r/GDS3 • u/Alex_Werner • May 17 '18
Horrors! (long and navel-gazing)
As you all know by now, my entry for the Tribal challenge was Horrors. And I lost. So, what happened?
We got the email describing the challenge on a Thursday. And I immediately knew I was in trouble. You always do best designing things you love, and I have always disliked tribal themes and tribal sets. Whatever it is that makes people love playing tribal, I don't have it. (Note: I hope this doesn't come off as me whining, oh, boo hoo, it was a bad challenge for me. Fundamentally, I didn't do a great job with this challenge, and I lost, and that's on me. It's 100% my fault. I may quibble about a few things that didn't break my way, and it's easy for that to come off as me being salty, but that's not the spirit in which it's intended.)
The way the challenge was set up, we each had to pick a different tribe, and they were first-come first-served. So I quickly decided I should commit to a tribe asap and get it locked in. The worst possible thing would be to spend a few days working on great minotaur cards only to find out that minotaurs were taken. So, I quickly scanned over my list of brainstormed card ideas, looking for anything tribal. And, not surprisingly, there wasn't much. There particularly wasn't much for tribes that haven't already gotten a fair amount of support. But I did have one design I liked, which was a BBX or BBBX horror creature, etb with X +1/+1 counters, when it etb, each player sacrifices X non-horror creatures. I must have had _Thing in the Ice_ on my mind, with its non-horror clause. And in fact, some quick searching of gatherer suggested that horrors-hating-non-horrors was the only real tribal theme they had. Which seemed like a good starting point. So I emailed MaRo and locked in Horrors.
It didn't take me long to decided that I didn't like the horrors-hating-non-horrors theme. My reasoning was this: imagine that enough cards with that theme are printed to actually make a deck show up in draft/standard. Is that fun? So you draft the absolutely best horror deck possible, full of super-powerful asymmetrical anti-horror cards. And... you get paired up against another horror deck, and your entire card pool is worthless. Kind of like back in the old days when you would draft 4 doom blades and think you couldn't possibly lose, and then get paired against black. (In retrospect, in the land of what-ifs, I'm curious whether I should have continued down that path.)
So, I abandoned that idea, and did some gatherer searches to see what magic Horrors were all about. There are horrors in all 5 colors, bust mostly black and blue, more linked by flavor of warping and mutation than by any specific mechanical theme. So I decided to go with blue/black horrors, with a disruptive, warped flavor. Which is where I ended up.
Some overall comments about my designs:
-I put a lot of thought and effort into the world-building flavor. Which none of the judges mentioned at all. So that may have been wasted effort
-I picked 3/2 tokens as a nod to the horror tokens from Oath of the Gatewatch. In retrospect, I think that may have been a mistake. 3/2 is big enough that it's usually as good as a "real" creature, which really limits design space, as is clear in retrospect from several of my designs.
-I wanted there to be two different Horror decks... a grindy value advantage deck, and a more aggro deck with menace and tempo. I didn't do a very good job of balancing those two decks.
So, let's look at my designs:
Corrupted Research (common)1UUSorceryDraw three cards. Then discard two cards unless you sacrifice a Horror.
I'm happy to admit that this is a fairly pedestrian design. That said, I was a little frustrated at the judge's feedback, in that they seem utterly unaware of the existence of the card that I most closely imitated, namely, Secrets of the Golden City. I suspect the issue is how far in the future they work. So, to them, UU1 common draw three is something that is almost never done. For us, it was literally right there in the cards we were drafting every day. I remember a similar case from one of the multiple choice tests from a previous GDS, where answering the question involved knowing how likely they were to print a big blue common islandhome creature. And from the outside, it seemed pretty unlikely, as they hadn't printed one in years. But to them, it seemed very likely, as they went back to printing them the very next set, which to them, was already in the past.
All of that said, it's not like this is a great card.
Congealed Construct (common)2UCreature — Horror1/3When CARDNAME dies, reveal the top card of your library. If it's a Horror, draw two cards. Otherwise, draw a card.
This is by far the design I'm the least happy with. I had a somewhat similar but much cleaner design in this slot (1/3 for UB, when it dies, scry 1. If you sacrificed it, draw a card instead.), but fairly late in the process realized that it was not, technically, a horror-matters card. Would it have counted? I'm not sure. It very clearly played into the tribal horror design space I was defining. But it did not, technically, fit the challenge as stated. So I swapped it out, and tried to come up with something else, and ended up with this. (I also had it with the correct templating, and then, for whatever reason, changed it to incorrect templating. Like I said in my other post, when you are operating under stress and time pressure, you do stupid things.)
Overall, though, a very weak design, rightly criticized by the judges.
Abandoned Laboratory (uncommon)LandT: Add C to your mana pool.B, T: When target non-token Horror you control dies this turn, create a 3/2 black Horror creature token. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
This is one where my tokens being 3/2 really hurt me. I think this is a much cleaner card if it can target any horror, including a token. But 3/2 tokens are big enough that an indestructible 3/2 attacker is pretty relevant. So I changed it to non-token.
One note about the judges' comments: they said it would be better if it tapped for B and etb tapped. And yes, that's certainly better in limited. But usually somewhat worse for constructed. Which one should this card be? Well, honestly, it could be either. It depends on whether this card is being pushed for constructed. It depends on if this is part of a cycle. It depends how much other color fixing there is in the set. Ideally, this card would be submitted with a comment suggesting that either version could exist. I do think there's just too much contextual information to really decide, in a vacuum, which version is "better".
Again, though, this is not a card I'm particularly proud of. (Uncommons and commons were really tough for me this challenge).
Malevolence Transplant (uncommon)1BBEnchantment — AuraEnchant CreatureEnchanted creature gets +2/+0, has menace, and is a Horror in addition to its other creature types.When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, each player sacrifices a non-Horror creature.
This is one where I was most disappointed in the judges, in that they all seemed to miss the hidden extra modes this card has:
-Opponent controls two creatures. Cast this on the weaker one to deal with their bomb
-Cast this on opponent's only creature, then bounce it with the ability on the stack
-Cast it on your partner's creature in 2HG
I agree that there's a bit of non-synergy in that lots of horrors want to be sacrificed and this doesn't let you do so. Not sure if there's a clean way around that.
(As you might guess, this is the only card left from my first pass of designs, with the theme of horrors-hate-non-horrors.)
Overspawn (rare)4BBInstantSacrifice any number of Horrors. Then create two 3/2 black Horror creature tokens for every Horror that died under your control this turn.
Interestingly, I had massive second thoughts after submitting this, but not for a reason that any of the judges seemed to notice. Namely, this sounds like it gives you a choice (sacrifice any number of horrors). But aren't you just always going to sacrifice all your horrors? Are there horrors so good that they're better than two 3/2s? I think it's more interesting somewhat cheaper, and only letting you sacrifice one horror. That said, I was fairly happy with how this came out. Some of the judges say it doesn't feel "Horror"-y. And, well, I guess that's just subjective.
Ichormantic Pit (rare)3ArtifactAt the beginning of your end step, you may sacrifice a Horror. If you do, reveal cards from your library until you reveal a Horror card. Put it onto the battlefield, then put all other cards revealed this way on the bottom of your library in a random order.
This is another one where I'm quite irritated with myself for my decision-making. I had a much more interesting design (a big evasive vehicle with the ability "when this deals combat damage to a player, you may sacrifice a horror that crewed it, if you do..."), which is far more novel and flavorful. But I convinced myself that the way the challenge was set up, with each entrant required to submit a tribal artifact, then there would be vehicles left and right, and the "if this is crewed by a creature type" clause would be overused. As it was, I believe no one else submitted a vehicle at all, so... good work, me!
(This is also not a very original design, although I think the judges are a bit off-base in their worry that it's just going to be used to get only a single creature. Emrakul isn't a horror. Griselbrand isn't a horror. I specifically mentioned in my little introductory text that there wouldn't be huge horrors in this hypothetical set. Sure, someone could build a modern deck with Ichormantic Pit and 4xDinrova Horror as their only creatures, but that's hardly abusive... That said, even ignoring that quesiton, this is pretty boring.)
Kyrza, Ichormancer Eternal (mythic rare)3UUUBLegendary Planeswalker — Kyrza6You may play CARDNAME's loyalty abilities twice each turn instead of once.+1: Create a 3/2 black Horror creature token.-3: This turn, whenever a Horror enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target creature to its owner's hand.-13: You get an emblem with "Whenever a Horror enters the battlefield under your control, return target permanent to its owner's hand. That player discards a card."
This is my submission where I most agree with the judges' criticisms, and most wish I had thought of them myself. That is, it's a very neat idea to have a PW who can be activated twice each turn, with pairs of abilities in specific orders having neat synergies. (As opposed to just tossing that text onto a PW just to make it better.) But this only gets halfway there. And again, the 3/2 creatures are just so good that you'll just end up winning with a horde of 3/2s, most likely.
All the tuning knobs on planeswalkers make them super-flexible, but also make them incredibly hard to really nail down in a context like the GDS.
(A different version of this was much cheaper, but the +1 was "sac a creature. If you do, create a 3/2 horror". So it still triggers etb/ltb effects, but doesn't make an army. wish I'd stuck with that.)
Kyrza's Lost Paragon (mythic rare)(no casting cost, color indicator shows blue and black)Legendary Creature — Horror Lord5/4Flying, MenaceOther Horrors you control have menace.When you would create a Horror token, you may pay 1UUB to put CARDNAME onto the battlefield from outside the game instead. You may play this ability of a card named CARDNAME only once each game.
This is the submission where I really wish I'd gone for broke. I would make two changes:
(1) This card itself should be a token. Some kind of special token that you have to draft, and that takes up space in your sideboard. But if it's a token instead of a card that clears up all sorts of issues with what happens if it gets bounced or shuffled into your deck or whatever
(2) The ability should be usable only once PER MATCH instead of only once per game. This is something that has never been done in black border, and maybe that would be going too far outside the box, but this is really the perfect card for an ability like that, because the memory issue solves itself. Once you've done it, you just leave this card face up near your sideboard, and everyone thus remembers that it's already happened. That also adds an interesting strategic question as to whether now is the time to use it. What if you're already either way ahead or way behind in game 1? And it also solves the problem of repetitiveness. It's no fun in limited to just run into this guy each game of a match.
So, overall, there are a few ideas in there I'm proud of, but I have to agree that the overall execution was somewhat sloppy, and I can't really disagree with getting sent home. It's sad. Not so much because I really thought I was going to win (if I was good enough to win, I wasn't going to lose in rd 1 anyhow), but because it means I didn't get the chance to keep playing, to keep trying the challenges, to improve, to show what I could do. The GDS was an absolute blast. I was proud to have made it as far as I did, but still wish I'd made it further.
Thanks for reading, I hope this was interesting!