Pem’s Tech Blog

I’m probably going to sound like one of these pompous self-proclaimed intellectual guys who goes around saying that Go > Chess (in fact, I can’t help but sympathize with that kind of attitude)…  So anyone who reads this, please take anything that sounds like negativity against Poker with a grain of salt.  I have nothing against Poker.  I think it can be some fun.  But I like Magic a lot better, and overall, I think Magic is by far more interesting, more intellectual, more enjoyable, and more worthy of your time (assuming you should be spending your extra time on such things at all).

Continuing from my previous post…  This dynamic nature (new sets, and the annual rotation) of the Standard Constructed format is what I love about Magic.  I am not exactly against static classic games like, for example, Poker and Chess and Go.  But I don’t find them particularly interesting, compared to other more modern games (card games, board games, video games).

The type of thinking you need for chess is better done by a computer program, than by a human.  It’s the same old thing over and over, and it has been studied to death.  To do well is simply about mindless rote training – not about strategy, thought, creativity, or innovation.  This is why I say such games should be played by computer programs – not by humans.  It’s simply less interesting, unless you’re writing AI code.  And there’s simply not any room for anything new – strategy, creativity, innovation, content, art, back story, enjoyment, design, change, etc.  Chess is just about picking the right move based on thinking enough moves ahead.

Meanwhile, besides memorizing probability and statistics, Poker is mostly just about keeping a straight face, or bluffing out your opponent.  I think Poker can be fun, but mostly just to for the math and AI code.  It’s simply less interesting than Magic.  And don’t get me started on how to make Poker entertaining to the general public, they (apparently) had to dumb it down, and mix in obscene amounts of money, sex, controversy, stress, and whatever it takes to gets attention – as long as it’s not the least bit intelligent or respectable or interesting.

I’ll end with an excerpt from an ESPN article on professional poker players who play Poker for money and Magic for fun.  I was kind of surprised that Poker appears to be the only non-physical game (ie, non-sport) that ESPN covers…  Unless it’s a first step towards covering more “brainy” (less physical) games, then this simple fact is pretty damning – I mean, Poker can’t be that “brainy” if it’s on freaking ESPN?

Don’t get me wrong…  I think Poker and Chess are great.  Just not that great.

Here’s the excerpt:

> With new cards being brought into circulation every few months, the game has stayed fresh for most of the converts. “Poker is a job, ‘Magic’ a game,” said Parker, who played “Magic” online to unwind after his long days of poker. “I never want to play poker in my free time. ‘Magic’ you can. You can’t make a living at ‘M:TG,’ but it’s just the more enjoyable game.”

> “‘Magic’ is a better-designed game, and I’d play it constantly if I didn’t have to make a living,” Williams said. “We play, relax and have a good time. It helps keep me sharp. I still play every day, either online or with the guys. If I get knocked out, I can always find a game of ‘Magic.’”

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=wise_gary&id=4259905

And here’s a neato MTG Poker deck:

See, despite my ranting, Magic and Poker can live together in harmony.  No worries…

2010/11/22: I guess being more in depth and time consuming can also be a huge drawback. With rare exceptions, you don’t want a hobby (such as getting into a game like Magic or Poker) to distract you too much from your other more serious responsibilities! Again, I like Poker too… Just not as much as I like Magic.

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/10/11 (Monday, October 11, 2010) :: Games, tcg :: No Comments »

I want to add (to my previous post) that I am already missing some of the cards that are rotating out, which represent some potentially awesome deck ideas that I never got to see really come to fruition.  In light of this, the past few days (or weeks), I’ve made an effort to get some exposure to deck ideas that will be dead (or at least significantly changed) after the rotation.

My most recent example is a very fun White Green deck that I created to make Felidar Sovereign’s unique win condition work.  I didn’t play it anywhere except the tournament practice rooms, but I had a lot of fun with it.

I actually won games with Felidar Sovereign’s “you win” ability.  Other games, the huge life boost kept me alive longer than my opponent.  There were games where I had as high as 131 life, and there were games where Wall of Reverence healed me 12 life from a pumped up Knight of the Reliquary.

Alas, The deck totally relies on cards that are going to be rotated out, especially Wall of Reverence and Knight of the Reliquary.  There’s nothing in Scars of Mirrodin with this amount of defense and heal (plus, Knight of the Reliquary can also become a strong attacker).  There might be a viable post-rotation deck that can use Felidar Sovereign, but it would be very different without these two cards.

Btw, I’m not in any way attached to or focused on this particular deck style.  I partly just picked this example because I noticed that in my previous post I forgot to mention mono White (with Ajani’s Pridemate, Serra Ascendant, Soul Warden, Soul’s Attendant).

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/10/11 (Monday, October 11, 2010) :: Games, tcg :: No Comments »

Oct 1 2010 was the date of my first time seeing the annual rotation with Magic the Gathering.  A new set is released, something like every 3 months, and then once a year (on Oct 1), they rotate out the 4 oldest sets.

In this case, 3 of the sets rotating out are the "Alara Block".  The Alara block includes Shards of Alara (a 249 card set released 2008/10/03), Conflux (a 145 card set released 2009/02/06), and Alara Reborn (a 145 card set released 2009/04/30).  The 4th set rotating out is Magic 2010 (a 249 card set released 2009/07/17).

At the same time, a new set is released, in this case Scars of Mirrodin.  So after the rotation, we lose 4 sets (Shards of Alara, Conflux, Alara Reborn, Magic 2010), leaving us with (Magic 2010, Zendikar, Worldwake, Rise of the Eldrazi, Magic 2011, and Scars of Mirrodin).  This once a year rotation is the biggest annual change in the Standard constructed format.  There will still be new sets coming (next is Mirrodin Besieged, scheduled for 2011/02/04), but it won’t be until 2011/10/01 that we rotate out (Zendikar, Worldwake, Rise of the Eldrazi, and Magic 2011).

Magic 2011 was released on 2010/07/16, which was before I started playing MTGO (Magic The Gathering Online).  So this is both the first time I’ve seen a new set released, and the first time I’ve seen a rotation.  It is pretty interesting / exciting, to try to predict what kinds of new decks will be viable and/or popular after the rotation.

Jund will be losing key cards that allowed it to swarm the field with strong 2 and 3 and 4 mana drops: Putrid Leech (which can be a 4/4 for only 2 mana), Sprouting Thrinax (which replaces itself with creature tokens), and Bloodbraid Elf (which has haste, and gives you 2 spells for the price of 1).

The Bant deck will be losing Knight of the Reliquary (very strong defense) and Sovereigns of Lost Alara (which let you search Eldrazi Conscription).

I don’t think Blue White control is losing anything significant.  My impression of mono Red is that it’s gaining more than its losing, including Koth of the Hammer.  Not sure if White Red landfall is affected, but in terms of planeswalkers, it loses Ajani Vengeant, but gains Koth of the Hammer and I guess the option to go White Red Blue for Venser the Sojourner.

New stuff is going to include lots of artifacts (and artifact creatures), artifact counters, and the infect mechanic (ie, poison counters).

These are just some of my vague reactions, and I don’t pretend to know what will become the most viable, or powerful, or popular…  But I definitely have some deck ideas that I think will be a lot of fun to try out!

Finally, I’ve noticed that for MTGO they delay the releases.  On Oct 11, Standard hasn’t rotated yet for MTGO.  Scars of Mirrodin cards become legal after the Oct 13 downtime, and MTGO Scars of Mirrodin prerelease starts Oct 14.  Since I have other plans for the weekend, I probably won’t pay any attention until Sun night Oct 17.

Oh, and hopefully I will get back to my MTGO vocabulary posts soon, and not let Magic itself distract me too much!

Rotates Out, Oct 1 of 2010: Alara Block and Magic 2010:

New Set Released, Oct 1 of 2010:

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/10/11 (Monday, October 11, 2010) :: Games, tcg :: No Comments »

Abjure.  Sacrifice a blue permanent.  Counter target spell.

Game Play Comments:

Blue has a myriad of variations on the original Counterspell, which counter a target spell.  Though for the most part none of them are quite as good as the original Counterspell.  Cancel costs an extra mana, Mana Leak can be diffused if your opponent pays 3 mana, Deprive requires you to bounce a land.  Others only counter certain types of spells (creatures, non-creatures, targeting spells, artifacts, etc).  Double negate can counter 1 or 2 spells.  Mindbreak Trap can counter any number of spells, and costs 4 mana (or 0 if it’s his 3rd+ spell this turn), and it’s technically not a “counter” – so it works on spells that can’t be countered (such as Terra Stomper and Emrakul the Aeons Torn).  Effects that bounce your own cards (such as Into the Roil) can be similar to a Counterspell (if he targets your field card, then you bounce it, causing his spell to basically fizzle).  Redirect and Swerve change the target of a spell.  That’s a lot, yet this is not, by any stretch, a complete list of the variations on Counterspell.  In fact, my examples were only from the current Standard format.

Abjure is one of the few counter spells that costs less mana than Counterspell.  It’s not in the current Standard format, and it combos with Hatching Plans (also not currently in Standard).  What if Abjure were in the current Standard format?

Abjure requires you to sac a Blue permanent.  This makes it a lot harder to use than if it would let you sac any permanent – because then you could use non-blue tokens (Eldrazi tokens, Khalni Garden tokens, etc).  Additionally, lands are (usually) colorless, so you can’t just sac an Island.

It might still combo with some Blue permanents that let you draw 1 – such as Spreading Seas, or Sea Gate Oracle.  And Fieldmist Borderpost makes it more like "pay 1 mana and sac 1 land”.  But even if it’s worth the sac (in exchange for the reduced converted mana cost), it would be easy to end up in a situation where you don’t have any blue permanents on the field.  Or in a situation where you’re paying 1 mana and 1 usable permanent instead of just paying 2 mana (or 3 mana).

If the text read “sacrifice a permanent” (not just a blue one), then Abjure would easily compete with other counter spells.  Either that, or it would only work in a deck with more cards like Hatching Plans, and maybe Spreading Seas, Sea Gate Oracle, Fieldmist Borderpost.

One final note.  Abjure says “Interrupt” rather than an “Instant”.  Interrupt used to mean it’s faster than Instant (in YuGiOh they have counter traps that are faster than traps and instant spells).  However, Interrupt no longer exists, and any old cards that say Interrupt are now just synonymous with Instant.  Since Interrupt has long been deprecated, in Standard you will only find Instant spells (not Interrupt spells).

abjure [ab-joor, -jur]
–verb (used with object), -jured, -jur·ing.
1. to renounce, repudiate, or retract, esp. with formal solemnity; recant: to abjure one’s errors.
2. to renounce or give up under oath; forswear: to abjure allegiance.
3. to avoid or shun.

1. to renounce or retract, esp formally, solemnly, or under oath
2. to abstain from or reject

Vocabulary Comments

In the flavor text, Ertai is expounding his virtues (ie, bragging), and it is annoying Mirri.  Bombast is not very intellectual (and thus not very Blue), so Mirri decides that if Ertai doesn’t stop going on and on with his bombast, then Mirri will have to make him abjure the bombastic claims.  The flavor text says Mirri considers to cause this by killing Ertai.  This could mean Ertai is threatened into abjuring the claims, or that Mirri is abjuring the claim by killing Ertai, or that the claim is abjured in the sense that Ertai’s magic is shown to not be so powerful after all.

So either you are making your opponent abjure his casting of a spell, or you are abjuring the spell itself.  In either case, the casting of the spell has been abjured.

Abjure can generally mean to avoid, shun, abstain from, or reject something.  However, it has the connotation that you will renounce, repudiate, retract, or recant something in a manner that is formal and solemn.

This could have meaning in a legal sense, where a person is asked to abjure (or recant) their claim, position, belief, or stance on an issue.  Such as Galileo Galilei, or Giordano Bruno, or Martin Luther, each having been asked to abjure claims by officials of the Catholic church.

In the US today, we tend to make more of a distinction between illegal action and illegal belief.  Illegal belief tends to be a stronger form of legislating morality.  For example, it’s okay to believe in the further legalization of marijuana or prostitution, as long as you don’t take actions that illegal.  Of course you can still have plenty of unreasonable laws and persecution over someone’s beliefs, but we now tend to persecute the person based on an action, rather than directly on their stance.  Though there’s probably exceptions, or it could (in some cases) only be a level of indirection.

I can not abjure my allegiance to Magic Vocabulary – I can not abjure my claim that there is a myriad of GRE vocab words in the world of Magic cards, just waiting to be discovered!  How can one abjure this claim, when even the word abjure itself is in fact the name of a Magic card!

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/09/09 (Thursday, September 9, 2010) :: Games, magic vocab, tcg :: No Comments »

Abeyance.  Until end of turn, target player can’t cast instant or sorcery spells, and that player can’t activate abilities that aren’t mana abilities.  Draw a card.

Game Play Comments:

This is prior to the current Standard (Type 2) format, so I’ve never actually used Abeyance.  However, I can compare it to a card that is – Silence.  Silence is also an instant, only costs 1 white, and doesn’t allow the opponent to cast any spells for the turn.  However, Silence doesn’t let you draw a card, and it doesn’t prevent activation abilities.  Overall, I like the effect of Abeyance better, even though it doesn’t stop creature spells.

Where might I use this card if it were in Standard?  White healing deck, to keep my white creatures alive for a turn.  Blue White control deck (or Blue White Black or Black White) to stall.  The draw 1 (self-replacing) aspect is important.

abeyance [uh-bey-uhns]
–noun
1. temporary inactivity, cessation, or suspension: Let’s hold that problem in abeyance for a while.
2. Law . a state or condition of real property in which title is not as yet vested in a known titleholder: an estate in abeyance.

1. a state of being suspended or put aside temporarily
2. ( usually preceded by  in ) law  an indeterminate state of ownership, as when the person entitled to an estate has not been ascertained

Vocabulary Comments:

In Magic, Abeyance means the opponent puts on hold doing certain actions.  Abeyance holds in abeyance the target player’s ability to play instants, interrupts, sorcery spells, and activation cost abilities.  These actions are put on hold, held in abeyance for one turn.

In US law, abeyance means a temporary hold on the official ownership of the property, in the situation where ownership is not yet clear (or not yet vested).  For example, if we don’t officially know who really owns the property yet, then the ownership is in abeyance – on hold as unknown until it’s determined.

In general, abeyance means to put something on hold (temporary inactivity, or not yet decided or resolved) – in a temporary state of suspension or cessation.  Such as (but not limited to) a Magic player’s ability to perform certain actions, or the not yet officially determined ownership of property.  The Magic player’s actions are held in abeyance.  The ownership of the property is held in abeyance.  Our decision or our resolution of a problem is held in abeyance.

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/09/09 (Thursday, September 9, 2010) :: Games, magic vocab, tcg :: No Comments »

The Paris mulligan is good – but not good enough.  I propose we fix it.

Mana screw by drawing only 0 or 1 in your opening hand doesn’t happen often, but it happens often enough that it needs to be fixed.  This is possibly the worst thing that can happen in an opening Magic hand (ie, to draw only 1 or 0 lands, and then have the top 10 cards in his/her deck have only 2 or 1 or 0 lands).  This ruins the game by basically giving one player an unfair auto-loss.  The existence of this scenario insults Magic by dumbing it down to the simplicity of a coin flip (heads you win, tails I win).  It creates a scenario in Magic that is simple blind luck (and dumb luck), where the game is already lost by just having a really bad opening hand, which can happen even if the deck is designed with as many as 24 to 30 lands.

The Paris mulligan protects against the scenario, to some extent.  But the probability of 1 player ending up with 1 less card, or even 1 or 0 lands after the first mulligan, is still high enough, even in a deck with 28 lands, that Magic is still significantly plagued by mana screw.

I propose some ideas for a tweak to the Paris mulligan:

A) Mulligan is free if your deck has 20 or more lands and you drew 1 or 0 lands.  If your 7 card hand has only 1 or 0 lands, then you can choose to reveal 20 land cards to your opponent, and then mulligan for free.  Repeat this until you draw at least 2 land cards.

B) Mulligan is free if your deck has 40 or less lands and you drew 6 or 7 lands.

C) Make the first mulligan determine who decides who goes first – instead of flipping a coin.  Before flipping to see who decides who goes first, each player has the choice to Mulligan.  If both players or no players mulligan, then flip to see who decides who goes first.  If one player mulligans, then the other picks who goes first.  After this, you get another chance to mulligan.

D) Make the first mulligan reduce your hand count by 0.  So you draw 7 cards, then you can mulligan to 7, then you can mulligan to 6, then you can mulligan to 5.

E) Make the first mulligan reduce your life point by 1, instead of card count.

Any of these ideas (or a combination) would fix the mana screw design bug, without doing something to radically change the game.  An example of radical would be to have two decks, one with your lands and one with your non-lands, or to have no lands at all.  So I am not asking for a radical change.  Just a minor tweak to the Paris mulligan that would succeed where the Paris mulligan has clearly failed.

I think idea A is great choice.  Except that I realize there may be some concern about having to dig 20 lands out of your deck and show them to prove that you have 20 lands.  Same problem with idea B (having to show them 20 non-land cards).  This is the reason I suggested ideas C, D, and E.

A simpler version of A and B is actually what used to exist before the Paris mulligan.  And overall, the Paris mulligan is simply worse than what we had prior to the Paris mulligan.

The way the mulligan used to work was, if a player had 0 or 7 lands in his starting hand, then he can show the opponent his/her hand, shuffle, redraw.  Only once.  Frankly, the Paris mulligan was a step in the wrong direction.  Based on that, here’s another mulligan idea:

F) If a player has 0 or 1 or 6 or 7 lands in the starting hand, then he/she can shuffle and redraw the 7 cards.  In fact, we could even let the player do this twice.

Just doing F or would fix the problem (or, bringing back the original mulligan would at least be better than the Paris mulligan).  The point here is for the mulligan to combat mana screw, rather than to be an overall second chance at drawing some combo (or avoiding an opening hand full of high mana cost cards).  However, if we want that second aspect, then we could do some combination of these mulligan ideas, such as F followed by a Paris mulligan.

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/09/08 (Wednesday, September 8, 2010) :: tcg :: No Comments »

Augury Owl.  When Augury Owl enters the battlefield, scry 3.

Game Play Comments:

When October 1 of 2010 hits, the standard constructed format (my opinion at the time of writing this is – by far the best and most important constructed format) will be only 5 sets (Zendikar, Worldwake, Rise of the Eldrazi, Magic 2011, and Scars of Mirrodin).  Based on the most recent releases (2010 Jul 17, 2010 Oct 2, 2011 Feb 5, 2011 Apr 23, 2011 Jul 16, 2011 Oct 1), there are 5 sets released per year (between Oct 1 to the next Oct 1), and the oldest sets get rotated out (in this case, Magic 2010 and the 3 prior sets) once a year on Oct 1.  I ran into Augury Owl in a standard constructed deck, since it’s in the Magic 2011 set, and I really liked the flavor / feel of the card.

As for actually using Augury Owl, for a converted mana cost of 2, the scry 3 is good, and fly is good.  However, I tend to compare Augury Owl to Wall of Omens.  In general, I don’t like 1/1 attack as much as as Wall of Omen’s 0/4.  In general, I like draw 1 better than scry 3.  Another comparison would be Preordain, which lets you scry 3 and draw 1.  That said, Augury Owl may work better in a certain kind of deck, where the scry 3 and/or fly are particularly useful.  Or in addition to Preordain and/or Wall of Omen.

Augury
1. the art or practice of an augur; divination.
2. the rite or ceremony of an augur.
3. an omen, token, or indication.

Augur
–noun
1. one of a group of ancient Roman officials charged with observing and interpreting omens for guidance in public affairs.
2. soothsayer; prophet.

–verb (used with object)
3. to divine or predict, as from omens; prognosticate.
4. to serve as an omen or promise of; foreshadow; betoken: Mounting sales augur a profitable year.

–verb (used without object)
5. to conjecture from signs or omens; predict.
6. to be a sign; bode: The movement of troops augurs ill for the peace of the area.

Scry
to divine, esp by crystal gazing

Descry:
1. to see (something unclear or distant) by looking carefully; discern; espy: The lookout descried land.
2. to discover; perceive; detect.

Vocabulary Comments:

I like the Augury Owl because he/she is wise and can see the future.  I like to think of the Augury Owl staring closely at my deck, like a crystal ball, to see the top 3 cards (or to fly ahead to descry what’s coming).  The Augury Owl is an augur, and he/she can augur what the next cards will be.

However, the Augury Owl doesn’t just see the future, he/she affects the future (since you can rearrange the 3 cards on the top or bottom of your deck).  In this way, the Augury Owl is an augury of me drawing the cards I need for the current game scenario (and of me using these cards in the near future of the current game).

I’ve seen scry called short for descry, but scry also has the connotation of looking into a crystal ball.  While the connotation to descry is more general, looking carefully to discern and perceive.

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/08/29 (Sunday, August 29, 2010) :: Games, magic vocab, tcg :: No Comments »

This is a long-winded post that gives background to how it came to be that I am now planning to make blog posts that showcase GRE (SAT, GMAT, etc) words found in cards from Magic the Gathering.

I’ve always (I think even before high school) spent a lot of time outside of work and classes doing software development hobby projects, various autodidact (self-education) study (reading etc) mostly related to computer science (computers / technology / science / engineering / math, hardware, software, game development), philosophy / logic, and games (and game development).

Right now I’m trying to put some focus on learning vocabulary.  The original reason for this was simply for the GRE test.  But with my personality, I can easily end up in danger of getting lost in the joy of learning and analysis and projects, to the point where the original motivation (ie, productivity / goal) could become less important.

I’m also trying to make up for years of neglect based on kind of a negative about the questionable usefulness of having 10 or 20 synonyms for the same concept.

My distaste was never against practical useful technical terms, such as for Computer Science (or Philosophy, or Games) and to express academic ideas (concepts, science, algorithms, etc).

My complaint was that a lot of the words found on the GRE seem deprecated, redundant, useless, and almost never used in real conversation (or writing) – except when someone is just being pedantic / bombastic, or maybe artistic / poetic in style.  This could be worthwhile for a language specialist or historian, to better understand archaic texts (such as Shakespeare or Edgar Allan Poe).  But for people who aren’t specialized in language (or history), if you run into an antiquated (or just less commonly used) word, then it’s fine to just use context clues, or quickly look it up on your iOS dictionary app or FireFox ctrl+e dictionary search engine.  If you’re not a language specialist, then what’s the point in wasting brain cells on rote memorization of redundant words that don’t express new concepts, when those brain cells could be used for more useful (and/or interesting) knowledge?

Despite my initially negative attitude, I’ve since considered the other side.  For one thing, having more synonyms gives us more options to create technical terms (conceptual terms / academic terms).

Also, having additional words (or idioms, phrases, acronyms, titles, organization names, brand names, etc) can be useful to reference a concept in a more specific sense – with nuance and connotation.

Many of these synonyms could potentially expand our minds, because you can say (and write and think) more concisely and precisely – this allows you to be more laconic (so that you can express much in few words).

For example, extirpate and deracinate are both synonyms for uproot.  But the nuance to extirpate is destroy, exterminate, remove and totally do away with (so uproot to get rid of & destroy).  The nuance to deracinate is to isolate or alienate someone from a native or customary environment or culture (so you are uprooting them away from their familiar environment).

If words like extirpate and deracinate were more commonly used (and no one confused the nuances), then we could be more laconic, and allow more complex ideas (and thoughts) to be communicated more specifically with fewer words, and consciously chosen nuance / connotation.

The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. Mark Twain

In George Orwell’s 1984, Newspeak is used to do the opposite – reducing the number of words in the English language and thus reducing the expressiveness (and individuality or rebelliousness) of the government’s subjects.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.  From Ludwig Wittgenstein’s one book (Logico-Tractatus Philosophicus).  The intended meaning is that only sentences that refer to something that we are capable of perceiving in the real world have meaning.  But on a similar train of thought (which is the way I’ve seen the quote misused), our minds are limited by (or expanded by) the tools we have to express our thoughts (which includes words).

Another specific example is how having more words can help us reduce the amount that we conflate distinct concepts.  Consider the GNU phrase “free as in freedom” vs “free as in beer” (unrestraint vs liberty vs costless, etc).  This sort of thing happens frequently, where someone gets confused or obstinately follows a specious argument, because he/she is conflating two distinct concepts.  Having more words can help us to better construct (or deconstruct) a line of reasoning, such as to more easily recognize when someone is conflating two different ideas.

Since this blog post is already longer than I’d like, I’ll get to the point.  I recently got into Magic: the Gathering.  There’s a lot to love about Magic, but for now I will avoid that tangent, and get to the point.

Part of any great fantasy game is its feel, such as how the game mechanics interact with visual art and writing (in other words – words).  Magic cards use color themes that correlate to the game mechanic (Black, White, Red, Green, Blue).  Each card has a card name, and many of the cards include flavor text (italics text that adds to the feel of the card, but does not affect the game mechanics).

I noticed that in these card names and flavor text, and even in some of the game rules, there are GRE words (GRE and other standardized tests).  So my plan is to post some Magic cards that use GRE words.  My initial favorite is the Augury Owl – but I’ll save that for my next post.

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/08/15 (Sunday, August 15, 2010) :: Games, magic vocab, tcg :: No Comments »

I sent this email as feedback about Magic the Gathering Online.  The background is that most of the cards only cost around $0.02 to $1.00.  But there are some in the $3 to $9 range, and even a few that are $10 to $80 – and I think this specific detail ruins the game.  There are so many other ways they could bring in income, besides this dubious and harmful strategy of making a few specific cards so rare that they resell for such obscene prices.

…

overpriced overpowered online cards ruins mtgo

Here are some ideas for what to do instead of having ($80 Jace the Mind Sculptor online virtual cards) and ($22 Vengevine online virtual cards):

1) Lower the cost of the online virtual cards to 50% of the physical printed cards.  Instead of $3.99 for a Worldquake booster pack, make it $1.99 (or $1.98).

1b) Or, give players the option to buy a physical-virtual packs for 150% the physical price (such as $6 for a Worldquake booster pack).  But what if I instead of paying $12 for a physical starter deck, I could pay $18 for a physical starter deck and an online copy of the cards?  Or $12 for the physical deck, $6 for the online deck, and $15 for the physical-virtual deck.  I realize the details could be more complicated.

1c) Make it a lot easier to redeem virtual cards to physical cards.  At the moment I’m planning only to play Standard format, so it would be nice if I could at least redeem all my old cards for physical copies.

2) Reduce the scarcity of super-rare physical and viritual Magic cards.  $360 for 4 copies of Jace the Mind Sculptor is obscene.  Even $88 for 4 copies of Vengevine is pretty obscene.  And if I want to collect both a virtual and physical deck, then it’s $720 for 8 copies of Jace the Mind Sculptor.  $720 every 12 months would be $60/mo.  I’m not even against paying more than $60/mo for virutal + physical Magic cards + related merchandise + tournaments.  But this is $60/mo (ie, $720 for 1 year) for just Jace the Mind Sculptor cards!  It’s obscene.  Magic shouldn’t be about who spent the most money on their deck.  It should be about deck design and honest good-sport strategy, fun, art, etc.  Why not explore other ways to increase revenue – ie, methods that don’t hurt the game?

3) Increase the scarcity of other cards to make up some of the cost difference.

4) Charge a little more for tournaments and events, directly, or indirectly such as food.  Or promo material, deck matts, t-shirts, food, etc.

5) There’s a World of Warcraft Mt Dew.  Why not make a deal for some Magic-branded Mt Dew, or other drink (Brain Toniq?).  Sell magic branded stuff that isn’t Magic cards.  Posters, action figures, official tokens and life counter dice.

6) Require anyone who uses a dice or coin flip to use a specific certified Magic die or coin – this is also an anti-cheat, and you should require them to flip a specific way (such as roll the dice in a cup, rather than in your hand).  Require people to use an electronic card shuffler, and sell them at the event for anyone who doesn’t already have one.  Worried about damaging player’s cards?  Don’t worry, because in this new world of Magic, no single card is worth more than $5, so bending a few cards is not a big deal, even if it didn’t happen, though it shouldn’t.

6) Sell print publications.  Print magazines with very well organized rules details, and lists of the cards (just like you have for the gatherer card database, but a physically printed visual spoiler magazine, organized by card color and mana color, then sorted by coverted mana cost).  Or an iPad app (both an iPad game, and an iPad interface to resources like the gatherer card database, maybe even integrated with software to help create deck lists).

7) A more radical idea would be to just charge a monthly fee ($10/mo or $50/mo) for access to 4 (untradeable?) copies of every card, for Magic Online.

Some people might take Magic-branded stuff as consumerism.  But if they are educated and think about it rationally, it’s so much better than ruining the actual game with overpriced overpowered $80 Jace the Mind Sculptor cards.  And a lot of it could be marketed as "support the Magic community" – because that’s really what the idea is.

For me personally, I’d much rather pay $20 for a Magic T-Shirt, $10 for a Magic art poster, buy $3 Magic-branded Mt Dew throwback instead of $3 regular Mt Dew throwback, etc…  Than be faced with the choice – do I really want to pay $360 for 4 Jace the Mind Sculptors.  Frankly, No, I am not going to.  And in the end, there is so much competition out there, that I really don’t have to.  I can play chess, or Go, or YuGiOh, or Warhammer, or D&D, or Poker, or video games, or go out to dinner and watch a 3d IMAX movie, or a million other things.  None of your customers (ie, the Magic community) are really hostages.  I want the Magic to survive and thrive and grow.  But in the long-term, I really think that these $80 Jace the Mind Sculptor cards are a big turn-off, are hurting the game, hurting the Magic community, and damaging the game’s long-term profits and potential customer base.  In the end, I totally realize that, economic viability as a company, is what Wizards needs to keep Magic alive and thriving.  So please think long-term and stop it with the $80 Jace cards.

Thank You for listening,

Peter Mowry ("Pem")

www.mepem.com

Pem (Admin) :: 2010/08/08 (Sunday, August 8, 2010) :: Games, tcg :: 4 Comments »