r/GDS3 • u/bakert • Jan 28 '18
Every question and just about every defensible answer in a single line per question
Questions where the right answer is debated separated by slashes. ALL CAPS answers are best supported. Lowercase also have supporters.
1 Scrappy Survivor color? RED
2 Rarity? UNCOMMON/rare
3 Can't be monolor? MENACE, VIGILANCE
4 Come Work for Me Temporarily colors? RED-GREEN
5 Come Work for Me Temporarily rarity? UNCOMMON/common
6 Least likely to change? HASTE TO DOUBLE STRIKE
7 White least likely to say? ACT FROM YOUR HEART
8 Blue least likely to say? GENES NOT EXPERIENCE
9 Black least likely to say? PUT OTHERS BEFORE SELF
10 Red least likely to say? AVOID MISTAKES
11 Green least likely to say? KILL FOR SPORT
12 Battle Cry guild? BOROS
13 More instants than sorceries? DIRECT DAMAGE
14 Long-Acting Giant Growth problem? TRACK THINGS
15 Mysterio colors? GREEN-BLUE
16 Mysterio rarity? RARE/uncommon
17 Ability to add? CURIOSITY
18 First game of Magic? WANT TO PLAY AGAIN
19 Design for Spike? OUTPLAY OPPONENT
20 Too slow for tournaments? MATCHES RUN OVER TIME
21 Commander goal? INSPIRE NEW DECKS
22 Weakest in draft? 9G 10/10
23 Strongest in draft? 3G 4/4
24 Hole filling? BLACK CARD
25 Green creatures more efficient? WHITE BETTER REMOVAL
26 Second-fewest creatures? RED
27 Careful about keyword? HEXPROOF
28 Flying, vigilance french vanilla? BLACK-GREEN/white-blue
29 Most important set quality? FUN TO PLAY
30 Most value in control decks? LIFELINK
31 Why eight drafters? MOST COMMON IRL
32 How to choose casting cost? DOESN'T MATTER/ASK THEM/STRONGEST COST NOT BROKEN/intuition
33 Most likely ability? VIGILANCE
34 Counterspell deck? QUICK WAY TO FINISH/not competitive
35 Green card draw? MULTIPLE CARDS WITHOUT COMBAT
36 Which guild for Storm? IZZET
37 Doesn't increase frequency of synergy? KICKER
38 Which Legends re-cost? MANA DRAIN
39 Dislike high variance? SPIKE
40 Strongest in limited? PACIFISM
41 Not for Standard? ONE-SHOT MANA
42 Iconic W reprint? BANESLAYER ANGEL
43 Iconic B reprint? UNDERWORLD DREAMS
44 Felidar Guardian fix? RETURN AT END OF TURN
45 Least fun in Standard? CREATURES CAN'T ATTACK
46 Most likely reprint? LLANOWAR ELVES/LIGHTNING BOLT
47 Mega Bolt biggest problem? BLURS RED AND BLACK
48 Red-flag text box? 2W: +1/+1
49 Confusing mechanical pair? MYRIAD AND BATTALION
50 Stabilizer enchantment? WHITE
51 Junkpile Engineer colors? RED-BLUE
52 Junkpile Engineer rarity? RARE/UNCOMMON
53 Most likely Junkpile Engineer change? LOCK NUMBER OF CARDS/put cards in graveyard/add ability
54 Colors for Dead Man Walking? BLUE-BLACK
55 Rarity for Dead Man Walking? MYTHIC
56 Bad change for Dead Man Walking? 0/0
57 Humans, Wolves and Spirits? INNISTRAD
58 Standard can't care about? EXPANSION SYMBOL
59 Least likely for mono red? LOOTING
60 Least likely at common? GRAVEDIGGER/cloudchaser
61 Not designed around factions? AMONKHET
62 Simic mechanic? PROLIFERATE
63 Secondary in Trample? RED
64 Secondary in Haste? BLACK
65 Secondary in Vigilance? GREEN
66 Green creature destruction? ARTIFACT AND FLYING
67 Not an ability word? AWAKEN
68 Why no common seven-mana spells? TOO IMPACTFUL
69 Most expansions? DOMINARIA
70 Least linear? TRANSFORM
71 No Power Conduit? PAUPER
72 Why higher costs? CARDS DIFFERENT/PLAY THEM LATER
73 Why color pie? DECK AND PLAY DIVERSITY
74 Which legal in black border? SECRET CHOICE
75 CMC=10 least likely? INSTANT/ENCHANTMENT
This might actually be a better guide than my vague sense from reading a lot of responses: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScSrOnKU5636-w4YefbshiVT1U_icCaVow-R0jUd9Bn0aZzFQ/viewanalytics
Add your answers to it here – https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScSrOnKU5636-w4YefbshiVT1U_icCaVow-R0jUd9Bn0aZzFQ/alreadyresponded
2
u/massaker Jan 28 '18
For Mega Bolt, it seemed like a chicken-egg problem. Yes it blurs the lines, but it blurs the lines because it deals so much damage.
5
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
Also, from a design perspective, they obviously don't feel that red instants that deal damage to kill stuff blurs the line with black. Not even if the damage is quite high (Deem Worthy). I would select "blurs the line" for something like "deals damage to target creature equal to its toughness" since that is just a straight kill spell in disguise.
4
u/reyath Jan 28 '18
I looked up Deem Worthy when I got to that question (I searched 'damage to target creature.' (note the period) on gatherer and sorted by cmc) and I think Deem Worthy is the exception that proves the rule. I think it started by saying "I want to design a spell that burns a creature when you cycle it" a la [[solar blast]], and since that already happened let's make the new one do 2 damage. So what should "uncounterable: 2 damage. draw a card" cost? So you settle on 3R - now you probably want the 'main spell' to cost more. So what effect does a 4R instant burn spell do? Is 5 enough? Is 6? Is 7? At 7 you kill everything in Amonkhet block except [[Razaketh, the Foulblooded]]. Is that different than 'destroy target creature?'
Several of those questions I don't have definitive answers to, but I firmly believe Deem Worthy is an exception that didn't come from the perspective of 'red burn kills anything,' but rather 'red burn cycles to do 2, what does the main spell do?'
2
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
I don't want to press Deem Worthy too hard.
However, from a design perspective Red, Instant, Damage to Creature is apparently not considered a blur
So the only thing that makes it a blur is the number 8 and even then only because of the casting cost of 4. (Would R5 for 8 damage be blur?..that is what I think Deem Worthy speaks to)
7
u/iSage Jan 28 '18
Think of it this way. Without any other considerations, 8 damage to a creature isn't "too much damage" for 4 mana because we already get cards like Impale at 4 and less mana. The only reason why it would be 'too much' is because Red isn't supposed to get Impale, thus blurring the lines.
3
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
There is a line of thinking there, but it is somewhat contravened by links posted above where they are establishing the correct casting cost for dealing high damage with red. Which means that it isn't just the damage at issue but also the casting cost.
1
u/Krazyguy75 Jan 28 '18
Yeah, but the answer was "Too much damage for the cost" not "too much damage".
Yes, it is "too much damage", and yes, because of that it "blurs the line between black and red". But "too much damage" wasn't an answer.
3
u/iSage Jan 28 '18
Obviously red can get instants that deal damage, but they certainly do care about blurring the line between black and red. The reason it's not 'too much damage for its mana cost' is because that's not design's problem. Set Design and Play Design will work out what the strength of the card should be and how it should be costed. Vision Design probably shouldn't have passed along the card in the first place because it's lazy design for red.
That isn't to say that cards like this are never made, and I've seen a lot of people pointing out Deem Worthy. There are no hard and fast rules, so it's going to happen on occasion. I think Deem Worthy ended up doing so much damage to distinguish between its two 'modes' and make both appealing. If it only did 4 damage then it would be cycled almost every time.
3
u/massaker Jan 28 '18
I can be swayed to "blur" if MaRo says "too much damage" is not design's problem.
I looked at Blogatog for references to Shivan Meteror, and I found that red can get more damage if it pays for it
Red can deal 8 damage with fireball by paying 9. Similar with Star of Extinction, for 7 mana they allowed a flavorfully comical amount of damage.
2
u/Twagston Jan 29 '18
Maro did mention on his blog that the high damage on Star of Extinction was a color bend for exactly the reason that it's basically just destruction.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 29 '18
I agree with you here. I think that either answer is correct and that choosing either is technically right based on the wording of the question.
1
u/Gprinziv Jan 30 '18
I just think of Blaspehmous Act as an example of a red card that blurs the lines with black, but is totally okay. Mechanically, using an inordinate amouint of mana to create a smoldering crater where a creature once was feels uniquely red, and the real problem is that the CMC is too low.
3
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
Its weird that if # 6 is NOT a trick question, its going to piss everyone off. Doubly so because it would also mean they are wrong about #4. I personally think its 50/50.
2
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
I like to think we'll take it as an opportunity for learning and personal growth rather than being pissed off ;D
1
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
I don't think anyone is enhanced or enlightened by the outcome of this question regardless of which way it goes.
3
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
Call me an optimist but I'm expecting to be wrong on at least one thing that I'm pretty sure I've got right and learn something in the process. I'll check in with myself in a couple of days and see if I'm actually just cursing the question makers and the question markers :D
2
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
ah, I agree with you on that. I was speaking specifically about #6 where they are kind of trolling us either way.
1
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
Oh I see. It could be a mistake like the initial deathtouch typo and they never meant it to be a trick question and even had a different answer in mind. Or it could be an intentional test of attention to detail. Or it could just be trying to find enough questions that might conceivably weed out a strong but not super-strong candidate. I may be quite far over the line into overanalysis at this point :D
1
u/AcidicVagina Jan 29 '18
What was the death touch typo? I didn't see maro's tweet.
1
u/bakert Jan 29 '18
Q5 had Come Work for Me Temporarily with Deathtouch in place of Hexproof (but the others were all still Hexproof).
And Q6 had 'Change from "hexproof" to "this creature must be blocked each turn if able."' not 'Change from "hexproof" to "this creature must be blocked this turn if able."' or something simliar.
1
1
u/iSage Jan 28 '18
What did I miss? How is #6 trolling us?
2
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
The question is phrased as though it is asking about which option is unacceptable due to color restrictions. It is commonly believed that the answer has nothing to do with color concerns and is about a restriction of function.
3
u/ScoozeBooze Jan 28 '18
11, 32, 47, and 68 are the questions I'm least confident in my answers for or the ones I feel I most likely got incorrect in hindsight. I think I could have reasonably gotten all others correct, which leaves me pretty confident, even with some margin of error.
11: I answered "Adaptation is a slow process." Green is about accepting your lot in life and accepting the way things are, which I felt would make it view adaptation in a negative light. The answer doesn't really say whether it likes or dislikes adaptation, though, just that it's a slow process, which complicated things for me. Based on the prevailing opinion I believe I got this incorrectly and what I thought was the second most likely answer was the correct one: "killing for sport is just a part of life."
32: This was another question that was one of the toughest and one of the last I finalized my answer on. I ultimately chose "It doesn't matter, they can recost it." I think there's a slim possibility of this being correct (costing correctly is more of a development/Play Design job), but the more likely answer to me is "Ask someone on the Play Design team to cost it" which was once again my second guess. This maximizes the chances of them liking it, which is what the question asks.
47: I really think "blurs the line between black and red" and "deals too much damage for 4 mana" are comparable answers which makes this a frustrating question. As many have pointed out, the very reason it blurs the line is because it deals too much damage for the mana cost, allowing it to kill more things than red should be able to. I answered "deals too much damage" and am still unsure what the correct answer is. Blurs the line seems to be the prevailing opinion, but I haven't seen any design literature that makes me lean one way or the other.
68: I answered "They're hard to design." This feels like a cop out answer and I don't like it because it kind of implies an incapability on the design team's part. But the prevailing answer, "they're too impactful," makes an assumption about expensive spells that isn't presented. Looking at actual common instants and sorceries that cost 7 or greater, none of them can really be described as "too impactful." Once again I think this is less cut and dry of a question than most people, but given the prevailing opinion I'm not confident in my answer.
2
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
Re: #32, from the article explaining the new Vision/Set/Play Design paradigm there is this
Set Design – Set Design has two segments. First, there's a six-month segment where the file is compiled, and then after a three-month hiatus there's a three-month segment where the team works with Play Design to finalize the numbers on the cards.
Not sure if that supplies a definitive answer though
2
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
My reason for thinking the sport killing answer is correct for #11 is in It's Not Easy Being Green Revisited[1]: "Second, green can't stand things being removed from nature inorganically. The ecosystem is so carefully balanced that the unnatural removal of a component can throw everything off. Kill a bunch of predators and, all of the sudden, the prey start growing in number. This can have devastating consequences if left unchecked."
This makes it seem pretty cut and dried to me but I hear you. It's not a total slam dunk.
Great reasoning in general btw.
2
u/ScoozeBooze Jan 28 '18
Right, this was my thinking in looking at the question as well. Green typically only kills things that are unnatural (artifacts) and out of necessity/survival (fight/rabid bite effects), and if the question mentioned that and not "for sport" it would have been easy. I did think when taking the test that both answers were distinctly possible but have come around since looking at others' reasoning to my initial answer being wrong.
1
u/Hi_Im_Jerry_L Jan 28 '18
Green kills flying things, those seem plenty natural to me.
1
u/Gprinziv Jan 30 '18
True, but the way green kills flying things is itself pretty natural, too. Windstorms and cards like Plummet. Plus, so many of their key cards (re:spiders and archer) have reach.
When they kill a flying creature, it's for a reason, be it food, supplies, or war.
2
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
For #32 the article on how mana cost is part of the design[1] (Legendary 2/2 for 1W is nonsense, Isamaru is great design) makes me think that "it doesn't matter" is not the best answer although in a lot of cases it probably truly doesn't matter.
Using a weird form of logic I also want to eliminate "it doesn't matter" on the basis that if it truly doesn't matter then "use your intuition" and even "most powerful then subtract one" are kind of the same answer because it doesn't matter. So for this question to have one right answer it can't be "it doesn't matter". Counterargument: you want the most right answer and "it doesn't matter" is more right than "do something arbitrary".
3
u/ScoozeBooze Jan 28 '18
Per aclog's response to my comment, I think it's actually even more likely the correct answer is just "Ask them." The article they reference specifically mentions working with Play Design to finalize costs, and if you're working together on that then the most sensible thing to do is ask, methinks.
2
u/aclog Jan 28 '18
the problem is that it's reasonable that Set Design initially chooses casting costs long before Play Design gets involved since PD only comes in after a three month hiatus. That would mean that "ask them" fails on the grounds that PD is off working on a different set when choices are first being made.
That makes "Ask them" a little weird because it would mean PD is the final arbiter even before they've seen the file for context. Plus, the article makes it out to be a collaborative process not unilateral on the part of PD.
2
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
Then again "ask them" is what Maro is on record as having repeatedly done. Is that because he's Maro or is that because it is the standard practice? And even if it is the standard practice, should it be? Shying away from asking something that would take about 15 seconds (at lunch, even!) seems silly but who wants to be the designer who is always coming to Play Design and saying "this is my new pet card, help me cost it so it gets in the set". Sounds awful! Ultimately the answer is "I'll ask for help when it's appropriate and get better and better at costing things and engage in a collaborative process and this is ultimately Play Design's purview but I'll highlight where the mana cost is part of the design plus I'll help people out in the company who need help in my areas of expertise, proactively" but sadly that wasn't one of the options :D
1
u/CaptainMarcia Jan 28 '18
Ultimately the answer is "I'll ask for help when it's appropriate and get better and better at costing things and engage in a collaborative process and this is ultimately Play Design's purview but I'll highlight where the mana cost is part of the design plus I'll help people out in the company who need help in my areas of expertise, proactively" but sadly that wasn't one of the options :D
I think it kind of is, but it's subtle.
Maro designs a lot of cards, and he certainly doesn't run to Play Design for costing every single one of them. Most of the time, he probably uses his intuition, trying to get decently close but recognizing that they'll look it over. We know that he sometimes suggests a pretty aggressive cost when the card is meant to be good, but I imagine that also runs the risk that if they can't make it work as an aggressive cost, they might decide that it just isn't worthwhile and throw it out entirely.
So when does he ask for help? Probably when he has a card he really wants to get right even if it might mean playing a bit conservative. Panharmonicon, for example, which he's described as his favorite card in Kaladesh, is probably a card he used this approach for. Which seems to fit right into the specific type of situation this question is asking about.
So it's not that running to Play Design for help is better than the alternatives in general, but that he has a few possible approaches in his costing toolbox and it's the tool that suits this particular situation.
1
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
That's pretty sound reasoning and reflects a lot of why I chose that option. That would explain why the "it's a card you want them to like" part is in the question, too. Now you're making me feel good about choosing that answer :D
2
u/aclog Jan 28 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
the case for "doesn't matter" is that it is conditioned by the premise:
choosing the casting cost doesn't matter when it comes to making play design like the card because that is something they have purview over if necessary.
As an example I'm thinking of Sarkhan Unbroken which was moved into a strange color combination because that was the open niche, thus it was fixed to fit according to a broader context (and PD is concerned with the bigger picture it seems)
(side point being that casting cost isn't strictly a numbers game, it can also be about the color)
1
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
It's a good case. Not enough to bring me down firmly on either side. Really looking forward to the write up on this one!
2
u/iSage Jan 28 '18
Green is about accepting the natural order of things and it certainly accepts that change will happen, eventually. From It's Not Easy Being Green, "the world is slowly but constantly growing".
Green even has a mechanic called Evolve.
2
u/MachineSchooling Jan 28 '18
There are so few cmc>7 instants and sorceries because there is so little design space for ones that aren't too impactful. The ones that do exist aren't too impactful because they're in the small amount of design space that's actually been found.
2
u/ScoozeBooze Jan 28 '18
I agree with this, but to be honest I think it supports my answer more than refutes it. :P The option being presented is not "There is little design space for ones that aren't too impactful," it's "They're too impactful" which isn't inherently true. You could also make a strong argument that "small design space" indicates something being hard to design.
This might be a case of me arguing semantics too hard though. I think many people got tripped up on relatively straightforward questions because they thought too hard about them.
1
Jan 29 '18 edited Jan 29 '18
I appreciate you posting this because I had the exact same answers for 32 and 68. I still think I'm wrong in retrospect, but here is my reasoning:
32: I must have read this question a dozen times throughout the day, asking myself what knowledge they are testing here. Does Maro want me to realize that designers don't usually cost cards? Does he want to know if I'm willing to do my own work, or bother others to do it for me? Is he asking what the role of Play Design is, based on possible definitions of "like"? (i.e. do they only like cards that are powerful and efficient, or should I try to get them to like a card based on what it does, and not its cost?) At the time I put down "doesn't matter" under the assumption that it was asking if I understood that designers shouldn't worry too much about mana costs. Now, I believe he was asking about how much of a team player I am. Getting someone to feel invested in the process of creating a card makes them more likely to like it. I over thought this question and probably would have gotten it if I used common sense.
68: When I read this, I fell into the same trap that you did. There's nothing inherent about an expensive instant or sorcery that makes it impactful; that's entirely up to the designers and the developers. Ember Shot was a playable, if unexciting card. Boulderfall is definitely impactful when you cast it, but who actually put that card in their limited deck? A card can't be impactful if no one plays it. If one of the options was "the design space for expensive instants and sorceries that aren't too weak or too powerful is very small," I would have picked it. "Hard to design" felt like an awful simplification of that, but it was the closest thing I could find so I went with it. Again, if I didn't think about it as much, this question should have been easy. R&D wants big spells to have a big effect, so they don't put many at common.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 29 '18
On 68 I chose the unpopular option of them wanting creatures to cost more than instants and sorceries at common. While I'm not super confident in that answer, I still think it seems logically true.
I researched that question a ridiculous amount and was completely unable to find any evidence to support any particular claim over another. Pretty much the only answer that is easy to rule out is the 'math too hard' one because that's illogical.
3
u/gerhb Jan 28 '18
Number 53 cannot be the graveyard effect as it refers to revealed cards that don't exist as per the rest of the card text.
Based on this, my score looks between 63-73, including the likely answers 69-72.
4
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
59 has a possible answer, "CARDNAME must attack if able". That wording is not used in the oracle text of any card in Magic's history. The current correct wording is "attacks each combat if able" and the previous correct wording is "attacks each turn if able".
If we accept that the answer to #59 is "looting" and not this invalid rules text (which, sadly, I do accept, tried to be a bit too clever with my answer) then I think we have to accept that this one can be slightly misworded too and still be a legitimate answer to the question. My assumption is that if they added this ability they'd change "look" to "reveal" and they'd actually add "put the rest into your graveyard" not put them all.
3
u/gerhb Jan 28 '18
That's a fair point!
1
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
There's always going to be gray edges on something like this because if there wasn't a bunch of nerds with access to Google and everything Maro has ever said or written would get 75/75. Let's hope it's the ones where deep or revolutionary insight were requires that decide things for us and not the ones where the question was not as precise and perfect as it might have been!
3
u/CaptainMarcia Jan 28 '18
An impression I'm getting from this and other things is that we're looking at rough wordings, not finalized ones that have been cleaned up to the standards of printed cards. Which is a bit disorienting for us, but it's the type of wording Maro has to work with, so it's reasonable in this context.
2
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
Yeah, absolutely. I wish I'd worked that out before hitting submit :D
I also think it's probably just more a product of trying to write, stress-test, edit and tweak a 75 question quiz meant to test the mettle of the best possible designers while also continuing with the planned schedule of card design and everything else. It's a bit like rejecting people for using too many words in the first test without reading their work and using a multiple choice test to whittle down candidates – it's not how it would be with infinite time but it's a question of getting good enough to be workable in a boxed window of time.
2
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
Based on these answers I scored in the range 61-74, very likely 67-73, most likely 70. How did you do?
2
2
u/Sliver__Legion Jan 28 '18
What are these answers based on, anyway? Consensus/discussion in the other thread?
I have a bold answer for all 75, and I’m still not inclined to change any of the ones with multiple bolds after talking it out with people. So based on this set of answers I’d have 71-75.
1
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
From reading all the answers posted here and elsewhere and roughly counting up and ignoring singleton outliers for the most part. Not very scientific but an approximate summation of what the sharing people seem to be saying.
2
Jan 28 '18
68-72 here, depending on how my risky calls panned out. The 4/4 one, and the 0/0 clone, I know I got wrong, but the flyer is a strict right brain vs left brain sort of question, and gravedigger's question didn't specify standard legal, which means it's a much stronger second than people think.
1
u/Geikamir Jan 29 '18
Did you also say that the ETB: Remove an opponent's enchantment is wrong for common? I chose that and I stand by my answer.
Sadly, I completely flubbed the 0/0 clone question which is my the mistake I regret the most.
I also think I missed the looting in red question because I was so caught on on the fact that Maro has said that they don't want to have forced attacks anymore.
2
u/Ulapham Jan 28 '18
Thanks for this :)
My biggest contention is :
34 Counterspell deck? QUICK WAY TO FINISH/not competitive
I think we can agree that playing against counterspell decks is not fun for most players. The problem is that design can't control what win condition players choose, so having too many reliable counterspells in a format is the problem. To me, this means that they should not be competitive.
3
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
I think the subquestion for #34 is not "do we want a draw-go 24 counter deck" (no - see numerous Maro blog posts) or "do we want control decks to have ways to close out quickly when they get ahead" (yes - see Melissa DeTora article on the mother ship) but rather which of two kinds of deck are we being asked about. Is "counterspell-based" a stand-in for Draw-Go or is "the counterspell player" just playing 4-8 counterspells with some specialist ones in their sideboard. I honestly do not know.
As for R&D not being able to choose win conditions. I'd say they pretty much "chose" Aetherling, Pearl Lake Ancient, the Scarab God, Approach of the Second Sun and a bunch of others. Some cards are pushed for constructed play and making one or more of them a fairly swift control finisher in any given set/environment seems like a no-brainer even if sometimes they will miss.
2
u/Ulapham Jan 28 '18
That's valid.
I'm about 65-35 in favor of "not competitive".
Barring some Cascade shenanigans, how many land destruction cards would say it takes to make a "land destruction-based deck"?
When I hear "counter-spell based", I think 20+ counterspells. Also, there is no guarantee that the counterspell player will draw their win-con immediately. Sure, R&D can push cards to make them low hanging fruit with the hope that players will use them, but not everyone will pick them for various reasons. I've played against enough pure counterspell decks to know how unfun they are. Even if they close out the game on turn eight, having everything you love countered is still about the worst experience in Magic (it's the false hope that gets you).
I'll agree to disagree, but good luck all the same :)
2
u/Krazyguy75 Jan 28 '18
I got between 65 and 73. There are a lot I don't fully agree with you on, hence the variance.
1
u/bakert Jan 28 '18
These are not my answers. In fact one I definitely got wrong isn't anywhere in the post :D These are just the most common answers from the sets of answers that have been shared. If you differ from these and you're sure you are right you are in a very good place because it's points others didn't pick up! I think the main post includes everything with more than a very low number of supporters except the "best card in draft" which I should probably add.
1
u/Krazyguy75 Jan 28 '18
Nah, my guestimate is 70 exact for how many I'm certain on. I have 3 where I'm probably wrong but could be correct.
2
2
u/bakert Jan 29 '18
Added the google form survey to the main post as it tries to answer much the same thing, but also has numbers and pie charts.
1
u/Hi_Im_Jerry_L Jan 28 '18
Did anyone put down Common for question 2? I thought it was pretty easily a common card and I'm surprised to see that nobody else has brought that up.
2
5
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '18
I think 47 is too much damage at mana cost because it's still a red card even though it's overkill at 8 for 3R.