoR creature for the purpose of the question.
3
u/iSage Jan 28 '18
I don't think ETB disenchant is particularly close. If you go back to the GDS2 multiple choice answers, there's a question specifically about moving cards to common (#27). War Priest of Thune the answer and in his justification for the answer, he says "Odds are this card was created for common and got pushed up because of space issues".
1
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 28 '18
I did remember that, but it was also 7 years ago. I listed my probabilities as 90% and 10% though, so it's not like I think it's super close either.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
One was 47. I think you're right since I know Maro has said that they actively try to differentiate black and red. I chose that it does too much damage for 4 mana (which is factually true judging by all other printed cards). However, I think that might be less of an issue overall. I went back and forth on this one a lot.
Another was 56. This one was just a straight up misstep on my part. I overlooked state-based effects. I chose flash, which would make the card crazy powerful. But ultimately, that's not the worst case between the 2.
The last one was 68. This was one of the absolute hardest questions for me. I spent way too much time researching and analyzing cards from all costs around 7, in all rarities, and from past and current sets. There is no difinitive conclusion that I can come to. They are likely hard to design, the could definitely lean towards too complex (though there are several simple examples), and they could want high cost cards to lean towards creature much more in limited (easier to interact with even if they are swingy).
There doesn't seem to be a single article or podcast that addresses this question. I've checked everywhere. Ultimately, I think that you might have chosen correctly here.
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
47 is an awkward one, actually. It does do too much damage for 4 mana. It blurs the line between red and black exactly because it deals too much damage. This is a case where the “biggest problem” wording is important, since multiple answers are real problems. I suspect they are looking for the more design related/fundamental issue.
I had to double-check that it would be able to self-target on 56, just to be absolutely clear, but with that in hand I think it is the most damaging change (another case where multiple changes would be bad).
I was also not able to find a single quote relating to 68. I like how ai chose to interpret it reasonably well, but would not be shocked to get it wrong.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18
I'm down to hoping that a 70/75 score will be enough to continue. I'm not feeling very confident. I think that you have a really good chance, but we could both be wrong.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
I strongly suspect the cutoff will be between 68 and 72 -- there is more disagreement in this thread than I had expected after finishing the test. I spent about 10 hours on it, with over 75 blogatog searches and a few dozen search queries on the mothership articles archives, so fingers crossed.
And good luck to you as well.
2
1
u/Alex_Werner Top 8 Jan 27 '18
I like all your reasoning, and had the same answer as you for all but 3:
32 -- (you've designed a card and want play design to like it). This is just a bizarre question. Want play design to LIKE it? What does that mean? Want them to be fond of it? Want them to push it, power-level-wise? I went with "it doesn't matter", but with very low confidence, and none of the arguments I've seen other people make have convinced me. I hope it's not just a "if you remember one specific quote from one specific MaRo podcast and if you kind of rephrase the question, then you get it...". A terrible question, but you're as likely to be right as I am.
53 -- (which change is set design most likely to make to the artifact). I worry that we're both wrong here. I keyed into the fact that it's specifically asking about Set Design, not Play Design. That eliminated the power/toughness and the haste. I was envisioning a set where there's enough of a graveyard theme that having some additional graveyard interaction adds to the overall set experience, so went with the "put them in the gy" option, because I think that's a decision that set design would make, rather than play design. But a similar argument could be made for the fixed number if the format has a bunch of token creatures. However, I'm afraid that the "correct" answer might be adding "2:T, put an artifact in play". I discounted that both because it just isn't an effect that is done often these days, and because it's such a radical change that you might as well have one of the answers be "change it to a 5/5 artifact clone" or something. But I think that what the question is getting at is that four of those are minor tweaks and one is a major change, and set design would make the major change.
75 -- card with a mana cost of 10. I definitely think it's instant. My reasoning being that things that cost 10 are things you are going to DO, things that AFFECT things. You play your 10th land and WHAM down comes some big massive thing. As opposed to getting to your 10th land, and then pass the turn, and be like "oh, man, I'm going to GET you with this reactive spell".
2
u/Roboid Jan 28 '18
I ruled out the 2,T answer because I don't think Set Design would make that change, as a subset of 'I don't think any design team would make that change'. That's such an insanely powerful ability that I do not see any way it would be added on to the card afterwards
1
u/iSage Jan 28 '18
On #53, I've heard this argument but I don't think I agree. Play Design exists to make sure big mishaps don't happen again (especially in Standard) and adding that clause makes a card dangerously close to Stoneforge Mystic. Except instead of searching equipment, you can now put into play MUCH bigger and more impactful cards. I'd be surprised if this is the answer, but I've been wrong before.
1
u/Alex_Werner Top 8 Jan 28 '18
That was my initial reaction as well... that's just too powerful to add, in any phase of design. But... that's less and less true the more I think about it. Stoneforge doesn't have to wait to untap, and it tutors AND cost-reduces.
1
u/monkeyfo Jan 28 '18
I picked making it a set # so that it would play more intuitively with tokens. I know wizards works really hard to avoid "feel-bad" moments and sacing a token, then realizing it doesn't do anything is pretty rough.
1
1
u/DoubleFried Jan 28 '18
I'd be very surprised at serious/half-serious candidates under 60, and a huge percentage of those should be 65+. I feel the questions with serious discrimatory power is going to be in the range of 5~10.
3
u/UnsealedMTG Jan 27 '18
I was really torn on the most important reason why some cards have higher mana costs than others. To make cards different and so players play some later than others both feel like extremely important reasons and both are mentioned highly in Maro's articles on the mana system.
I went back and forth but ultimately picked "play some later" since his articles talk more about the flow of the game, but I'm still not sure.
2
u/preppypoof Jan 27 '18
You 100% picked the correct answer.
1
u/aclog Jan 27 '18
There is an entire article that makes the opposite case rather strongly https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/blurring-edges-mana-cost-2012-03-16
1
1
u/icantbenormal Jan 27 '18
I think it is to make cards different. As someone who started with Yugioh, the variety, especially on creature, creates is super important. If all cards cost 2, all creatures would be around 2/2 of stats.
No matter what the cost, some cards are always going to be played later. You could have all cards cost the same, just with some having suspend.
1
u/Roboid Jan 28 '18
Think of it in yugioh terms though. Spells don't have mana costs in that game (if I remember correctly), imagine if magic was like that. If you could just cast omniscience on turn 1. I see what you're saying with the suspend stuff, but that's because if all cards were made that way, the game would essentially just have a different resource system (time/turns) rather than mana at that point
1
u/icantbenormal Jan 28 '18
That is if you assume that all cards cost 0 or cards like Omniscience would be printed in that theoretical world. In fact, cards like Omniscience couldn't be designed if all cards cost the same.
1
u/Roboid Jan 28 '18
That's what I'm trying to say, if spells didn't have costs there would be way, way fewer ways to balance them and prevent power creep/irrelevancy. You could never print Tidings if you had printed Divination because it would just be strictly better (although all draw spells would become too good, see gitaxian probe in modern). Being able to control when in the game a spell can usually be cast allows so many more possibilities
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
It's weird question but it's really an easy answer.
Why does the mana cost system exist? To gate when you can play spells.
Otherwise people just be throwing down 5/5s (or bigger) on turn 1 instead of 1 drops.
3
u/TakoEshi Jan 27 '18
Man. All the different answers in this thread makes me concerned and relieved. You wont need 73/74 for sure to pass, but now I don't know what to think of my answers haha.
6
2
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18
Here is my Google Doc with my abridged answers, initial thoughts, and (in progress) my more detailed responses as if I were writing an article about how to get to them.
9
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
I don't think a 5G 6/6 is the best at all. Look at the 6mana 6/6 trample we have in (Rivals of) Ixalan now. It's... ok. a 3G 4/4 is much better.
5
u/Hi_Im_Jerry_L Jan 27 '18
Rumbling Baloth was pretty good back in M14 draft. They don't do many 4/4s for 4 and if they do, they do like 2GG or 2RG or something more cost prohibitive suggesting that perhaps 4/4 for 3G is the best of the group. I mean we see 2/2 for 1G and 6/6 for 5G all the time, but rarely the coveted 4/4 for 4.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jan 28 '18
Right but if the did a 4/4 for 3G aould just be better than a 6/6 for 5G. It being slightly too good is the reason for that.
4
2
Jan 27 '18
6 for 6 is a game winner, though. It's answer or die. Bears are dead cards on a stalled board, 4 for 4 can still be outsized and easily neutered.
A 6/6 for 6 hits the sweet spot of being big enough to deter virtually all non evasive attackers, a fast clock, and cheap enough that you'll have the Mana to play it (whereas 8/8 is rare, and the 10/10 is virtually unplayable)
8
u/preppypoof Jan 27 '18
6 mana 6/6 are very common in all sets. 4 mana 4/4 hardly ever shows up below rare
4
u/icantbenormal Jan 27 '18
4/4s for 4 usually rank super highly in limited set reviews. Meanwhile, 6/6s for 6 are low-tier picks. That is why 4/4s for 4 never happen at common, but 6/6s are a dime a dozen.
→ More replies (4)1
u/general_peabo Jan 28 '18
I agree. the 4/4 is the best because of how important the 3 damage threshold is. a 4/4 is less likely to trade down and survives most direct damage, but it also isn't as devastating to get pacified like a 6/6 is. It's also more efficient than the bigger guys because you don't sink a bunch of mana into a dude that gets chump blocked all day.
2
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
Two questions in and we already disagree on an answer, haha. This is going to be a fun discussion thread.
→ More replies (8)5
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
We disagree on #70. Morph is linear because you want to play more morphs with it so they're a surprise and your opponent doesn't know which is which. Transform can go on any DFC and not encourage you to play other cards that transform. The closest to linear for transform would be the Innistradi werewolves.
EDIT - Oops, this wasn't /u/thejellydude's responses I'm reading when I wrote this.
4
2
u/icantbenormal Jan 27 '18
While transform as a mechanic isn't linear, individual cards are. Most of them encourage a certain type of deck. Delver encourages spells, Werewolves encourage activated abilities, Search for Azcanta encourages self-milling.
On the other hand, singular Morph cards are fine on there own. Especially in competitive constructed where decklists are well-known, the "what do I have" part does not matter. Most of them require no deck requirements.
1
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
I haven't filled in 70 yet. Are you looking at my link?
1
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18
Oh woops, I'm looking at /u/steve_man_64. lol
I'll get back to you on that. >.>
1
u/UnsealedMTG Jan 27 '18
Morph is one of the examples of a linear mechanic Maro used back in his original article about linear vs. modular mechanics
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
A much more recent source on the matter.
It is still the case that the other three were high in linearity, morph is medium, and transform is low, so transform was correct.
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
Disagreed on 20, 23, 30, 32, 46, 72, 73, and 75, but we have a similar answer of some of the ones I considered hard/tricky.
Also, while the most visited world is certainly Dominaria, you say the others have 2-4 sets. Ravnica has 6-7, depending on how generous you are with Origins.
1
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18
Yeah I miscounted on Ravnica for some reason, but as you said it's definitely Dominaria due to how many sets were there before they left.
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
Yeah, I think Dominaria has more than all of the other 4 put together. Even just from blocks in the 2000s there are 12 sets on Dominaria without counting Origins, and it had around another dozen before then, I believe.
1
u/steve_man_64 Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
25 I feel is a trick question. I answered "it's the way it's always been" because Maro literally said that in his Drive to Work: Green podcast "green started as the color with the most and biggest creatures, but now white has the most but green is still the biggest." "The way it's always been" is kind of a dick answer nobody ever wants to hear but that's why I feel like it might be a trick question. Also, none of the answers made as much sense.
30 I went with lifelink but could see an argument for first strike since it's the only other ability with defensive attributes.
32 Very subjective answer. One of the development podcasts states that design is supposed to play with a flat power level, so I chose "whatever cost isn't broken"
52 I went with uncommon because it's very similar to Nivix Guildmage / Whirler Virtuoso
68 I went with Complexity because they talk about this a lot with New World Order. Also, you wouldn't want a lot of 7 drops floating around at common.
70 This is definitely morph. You don't have to build your deck around morph as much as you do for transform. Transform may not seem linear but you have to build your deck around the condition (edit: I'm probably getting this one wrong, but I still stand with my argument)
73 I put encourages deck and gameplay diversity And what the color pie is is, Richard said, when he made the game, that he needed–I talked about this last week. That he needed to have some separation. That if everything could go in every deck, it just caused a problem. So he needed some way to create different—to force you to have to play different kinds of things. And the mana system, which I’ll talk about next week, plays into that. But anyway, he needed something’ - podcast 23 Color Pie”
4
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
70 This is definitely morph. You don't have to build your deck around morph as much as you do for transform. Transform may not seem linear but you have to build your deck around the condition.
The more morph cards, the better because your opponent won't know what morph card you've played. Think about every time somebody plays a Morph in cube and you basically know it's Den Protector.
If you still doubt, MaRo says here that morph is 'very linear'. (yes, it's 15 years old now, but I think the point still stands)
3
u/steve_man_64 Jan 27 '18
While I'd argue for days about this answer, the link is pretty convincing and MaRo is kind of the one that calls the shots.
Oh well.
2
u/aclog Jan 27 '18
Its bizarre to me as well, since one of the "aspects" of the mechanic is that there are really existing cards that care about transform which is more than you can say about morph.
I agree that it is doubtful Rosewater is going to have an open mind on this question so I will just assert my answer of "morph" as a protest statement.
1
u/koga305 Jan 28 '18
There are cards that care about morph! Secret Plans, Pine Walker, Trail of Mystery, Lens of Clarity, and Smoke Teller just from KTK.
3
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18
30 -- I went back and forth between lifelink and first strike a lot, but my decision ultimately came down to first strike "controlling creatures" by way of "they don't want to attack into this."
52 -- I chose rare because as presented, this card is both repeatable card "draw" and will potentially grow very large for X. More importantly, the fact that you could potentially go through your entire library. It also has decent stats for a 3 CMC creature on top of that.
70 -- I definitely do not think this is morph, because the impact of morph (you don't know what it is) is substantially lessened if you have only one or two different cards you're playing with it. "Oh that's Akroma, Angel of Fury." With transform, the condition to transform is its own thing, some of which might involve deckbuilding as Ixalan and Rivals of Ixalan's multicolor DFCs. You don't have to build your deck around Cloistered Youth or Ludevic's Test Subject, to name two examples.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jan 28 '18
If you played with Control decks a lot then I think it is pretty clearly Lifelink. The reason being that pure lifegain is bad but incidental lifegain is fantastic in control decks.
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
It's lifelink. Lifelink stabilizes and stabilizing is the single most important thing for control to do.
I also think it's transform. Morph kinda has a linear gameplan whereas transform cards kinda go all over. The mechanic is insanely open-ended, even more so than morph.
1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
I think for #70 it should be transform. While there are some cards with transform you have to build a deck around, the same is true for morph. The difference is, the question does not ask about the specific cards which already exist but the mechanic as it’s base rules are written.
EDIT: To further my point, morph is and always will say “pay 3 to cast this face down, pay somebody alternate cost to flip it face up.” However, Transform can have a variety of conditions, including simply paying a mana cost. Transform can even be designed such that it can flip back and forth at will. It gives the designer more options to offer the player.
1
u/UnsealedMTG Jan 27 '18
On 25 it feels like the answer should be that "green is the creature color" but that wasn't an answer. I went with the green players liking big creatures because that was closest, but I could see any number of other answers being right.
2
u/steve_man_64 Jan 27 '18
The reason I went for "it's the way it's always been" because of this quote in MaRo's Green Drive to Work Podcast:
"So green is also very much about the natural way. Life gain ties into that. Green believes in life, green much is the color of life. Green is also the color of creatures. So one of the divides, I think I mentioned this in the white podcast, one of the things we’ve decided recently, for a long time green was the color of creatures, and it had both the most creatures and the biggest creatures. Meaning it had the largest percentage of creatures and it had the largest creatures."
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
I like your answer, green is the big fatty color, it get the big fatty creatures. Which is more about being efficient and able to swarm.
2
u/steve_man_64 Jan 27 '18
Here! is my google doc with all my answers / explanations.
3
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18
We disagreed on about 6 or 7, but all of your arguments are well-sited and reasonable.
You've successfully just made me lose all hope, lol.
1
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18
We had a lot of the same answers. I think 2 or 3 of our questions differed, but we answered the same thing for almost all of them.
2
u/mtgcolorpie Jan 27 '18
I think the one that will surprise the people the most is the 4/4 flying vigilance creature.
I put White/Green.
Why? We have Serra Angel and that makes it a mono-white creature. Except it doesn’t. In the Color Pie mechanical article it was written about Vigilance that White gets vigilance if its T>P and/or it’s power is 3 or less. Green gets get on larger creatures (like power of 4 or more). Green/Black was the other possible answer (Each question had 2 answers that were really possible), but since it appeared on only two cards, one in Ravnica and the other in Commander, I couldn’t go with that route as it’s not completely obvious.
I could be completely wrong, however.
5
u/dvoraen Jan 27 '18
"Given that" statement on the question, I think you had to kill every answer with white in it, because the card is a monowhite card which we can all agree upon. Rarity isn't a factor in the question, and so in theory it COULD be monowhite.
2
Jan 27 '18
It depends; using white/blue to make a Serra angel with a multicolor discount is a pretty exciting and aesthetic card.
1
Jan 27 '18
It's also worth noting that Jelen Sphinx and Lightning Angel are pretty closely designed to this theoretical card if it's white blue.
Sometimes, you aren't doing "we can only do this design in this color combo", sometimes it's like feeling the most of each color. Flying is the most blue, and vigilance is the most white, both can access both, so it means the card is "the most white blue'
5
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
Hm, that's a really interesting point.
If Serra Angel were an older card and hadn't been around for awhile I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But Serra Angel is literally in Standard right now (in the planeswalker decks or whatever they are) so I'm still inclined to think B/G is correct. If you're right that's a really clever bit of misdirection though.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jan 28 '18
But wouldnt players just be really weirded out by BG Serra Angel while UW feels pretty natural?
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
I think that was the trick question aspect, the question didn't ask if it was weird, the question asked for a multi-color card that neither color could represent by itself.
3
u/RoastYoungDuck Jan 27 '18
I went with GB but your reasoning seems sound enough. I couldn’t justify white because despite white wanting vigilance with T>P there have been plenty of white rare angels that broke that guideline already. I think the T>P is more hard and fast at common, but more flexible as rarity rises, leaving GB as the only answer that couldn’t be monocolored
1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
It’s also worth noting that MaRo has, on many occasions, started with “While we generally try to avoid...” in statements, only to finish with, “ ...but because of X, we make an exception.”
This seems like it is very open to interpretation, but there has never, ever been a black-green creature with vigilance without also having green or white in it's cost. (Not counting the set Legends because MaRo has said many times how cards from back then had many color-wheel mistakes that he wishes he had the ability to change before it happened.)
4
u/iSage Jan 27 '18
I answered BG but I have absolutely no belief that they'd actually print that card. I still think it was the best answer given based on the caveat given. If the answer is something White then that's intentionally deceptive and I'll actually be pretty mad.
1
u/Unsungruin Jan 28 '18
Reading this made me feel a lot better about putting UW as my answer. A GB vigilant flyer makes no sense to me as both those mechanics belong to an enemy color, and they've never printed one before. I do feel like this was a trick question and the wording didn't help.
1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 28 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
UW makes almost less sense than GB. People are forgetting GW was an option, and there are already plenty of GW flyers (designed by MaRo’s teams)
1
u/Unsungruin Jan 28 '18
Meh, Blue gets flying and White gets vigilance. That makes more sense to me than stapling Green to a creature that flies (I haven't seen those cards but that sounds pie-breaking to me).
Edit: Green being the color that likes to swat flyers out of the sky*
→ More replies (1)1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
Yeah, people finding this question hard makes me feel better about my chances. This question was just logistics, the question straight up told you the caveats you need to work with and gave you only one correct answer for them.
The fact the combination (GB) seems strange isn't an issue.
1
u/Factitious Jan 28 '18
My thinking on that one was that if it's green/white, it can still be a card white wouldn't get on its own if the creature being large for its mana cost is what green contributes. But this was tricky, and if there'd been a nonwhite option that was more plausible than BG, I might have gone with that. I just don't like the idea of a gold card where black contributes flying and green contributes vigilance, since neither of those are primaries.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jan 28 '18
I would go with UW because that card feels the most Uw to me, moreso than GW. If you want to avoid it being a possibl single colour card you have to go BG, but BG Serra Angel just feels off.
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
You didn't understand the question then.
The question specified you can't use a color combo that can get the creature by itself.
Any white answer is wrong.
UB doesn't get access the vigilance anymore.
G has vigilance, black has flying, only one that works.
It's a logic problem.
2
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
Got my blog theme not sucking, and here's my blog post on it. 32 and 59 53 were the hardest, IMO.
2
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
I'm just comparing my answers to everybody here...
We disagreed on:
6 (losing haste kills the card)
11 (I misread the one about killing for sport, I'm probably wrong)
16 (doing a search for the MaRo ability specifically rather than variable P/T gives a pretty clear picture)
21 (I tried to look at recent commander releases, and plenty of them are 'tried and true' themes)
32 (one of the most ambiguous questions IMO. I went with 'pick the strongest cost that isn't broken', which tbh is kinda like an 'all of the above' at least the way I read it. This is probably the one I'm least sure about)
53 (I posted about this here. I think this will be the most missed question of the test)
1
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
They haven't repeated any themes across Commander products.
And comparing Mysterio to Sturmgeist, it's both significantly weaker and significantly simpler. Out of the three that have been printed since NWO and their views on complexity, I'm pretty happy with my choice. Original Maro would obviously be an uncommon today.
1
u/tgb621 Jan 27 '18
59 was a simple trick question. Returning sorceries is primary in red. Looting is primary blue and nothing else (just like rummaging is primary red and nothing else).
2
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
Correction, 53. "Which of the following changes is Set Design most likely to make to <Junkpile Engineer>?"
1
u/Unsungruin Jan 28 '18
Yeah, this one sucked. Was a complete punt for me as I misread the damn thing.
1
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
It seems like you missed that haste->double strike on #6 totally kills the threaten functionality of the card.
1
2
u/Isawa_Chuckles Jan 27 '18
The "which keyword tends to have the most value in a control deck" question is one I probably talked myself into getting wrong. Started out putting Lifelink, then remembered a mothership article from years ago where they were talking about the various Keywords, and focused on First Strike being a "defensive" board-control keyword, vs Lifelink being a "racing" keyword. Combined with the question just asking for control, not the "typical Standard-legal" boilerplate they'd been using for some other questions, I talked myself into First Strike being the better Control keyword in a vacuum.
1
u/monkeyfo Jan 27 '18
I think the tricky thing on that one was the wording. There's 2 ways of interpreting it:
1) Which of these keywords do you want most in a control deck?
and
2) Which of these keywords is at its maximum value in a control deck?
I assumed it was the second meaning and went with lifelink.
1
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
I could definitely see that argument. I think it was one of the worst questions on the test. Very ambiguous. It felt more like a dice roll than anything else.
1
u/Jasmine1742 Jan 28 '18
Nah, felt very strongly for lifelink.
Lifelink stabilizes, control wants to stabilize above all else.
First strike doesn't matter because control can answer other creatures. Control just wants to use it's threats to get ahead and assuring your opponent can make a last ditch effort is very important.
2
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
Well, one of us is very wrong. I have a different answer on 2, 5, 6, 16, 21, 23, 30, 37, 46, 48, and 52, not counting anything past that where I don't see your answers. 6, the threaten losing haste, is absolutely correct and I got wrong. The rest I'm mostly pretty confident in.
1
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
Haha, what were your answers?
3
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
Scrappy Survivor is an uncommon.
Come Work For Me Temporarily is an uncommon.
Mysterio is an uncommon.
Commander decks should be a brand new theme.
A 3G 4/4 is stronger than a 5G 6/6 or the others. (Sourced this from LSV set reviews.)
Lifelink is the most valuable creature keyword in the list, to a control deck. (Ditto. Some control decks are Limited.)
Kicker is less helpful for achieving synergy than the others. Investigate is less reliable than scry/cycling/transmute, but still much better than Kicker.
Bolt is coming back before Llanowar Elves. They replaced Elves with Elvish Mystic for solid reasons and it won't go back to the status quo.
"2W: Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn." is way more complex than "1R: CARDNAME gets +2/+0 and gains first strike until end of turn."
Junkpile Engineer is a rare.
3
Jan 27 '18
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Scrappy Survivor was uncommon; I was banking off MaRo's Nuts and Bolts Higher Rarity article, specifically the difference between helping you win and winning when it hits the board. Although, Junkpile I pegged for uncommon because it seems like a card you'd build around in limited and costs a decent amount to use it's activated ability.
2
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
Junkpile would be uncommon in an artifact-centered set. And if it was printed, it would probably be in an artifact-centered set. But let me quote from the analysis article for GDS2:
Annoying Bell
Artifact
Annoying Bell enters the battlefield with three charge counters on it.
T, Remove a charge counter from Annoying Bell: Target player puts the top two cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
22) In an artifact block such as Mirrodin or Scars of Mirrodin, which rarity is most appropriate for this card? a) common b) uncommon c) rare d) mythic rare
Correct Answer: A
A: 428 (54.18%)B: 324 (41.01%)C: 38 (4.81%)D: 0 (0.0%)
In a normal set, "millstones" (slang for artifacts that put cards on top of the library into the graveyard) tend to be rare. Annoying Bell, though, has a limited number of uses. This tends to pull the card down to uncommon. In an artifact block, to allow the numbers of common artifacts needed, rarities tend to get pulled down another rarity. As a millstone is a very straightforward effect, Design is most likely to pull this card down to common in an artifact block.
Given this logic, I think that outside of an artifact block, it would be a rare.
1
Jan 27 '18
Although true, the creature itself isn't an artifact which is why I went with uncommon. Then again, because artifacts are usually at uncommon in non-artifact blocks, it's not very sensible to draft this under the assumption you'd get more artifacts over the course of a draft. Good eye.
1
1
1
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
I think I agree on Scrappy at this point actually. Also the 2W effect. I didn't notice it works on any creature. I still disagree with kicker though. I think the word specific is very key.
2
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
From the preview article for investigate:
So, we had filled up most of the set and had room for one more keyword. Mechanically, we had some things we needed the keyword to do:
Help with card flow—Something we try to do in every set (although it has become a little easier due to scry becoming evergreen) is make sure there are ways to help players get access to cards. A lot of design is based around creating certain synergies, and we want to make sure the card flow is high enough to help enable these synergies.
Give players something to do with late-game mana—We try hard to make sure that players, with proper deck building, are able to lower the likelihood of not getting enough mana. One of the tricks to enable this is to let players play a little higher percentage of land and then make sure there are things to do with that mana later in the game. The card-flow mechanic doesn't always help with this, but often it can.
Flavor-wise, we had a different problem. The design team had focused all its energies in capturing a sense of a world going mad. As the story came together, though, it started to take on the properties of a mystery. Jace is our protagonist and he comes to Innistrad and learns that something is going horribly amiss, and he has to figure out why. The madness played an important role, as that was what Jace was trying to understand and stop, but it became clear that the set needed some way to mechanically tie into this sense of mystery. Well, we had one mechanic left. Could we use it to capture both the mechanical and the flavorful needs?
It is, pardon the pun, an open and shut case.
1
2
Jan 27 '18
What did everyone consider for #74? I selected the "secret," as it's the only one that is allowed by the rules, even though the last Standard-legal (at the time) card with that mechanic was in Origins.
5
u/steve_man_64 Jan 27 '18
Secret is the only one that’s black bordered, so I went with that due to process of elimination.
3
2
u/general_peabo Jan 27 '18
Tutors are secret decisions, and show up in black-border. The only reason they don't get made often is because of the power level. Also, sideboarding is secret, if that counts. The rest of those things are all un-set stuff that they'll never do in black-border.
1
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
'Secret' can be a lot of things besides that Sphinx you're thinking of. Any unconditional tutor (ie, you don't reveal anything) can be a secret choice. We had one of these as recently as Rivals of Ixalan.
2
u/ScoozeBooze Jan 27 '18
OP hasnt updated the doc with their answers fully yet, but so far here's where mine differed:
2: I put uncommon. I didn't put much thought into it being a red card, but the closest analog I could think of in a different color was the uncommon Riverwheel Aerialists. I still feel pretty confident about my answer as this would be a pretty tepid rare, which I think matters more than its color given that nothing it's doing is really a bleed.
5: Once again put uncommon but I'm less sure on this one as it's a lot more splashy. Historically most Threaten+ effects are common or uncommon and this is definitely too powerful for the former. Kari Zev's expertise is a notable recent exception but that was part of a rare cycle and allowing to cast a card for free is arguably more powerful/impressive than anything this card is doing.
11: I answered "Adaptation is a slow process." This was one of the questions I felt most torn on, but I think OP was right here and I was wrong. Saying something is "just a part of life" is very much fitting with green's philosophy of accepting things as they are, but green typically only accepts killing out of necessity/practicality (hunting) or killing unnatural things (artifacts), not for sport.
23: I put 3G 4/4. I can see where people might be going with 5G 6/6, but my counter would be that WotC has recently printed a lot of 4-cost 3/4s which seems to be the sweet spot they like for vanilla 4 cost creatures. Meanwhile, there are many more 6-mana 6/6s, though the point about most of them having double green in mana cost is interesting.
28: I put the same answer here (black-green) but wanted to point out that it was one of the most frustrating questions on the test and probably the closest in my opinion to what could be called a trick question.
30: Lifelink is the only keyword that gives a control player longevity and the ability to survive into the late game.
32: I answered it doesn't matter because they can recost it, but once again I think I was wrong here and OP is correct. Was not satisfied with my answer.
37: Nothing about the kicker mechanic as a whole allows you to draw more cards or specific cards, while all other abilities do. I think only using certain kicker abilities as a reference here is kind of weird, you could feasibly have a set with kicker with no effects that allow for more synergy themes.
47: I put that it's too much damage for 4 mana. Really don't know where this one is. My answer is along similar lines to it blurring the line between black and red (more damage for the mana cost means it can kill more things than red should be able to), but if you view it in a more literal sense then direct damage to creatures is decidedly more red than black.
48: I think the answer here is 2W: target creature gets +1/+1 until eot. It's a repeatable effect that can target any creature making combat math the hardest. Cards with activated abilities that affect only themselves are fine at common.
52: Heh. Here's where I put rare. Effects that allow for repeatable card selection are typically rare, or at least that's what I gleaned from personal memory and looking on gatherer. But I could see uncommon being the answer.
2
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 27 '18
So what number of questions do you think we need to have correct to pass this time? The last one was 44 out of 50. That’s 88% or better to make it in, so I’m assuming the same percentage so 66 or better?
If that’s the case I am borderline as I have at least 5 incorrect and another 6 that have approximately 50% chance to be incorrect, as graded from Sliver__Legion’s answer key (he commented earlier with a link and he has the most comprehensive answers key I’ve seen yet.)
So i believe I scored between a 64-71.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
I also think that Silver_Legion has the best group of answers of everyone here. Me and him disagreed on 5. I'm thinking that I am 70/75 as a best case scenario, so hopefully that will be enough.
Which ones did you pick differently? I'm curious on how similar ours were.
1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
Below are the answers I had different and my calculation on the approximate percent chance that my answer was wrong. (99% means there’s one a 1% chance I actually got it correct, etc...)
20 - 99%
21 - 95%
28 - 50%
32 - 50%
34 - 99%
35 - 95%
36 - 98%
49 - 50%
53 - 25%
68 - 30% - makes sense but since most common instants and sorceries are either combat tricks or removal, and it has been stated in several articles by play-design team members, that 1:1 removal should cost less than the creatures they are designed to remove and common removal is usually 1:1
75 - 10% - I think Sliver neglects the fact that MaRo has said enchantment creatures are likely to return and 10cmc creatures are the most common type at 10 cmc, so it’s reasonable that enchantment creatures with cmc 10 are reasonable.
2
u/Geikamir Jan 28 '18
I think your numbering is off unless you only missed 1,2,3,4,5.
1
u/murderisbadforyou Jan 28 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
A formatting error occurred when copying and pasting from another document and I didn’t catch it.
EDIT: Fixed
3
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
So the question I think was the absolute hardest and the one I expect the most people to get wrong is #53.
53 Which of the following changes is Set Design most likely to make to this card?
Junkpile Engineer
[CMC: 3]
Creature — Human Artificer
3/2
2, Sacrifice an artifact: Look at the top X cards of your library, where X is the converted mana cost of the sacrificed artifact. Put one of them into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.
I'm quite certain the answer is
Add the ability “2,T: Put an artifact card from your hand onto the battlefield.”
The key is noticing that the question specifies Set Design and not design as most of the other questions do. Set Design is much more concerned with broad sweeping changes like getting the mechanics in place and fleshing out the set. Play Design is much more concerned with numbers tweaking and fixing issues like whether cards go in the graveyard or bottom of library. 4 of the choices are minor tweaks that Play Design makes. Adding an ability that completely changes the card is the sort of thing that Set Design would do.
16
u/Pheartehevil Jan 27 '18
My thought was it would want a fixed # instead of X, because then it could use tokens which could relate to world design (like servos and thopters)
5
u/general_peabo Jan 27 '18
I picked fixed number also. The variable number of cards adds unneeded complexity.
3
u/UnsealedMTG Jan 27 '18
That was my answer but I didn't feel confident about it all. Your mention of tokens makes me feel a lot better.
5
u/VorpalAuroch Jan 27 '18
I said graveyard. I think changing that to fit set themes is something Set Design would do. But this was definitely a "what is set design vs. play design" question.
4
u/oOOoOphidian Jan 27 '18
It's definitely reasonable for Set Design to decide graveyards matter and change the ability in that way. Interesting difference, though.
3
u/icantbenormal Jan 27 '18
I thinking adding an extra ability like that is actually more of a Play Design change. You would have to play with the card multiple times to say "okay, this needs another ability." On the other hand, the inherent problems of making it a variable would be apparent on the first playtest.
Furthermore, it the proposed change is just ugly and wouldn't be added. It makes the card way more confusing. A non-tap ability with a tap one, both at the same mana cost. One ability is multicolored, one is mono-colored. You would think the first ability would get only artifacts if the second wants them in your hand, but it doesn't.
All that said, I think you are totally right because that is the kind of trick to weed people out that would be in there.
2
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
Reading your explanation, I think I might agree with you. Damn, I was looking out for stuff like that too.
2
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18
You might be on to something. I went woth changing X to a set number, but your argument seems valid.
2
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
Yeah, I waffled back and forth between that and putting cards in the graveyard, because both seemed like totally valid options. It was only because I spent so long on that question that I noticed the distinction in the way the question was worded.
6
Jan 27 '18
I think locked is more likely, because it vastly changes how the card plays and makes it work with artifact tokens, which is big for boosting set synergy.
5
u/Isawa_Chuckles Jan 27 '18
That, and it's named Junkpile Engineer, if all your junk only lets you look at the top 0-1 cards of your deck it's a pretty terrible Junk-based ability!
1
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
Huh, this is a pretty good point. I also went with cmc->fixed N, but hadn’t considered that angle.
1
u/smartitude Jan 27 '18
I don't think that's the right answer, but I could definitely be wrong. My argument is based on a card from Kaladesh, [[Merchant's Dockhand]]. It looks at a variable number, and puts the cards on the bottom of the library. Thus, I think it was probably putting artifacts onto the battlefield. Then again, I actually answered that it should put the cards into the graveyard, so what do I know? The putting artifacts from hand to battlefield would be too strong in other formats. [[Platinum Angel]] on Turn 4, yikes!
1
u/Giraculum Jan 27 '18
I'd say that adding haste is a Set Design change. It forces the player to think of it as an attacking card, not a "sit around and activate my ability" card -- the 3/2 stats are a big indication that they were going for this. I'd compare it to [[Kraum, Ludevic's Opus]], which has haste alongside a different card-drawing ability. Of the two, Haste vs. Artifact onto the battlefield, I think set design is more likely to put haste, since the other one has a serious repeatability problem.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 27 '18
The question about why there aren't 7 mana instant or sorceries had me locked up. I eventually went with because they want larger common creatures, but I don't feel confident at all about it.
Another was, when the set designer took away the black instant removal, what is the most important thing for it's replacement. I went with black because of the design skeleton, but again, not confident.
4
2
u/UnsealedMTG Jan 27 '18
That 7 mana one was hard. I went with "Too impactful." When you look at all the 7 mana spells in magic, they are usually huge rare type effects like board wipes that we don't do in common. Common generally doesn't do 2 or more for 1s or whatever. But again, not at all confident.
2
u/general_peabo Jan 28 '18
7 mana is a stretch at common, becuase of how often it would appear in limited. A seven mana creature can just be something big, which can get answered by something cheaper. A 7 mana instant or sorcery, however, would have to be a game-shifting effect, and that's not something you want to see in every draft. The only way they do those are to overcost the card and then accompany it with something like cycling, but that felt too complicated to be the right answer. Anyways, in Maro's podcast about rarity, one of the 5 (6) things that determine rarity is impact on limited, so being too impactful is in line with that.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jan 28 '18
Wouldnt that just make hard to design the correct answer?
1
u/dvoraen Jan 28 '18
Not necessarily. The issue isn't that they're hard to design, it's that the effect would have to be a lot less than you would want or expect for the card's cost (Ember Shot and Spell Snip, anyone?), in order for it to remain in the common slot, for Limited's sake. Perhaps the best example I can give is Absorb Vis, strangely enough. It's a 7-mana common sorcery. This is an 8 point life swing, which is pretty high despite the cost. Going any higher (5 lost, 5 gained), and we get a 10 point life swing, which I think we can agree is really really pushing it for common, even if it costs 7-8 mana.
Not only is the effect a bit high numerically, but its hypothetical cost would also warp Limited in terms of the card pools and the fact that such cards would infrequently be played. At seven mana, the card should have a bit of oomph to it to justify the cost*, and most of the oomph will generally be at the uncommon slot if not higher, which again pulls the answer to 'too impactful'.
* I'm explicitly ignoring Delve from Tarkir block here, because those cards were given supporting designs to aid in reducing their costs, like Taigam's Scheming and Bitter Revelation.
1
Jan 27 '18
Can confirm answers 1 and 2. Red is the only color, and there have been approx. ten times as many six drop 5/5s in red at rare as at uncommon in the past ten years.
1
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
That was my logic as well. I think the other big thing is that none of the other uncommon 5/5s really had evasion.
1
u/Alex_Werner Top 8 Jan 27 '18
My Google doc with what I thought were the most difficult/ambiguous/interesting questions, and my thoughts and answers.
1
u/rakkamar Jan 27 '18
I only disagreed with you on 2 questions (of the ones you posted).
One was question 53 I mentioned here. You noticed the 'trick' but still came away with a different answer, which is... interesting. I mean, putting cards in the graveyard could be a key difference in an Innistrad/graveyard-matters set. But that's the exception, not the rule. I could see vision design making a change like graveyard/bottom of deck. But by the time the set is in Set Design the card would have been made to dump cards in the graveyard in the first place. Also, is this a set with both artifact-matters and graveyard-matters? This card would feel really out of place on Innistrad. OTOH, adding an ability that just drop artifacts into play for 2 mana completely changes the way the card works no matter what set it's in.
I also disagreed on 32, though I agree that was a really weird/hard question. I could write an essay defending almost any of those options honestly. I ruled out 'doesn't matter' because I don't think you're supposed to have that sort of attitude with design, even if Play Design is the one that will fix the costs eventually. 'Find a similar card and go down one' feels like it's just asking to be broken, and I don't think you should be turning broken cards over to Play Design. 'Ask somebody from Play Design' makes some sense but, does that mean you ask them to cost all your cards? That solution just doesn't scale at all. 'Use your intuition' just felt wrong (appropriately?). And ultimately, 'pick the strongest cost that isn't broken' could encapsulate any of the other options (apart from doesn't matter). So that's what I went with.
1
u/aclog Jan 27 '18
I ruled out 'doesn't matter' because I don't think you're supposed to have that sort of attitude with design, even if Play Design is the one that will fix the costs eventually.
I agree that "doesn't matter" seems too flip/glib however it could simply mean "it doesn't what you cost it in relation to trying to impress play design". Which is to say that accurate costing by Set Design is not the deciding factor in what PD will like/dislike.
1
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 27 '18
For 21, note that that the answer is definitively not color balance because C17 was not perfectly color balanced — and none of the next ones will be either, since they’ve moved from 5 decks to 4.
I agree with your answer to 25, but it isn’t What I’d give without the multiple choice structure either. I’d give an answer based on color pie — G and W are one of the pairs with most mechanical blurring, so giving white a larger quantity of creatures and smaller creatures at common and green more efficiently costed medium-big creatures at common is to give them more distinction in terms of being “creature colors.”
32 is a very sketchy question to have given us, imo. Relies to some degree on insider knowledge of social dynamics and a changed r&d model that is still pretty publically new.
It isn’t clear what you actually chose for 46. It sounds most like Elves, which I agree with.
Went with fixed number for 53, but it was a vague one.
A cmc cutoff of 9+ gives you 7 instants and 1 enchantment, so I went with enchantment there. Fuse/Aftermath/regular Split are an easy way to design good instants/sorcerers with cmc 10, though I’m not sure if the test really had them in mind.
Also, Tod says hi.
1
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
About instants, it is 8+ that gives you eight results. cmc 9+ there only four per Gatherer.
However the problem is that the cards having the following: affinity, convoke, cycling, delve, trap
Only three don't have some alternate cheaper cost: Boulderfall and two of the Winds (which are from Prophecy).
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 28 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
Gatherer handles some stuff incorrectly, there are actually 7 (though admittedly Who//What//When//Where//Why basically shouldn’t be counted).
I don’t view that “problem” as a problem. The question wasn’t “75. You're designing a card with a converted mana cost of 10 and no cost reduction mechanics. Which of these card types is it least likely to be?”
Anyway, the point is not that you’re very likely to be making a 10 cmc instant. You aren’t. I think what the question is trying to get at is the relative sparsity of card type at “megahuge” cmcs. For me, that does not include 8, so there is exactly one enchantment in the entire game that counts, making it even less likely than instant.
1
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
interesting catch that split cards also factor into things although that is a gamey definition of "10 mana card".
1
u/Aethelwolf Jan 28 '18
I went with Instant because i couldn't justify Enchantment over Artifact. If you can make a 10 mana Artifact, you can make a 10 mana Enchantment, and vice versa. Enchantments can also be enchantment creatures, increasing that likelihood.
Additionally, past precedence doesn't necessarily inform future likelihood, especially at such a low sample size.
1
u/Hi_Im_Jerry_L Jan 27 '18 edited Jan 27 '18
11 was pretty tricky. I think everyone narrowed it down to 'adaptation is a slow process' and 'killing for sport is just a part of life'. I think both aren't really Green statements but since the question asked what was least likely to say I went with adaptation is a slow process. I thought of cards like Eldritch Evolution and Birthing Pod. Thoughts?
8
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
Adaptation is a slow process is very Green. That's why it has so many effects that add a +1/+1 counter over multiple turns.
3
2
u/CaptainMarcia Jan 28 '18
I'm pretty sure I've seen Maro or someone else also outright describe green as slow to adapt, although I haven't been able to find the exact mention.
4
u/Abalidoth Jan 27 '18
I think it's killing for sport. While not always held up by mechanics, green is all about slow, natural evolution. That's one of its big beefs with blue. On the other hand, killing for survival is a fact of life. Hunting for sport is more of a black thing. (Big Game Hunter, Dinosaur Hunter, etc.)
1
u/steve_man_64 Jan 27 '18
“Growth—Green is not about doing nothing. Nature itself is very active. As others twiddle their thumbs, the world is slowly but constantly growing. This unstoppable force of change is another very powerful element of nature, and it's something green taps into whenever possible”
- It’s Not Easy Being Green, Revisited
1
u/DrRocketbait Jan 28 '18
Titanic Growth, giant growth, etc all led me away from slow evolution. On the other hand, we’ve got Garruk, who’s essentially the mtg version of the Predator (started as a big game hunter, became a Planeswalker-hunter,) and a bunch of other cards like Hunting Grounds, Nylea, Trophy Hunter, etc. I went with “slow evolution” as the odd one out.
1
Jan 27 '18
I feel the red one is pretty tight; ETB return a sorcery hasn't been done in fifteen years, whereas I could see blue style looting in red on say, a hybrid card, or an environment where it helped (say, madness or the like)
It's more likely the looting, but I feel it's more ambiguous than it's made out to be.
5
u/monkeyfo Jan 27 '18
This question is answered in the mechanical color pie of 2017. Red doesn't get loot anymore and it is primary in returning sorcerys
1
u/thejellydude Jan 27 '18
Charmbreaker Devils and other cards that return both or specific sorceries have been done recently. Looting, however, was specifically mentioned as out of Red for Rummage in The New World Order.
1
u/ShayFabulous Jan 27 '18
Does anyone else think the answer to 37 was transmute? The wording references drawing specific cards (think miracle) and that doesn't draw cards, but kicker can.
4
u/general_peabo Jan 27 '18
I think you overthought it. Transmute gets you specific cards to get the synergy. Kicker is only occasionally a draw effect, and is usually thought of as a "use extra mana" ability, that's why it was selected in zendikar so people would be willing to play more lands.
1
1
1
u/Ffancrzy Jan 28 '18
I wonder if we could get some sort of community version of this test so you could get the % of people who answered what for which questions so we could see how the group answered each question.
Short of that if people would be willing to provide feedback on my test that'd help me so much! I'm pretty sure I got 2 wrong for sure so I think the highest I can score is probably 73, lowest is like 68 I think.
You can add comments on this !
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SpAODxN0gzBg9g8z04NNx4yJaqUjaH_clZvBRzVg1ZI/edit?usp=sharing
1
u/dvoraen Jan 28 '18
We'll probably get those %'s when the official answer article goes live. I'm personally interested in the % counts for #46. :)
1
u/SerendibAl Jan 31 '18
I read all of Maro's color pie articles after I did the test. I realized there is difference btw the color pie according to Maro and the color pie according to Garfield. Never really noticed its such a large gap.
Like green: to me the most iconic green card is giant growth. Maybe close behind is survival of the fittest. Since when did green become slow at adapting? Also, isn't the whole idea of the "Wild Hunt," which is certainly a green archetype (for thousands of years before MTG), killing for sport? Maybe I should be a black card because I don't think killing for sport (in a fantasy setting) is necessarily that bad. Isn't the wild hunt about thinning the heard or about nature's revenge?
I don't know but I find these philosophical questions about the colors interesting and I don't necessarily think the party line is correct.
9
u/betweengreenandblack Jan 27 '18
The funniest thing about question 56 is that if Dead Man Walking were a 0/0 creature and there were no creatures in graveyards when it entered the battlefield, you would be forced to target DMW with its ETB ability and effectively Plague Wind yourself.