What's with all this optimism in articles I see in on the net as of recently? I just finished reading one of them entitled"In Defense of R&D and Onslaught" by Bennie Smith and I kind of miss the"sky is falling" past of Magic.

Ironically, Bennie's article is in rebuttal to a more pessimistic post from Mark Acheson. I read Mark's article, too.

So who's right? Is the sky falling or is it just cloudy outside?

"It sucks." vs."The cup is half-full."
The day Onslaught broke into the forms at www.mtgnews.com, I was reading it. I was mainly looking for cards that would fit into existing decks I had. Some of my decks just seem almost there; they are missing just a couple of effects before they are really good. I had heard of the Morph effects, and the return of Cycling and found them interesting. The first few cards didn't bring to light the importance of creature types; the effects seemed to complement the new cards nicely and not be the only point of the set, like Odyssey's effects were.

Then, when you added the creature-type cards, the decks seem to degenerate into some sort of second attempt at Homelands.

I was disgusted. Homelands came out in October 1995 and sells for 75.00 a box on www.starcitygames.com, which is an optimistic price for it. Is this what Wizards is asking to spend my hard earn money on? Is this set going to sell for $75 dollars after seven years as well?

I thought this game was supposed to be collectible?

"Paint by numbers deck building" vs."Race Matters" vs."Can Your Precon Beat My Precon?"
These first two titles are cool but I like mine the best. Mark's made me laugh though. Originally, the precons were R&D examples on how to make good decks out of new sets; now, the precons are the sets. What's the deal? Bennie states that"Race Matters," like the battle cry I have seen on the wizards web sites. The cleric race got some gold mines, and so did the soldiers; I especially like Mobilization. I don't think the other cards for the other races help as much. The new Priest of Titania is some good... As a proxy.

The problem with reintroducing existing creature types is you have to reintroduce entire creature strategies... But you can't make them better than the originals. What you are left with is Block Constructed. Who wants to play with cards that are worse than the original? It is much more interesting to introduce single cards that help existing creature decks, or reprint the best creatures from a creature type and add new creatures around them - or just make new races. They didn't do any of this in this set. Very few of these cards help out or aid existing races; they just print worse versions of already good cards.

So then you are left with"fun" versus"competition"... And I don't think Onslaught helps fun decks or competitive decks. It tries to do both in the same set and actually does nothing.

Race is fun... But losing isn't. Unless they think they can make a precon that can be contender at a Type 2 tournament, couldn't they just make random cards and let us decide how to play them? If they want to make my elf deck better they need to print cards that will interact with existing good elves. With the internet and a little money, you can easily find any card ever printed; these Onslaught race cards would only be good if I couldn't find the originals, but I can. Onslaught almost feels like a set that was made by underachievers.

The only semi-original race in it is Beast. Yay, Beast Tokens!

Odyssey block and Threshold vs. Onslaught and Fear
This is a major switch: We go from one set that is all about card mechanics to a set that is has no original mechanics.

Why is that? Did they get burnt from their Odyssey two-deck block? I think so. (Well, probably not, since the cards were pretty much set in stone by the time OBC really finalized - The Ferrett)

I think Marketing got a hold of R&D. I agree with Bennie that we need new different mechanics... But I think that the mechanics of Onslaught are not new at all. What they should have learned from Odyssey is that to not make the mechanics the only good cards in a set. Balance out cards that are good with the mechanics with cards that don't interact, and then try to make the mechanic as good as possible.

Also, I don't think designing automatically bad rare cards is a good idea. Maybe you should make cards that aren't great all the time... But not cards that are automatically horrible.

Shrines vs. Fetch Lands
This brings up Block Constructed sets vs. Collectible sets. No more Shrines!!! I can't tell you how many times I went to open a pack of Odyssey and I chanted,"Don't be a shrine, don't be a shrine."

Then you switched it around so that now-good uncommons are what used to be rares. I have to agree with Bennie that I would much rather the cards be good uncommons in the rare slots than horrible Shrines. This is also good marketing, as you know a lot of Magic players want these cards.

Is it fair? No. Is it good marketing? Yes. Will it make happy Magic players in the long run? No. Will we grin and bear it? Yes.

Making good cards vs. making Bad cards
Are Morphling, Spiritmonger, or Serra Angel banned in any format? Does the Magic community hate it when you make broken creatures? I think R&D has it right in the creature department: No matter how broken you make a creature's casting cost or abilities we will love every bit of it. Even Crystalline Sliver and Hypnotic Specter are not banned. (...Currently.)

The only time I think you might want to stay away from is 2/1 for 1cc; they are bad for the development of a game. Even Wild Mongrel wasn't broken; it was just that you make too many other cards that made him too good in his format.

But they got it right again with Grinning Demon. I love him. I think I would trade the entire Masques Block for him. The reason I like him so much is I will play him today, I will play him in a year, and I will play him in five years. It is not a block card. He is a good card.

Are the fetch lands useful? Do I like them? Both answers are yes. Will I play them as long as I play Magic? Yes.

Bot of these cards have out-of-block uses. It's when you print the dreaded Shrines and Odyssey dual lands that we get mad. Why do I want to buy rares that I can only play for one or two years, then will never touch again? You can try out new ideas... But a whole rotation of a bad card? Let's try to stay away from that. Good cards, yay!! Bad Cards, boo!!!

I think most Magic players like making block constructed decks, but we also don't like throwing cards away after the block is done. I think your bad rares had a direct impact on the deck design of Block Constructed; they limited the choices for deck design, and less people played booster draft for fear of winning three Shrines. If you are going to make situational cards, make them in the uncommon and common slot. Don't make bad rares, or you better start another Magic card redemption program.