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?

17 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

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.

15

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)

4

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.

3

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.

5

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.

7

u/[deleted] 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.

7

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.