This is the greatest and best Magic issues article in the world...

...tribute.

Sometimes, an idea for an article just walks up and whaps you over the head; this kind of article tends to be the best. That is what excites me as I sit down to write--this article sneaked up behind me one evening, bludgeoned me, and stole my shoes. I was reading Mr. Rosewater's article Talk To Me when I thought to myself,"Self, wouldn't it be awesome if someone answered each and every one of those hundred questions?" I promptly answered,"Why, self, I believe it would."

You: Grant, this is only your second article. Why are you writing from the viewpoint of a seasoned veteran?

Me: Yeahwatevah.

And so it begins - one man's odyssey though the longest short-answer test ever conceived. First, a bit about my perspective on Magic, so my writing has some context.

----------begin life story----------

I learned to play the game sometime around Tempest Block. It was definitely after Mirage, that I know for sure. I did not start playing regularly or buying much product until around Planeshift. In the interim, I was busy playing Decipher's Star Wars Customizable Card Game, God rest its soul. I only really got into Magic after it was announced that Decipher had lost the Star Wars license to Hasbro. George Lucas owns part of Hasbro, and when it acquired Wizards of the Coast, there was a clear conflict of interest. Sadly, Wizards declined to continue the old game, and I knew that it was time to move on.

My first Magic purchase was a 6^th Edition starter set. Early on, my favorite expansions were Fallen Empires, followed by Homelands, followed by Ice Age (Because Ice Age cost more than the other two). Homelands was good to me - coming off of Star Wars, I had this idea that the best cards would be the"Main Characters." I was a Timmy/Johnny at that point, and when I pulled a Joven and a Eron the Relentless in my first two packs, I thought that Homelands was awesome. Ice Age had Scaled Wurm and Goblin Snowman. Fallen Empires had lots of cool stuff. I really liked the whole Order of the Ebon Hand vs. the Icatians and the Order of Leitbur thing. As a whole, the flavor of those early sets was pretty cool.

My first real moment of enlightenment came when I was playing with my friend using a couple of borrowed decks. I attacked with my Mindstab Thrull, and opted to deal the damage. The guy who taught me the game said"No. You want to sacrifice him - trust me on this one." After much protest, I finally agreed. A few turns later I thought,"Oh... he has no cards left and I have like three; I guess that means that he can't stop my attacks anymore." Yes, my thoughts do include semicolons. Gradually, I began to like my Hymn to Tourach better than my Scaled Wurm.

The next set that I took any interest in was Planeshift. Everything about it looked cool, so I thought I'd buy some. The"gating" creatures (ha! Pacifism on my creature? I'll return it to my hand!) and my Planeswalker's Favor were my favorites. I also liked the multicolored instants. The whole set was so much more elegant than what I was used to. The next set I was interested in was Odyssey. All the cards seemed ridiculously powerful! My favorites were Shower of Coals and Scrivener. I never seemed to be able to get my hands on too many packs though.

Enter Onslaught Block. I had been planning on going to my first Star Wars tournament in the months before the game was discontinued (I would have played a janky Raltiir Ops deck and a similarly mis-homebrewed Massassi Base Ops deck), so going to a Magic tournament became my surrogate goal. I found out about FNM and the draft format by doing a search on magicthegathering.com, and was encouraged that I didn't need to own a bizzichillion dollars worth of cards to compete. I had been reading a few fundamental strategy articles on Star City by that time, and I finally realized how much I sucked, relatively speaking, which was my first major step towards not sucking (as much). I was disappointed to learn that all the cards I needed to play Standard were from Odyssey Block. I went to a my first tournament, a triple-onslaught draft, playing a Zombie deck featuring Nantuko Husk (yay!) and Gravespawn Sovereign. The latter was my first pick. It was foil. A regular talked me into taking it:

Me: Do you know what the chances of getting five zombies out are?

He: Are you going to win this tournament?

Me: No.

He: How often do you get a foil rare?

Me: True.

He: Good. Now pick Zombies.

Thank God I only drew it once. And thanks to the helping hand who gave me some sense of direction in that first draft (during which I picked Gustcloak Runner over Daru Lancer, btw).

I did a few more drafts, read a lot, and started to suck less. After a while, I was starting to get somewhat good; my play style was shifting towards Johnny/Spike. My first really successful constructed deck was a Red/Black Goblin deck featuring Goblin Taskmaster, Goblin Grenade, Cabal Slaver, Festering Goblin, Warbreak Trumpeter, and ever other Goblin card I could muster including Keeper of Kookus. It was blazingly fast compared to anything else I had ever seen. I thought about building a OnBC B/G Cemetery combo deck around Nantuko Husk and Wirewood Herald. When Mono-White Control crushed an early version of it, I abandoned the concept for a Goblin build. By the end of Onslaught Block, I had finished becoming a Spike/Johnny and was an above-average Magic Player - certainly the best of my friends.

----------end life story----------

For me, these are the"Good Old Days." This, I believe, gives me a valuable perspective on the game. While I have some sense of the game's history, it isn't so strong that I'm biased or stubborn regarding R&D's latest efforts.

Without further ado, here's the beef.

1.) Are you happy with the current Magic design?
Well, yes. I'm still buying cards, after all. Mirrodin is shaping up to be a good block... the power level isn't obscene, but it isn't Legions either. It's particularly cool in Limited. The shift from the usual plane was refreshing. The idea of each block being on a different plane is a good one, if that indeed is Wizards's plan.

2.) Is the quality of Magic design improving, staying the same, or declining?
Looking over the long term, it seems that things are getting better. Ben Bleiweiss wrote an interesting article on the history of Magic since Urza block, which outlines my opinion on the matter as well, more or less. The game has adjusted well to its growing popularity. It's becoming more accessible. In the short term, things are good as well. Odyssey was relatively well received, if a bit overpowered, and Onslaught block was adequate, although it wasn't super for Limited by any means. Mirrodin has really tickled me pink.

3.) Is the current state of Magic better, the same, or worse than Magic designs of the past?
Gee, isn't this a lot like the last question? I guess I'm supposed to talk about Alpha and stuff now. Well, I'd say that today's design is much cleaner than it was back in the early days. You don't see too many cards with 10+ lines of rules text anymore, which is probably a good thing. Also, nothing as blatantly broken as Ancestral Recall has slipped under the radar in a long time, all bickering about Psychatog and Wild Mongrel aside.

4.) What kind of cards don't we design enough of?
I'd have to say"niche" cards, to steal a term from Mr. Bleiweiss. Rather than make cards that my cat could figure out were bad, there need to be more cards that, while"bad" according to Spike, Timmy and Johhny can use. For instance, more Hundroog, less Okk.

5.) What kinds of cards do we design to much of?
First off, it should be"too many of." Come to think of it, there are quite a few grammar issues with these questions, but I'm not here to be the grammar police. I'm the here answers these here questions guy.

I'd have to say cards with no application anywhere, even casual - like the recently declared"worst card ever," Pale Moon. Also, cards which shove a certain deck down your throat are stinky. I know casual players like mechanic-themed decks - I've seen people make Modular decks or Phantom decks just because they can - but the best way to get people to use a mechanic is to make the mechanic itself good. Astral Slide and Lightning Rift come to mind, as to some of the"when a creature is turned face up" cards from Onslaught Block.

I like Astral Slide from a Johnnyish stack trick perspective, but the whole cycle was ill conceived. I could have forgiven it if it had been flavored well, but it wasn't, unfortunately. I discarded and then drew a card. How does that let me Shock you? Wizards has claimed that these types of cards are necessary, that they bring with them their own set of thought challenges, but I feel they're simply way too linear. I think I read that R&D is shifting towards more modular design (no pun intended, which usually means there was a pun intended, I've found, but not in this case). Good.

6.) How do you feel about the current size of expansions? (remember that Mirrodin block has decreased to 288 cards for a large expansion and increased to 165 for a small expansion)
This was absolutely the right move. It balances out R&D's time better, and it gives players a more even pace to buy or trade for the cards they want. No more panicking because the next set is out and you haven't gotten the cards you want from the last one yet. Legions kind of made the issue moot in the last block, though. The effect on Limited should be interesting. It will lessen the impact of bomb commons in the smaller sets (I almost wrote"bomb commons in the common slot") and lessen the likelihood of multiples in a deck, but what happens beyond that remains to be seen. I'm happy about the new arrangement. If you're not, I'd be really interested to hear why on the forums.

7) Is there too little, enough, or too much synergy in Magic design (synergy defined as interconnectivity between elements of the set)? Does current Magic design require too much thinking, just enough thinking, or not enough thinking?
Synergy tends to be good. The creatures that let you discard in Odyssey Block were good at this. They were synergistic without mentioning the names of the mechanics they were intended to be used with. Modular synergy is way better than linear synergy - Arcbounds + Dismantle or + Forge Armor is way better than Cyclers + Lightning Rift, for example. As a Spike and a Johnny, I want to have to search for my synergy, and I want it to be powerful. Recent sets have provided this to some extent, and Mirrodin got it just about perfect. Well, except for Affinity in some sense. But isn't"Affinity for Affinity;" playing one Affinity card by itself isn't a bad idea, especially when the things a card can have Affinity for aren't very restrictive ("No! I refuse to play with lands! No artifacts either!").

8) Is current Magic design too predictable, just right or not predictable enough?
I've found that once the large set is released, you pretty much know what the next two blocks are going to be like. However, I do enjoy the tension as the spoilers come out as people wait to see what new goodies their favorite deck got. An example of a block with an interesting twist is Invasion block - Apocalypse is a great example of how to make the last set surprising.

9) Is current Magic design too aggressive, just right, or not aggressive enough in breaking new boundaries?
I'm very happy with the recent direction Wizards has taken on this front. Mindslaver is perhaps the most fun card ever printed, for example. It's so much fun, I even like being on the receiving end of it. Artifact lands are another example of the cool things that happen when R&D pushes the envelope. There hasn't been a nightmare like Humility in a long time, which suggests that the designers are communicating better with the rules types. I like the degree of aggressiveness just the way it is. (Awwww.)

10) How well does current Magic design play with the cards of the past?
Pretty well. Different wordings of the same mechanic/card can sometimes cause arguments, but the changes are usually worth it. Except on Fireball. Certain mechanics just stink together though, like Banding and Provoke. Actually Banding and anything.

11) In what percentages do you believe the top cards should be divided among rarity (meaning what percentage should be common, how many uncommon and how many rare)?
Ah, finally something I have some strong feelings about. Cards designed with Limited in mind should be common. Cards powerful enough to severely disrupt the Limited environment, like Starstorm or Exalted Angel, should be rare. Cards that are rare because they're"weird," like Rukh Egg or Kaboom! should be uncommon, as should cards that are too good to be commons, but aren't very"flashy," like Wild Mongrel and Viridian Zealot. Cards that make Timmy jump for joy, like Thorn Elemental (specifically, high-costed but not over-costed) should be Rare - that way their prices are high enough that Johnny and Spikes can trade away a card they'll never use for cards Timmy will never use, like Wrath of God. Timmy doesn't tend to want multiples of the same rare, even for a deck, I've noticed, so making them rare shouldn't be too much of a problem."Utility" or"workhorse" cards that see play in Constructed based on their synergy with the deck or in an otherwise supporting role should be mostly common; Pyrite Spellbomb is a good example. If I had to chose a breakdown, I'd go 40% rare - 40% uncommon - 20% common. Props to Wizards for printing Skullclamp and Mirrodin's Core as uncommons.

12) Do you believe R&D designs too little, just enough, or too many narrow cards (that is cards that are powerful in a very narrow function)?
Too few, as I mentioned in my discussion of question 4. More Stabilizer, less Trap Digger.

13) If bad cards have to exist (and trust me they do), at what rarity do you believe the majority should go?
"Weird-bad" cards like Ice Cauldron should be uncommon, or not printed at all if it's overly complicated as well as underpowered enough to be a common."Do-nothing-bad," ex. Pale Moon, should never be printed. Ever."Niche-audience-bad," in the vein of Tempting Wurm and"niche-application-bad," in the vein of Mudhole could occasionally be rare.

14) How do you feel about cards that are slightly awkward mechanically but drip with flavor?
If this means Mindslaver or Form of the Dragon, I'm there. If this means Humility, I'm cowering in a fetal position in my closet.

Here are two ideas:

A.) Actually make another"Unglued" set. Call it"Reglued," or something. Save all the weird cards you design, like Goblin Game and Krark's Thumb, for that set. It would sell. And I'd be happy to not have to worry about opening up Goblin Game in my sealed decks.

B.) Offer a trade in program on Goblin Game. Mail in any number of Goblin Games with a SASE to Wizards, and receive back that many promo-foils from the Player Rewards Program.

Repeats
16) Do we currently do too little, just enough, or too many repeats?
As a relatively new player, I dig repeats. They make me feel better connected with Magic's past. Recent favorites include Juggernaut, Triskelion, and Terror. I can see how some older players might not appreciate getting the same card they already have fourteen of in a booster, but there are just as many, I think, who like the trip down memory lane.

17) Should we repeat cards in expansions that appear in the current base set?
No. This adds no value to the game at all. The card stays in Standard for an extra month or two - that's it. It has the downside of old-school repeats (for older players) without any of the advantages. Creeping Mold replaced Oxidize in Mirrodin when Oxidize was shifted to Darksteel, and I think Rosewater wanted to know what the public thought about decisions like this. Well, it was a bad idea.

18) Do you prefer a simple repeat or a tweak?
I prefer simple repeats."Tweaks" make me feel cheated for being born too late. I don't have the cards for Type I. I don't have the cards for Extended. I barely have the cards for Standard. When I get a"tweaked repeat," it only salts the wound.

19) How quickly is it okay to repeat a card?
I'd say that a delay until the fourth block after the original sounds about right (not counting Core Sets). It's a completely arbitrary number. I thought"what blocks seem old?" and anything before Invasion seems to be old enough to me. If anyone has a comment on this, post away!

20) How quickly is it okay to repeat a keyword mechanic?
Probably the same four block delay - an argument could be made for longer, but not shorter, as repeating a mechanic usually means repeating several cards, like Swat and Lay Waste.

21) When we bring back a keyword mechanic must we find a new tweak for it?
I'd say it would be pointless to bring back a mechanic and not tweak it. The game would get very really boring if R&D got lazy enough to not bother to do anything new in a set. Built in Cycling triggers (not like Lightning Rift, like Krosan Tusker) were a good tweak.

22) Do you like R&D reprinting old powerful cards with adjusted mana costs (such as Time Warp)?
Again, I feel gipped. The coolest thing R&D could do would be to reprint the power nine in their original forms, opening up Type 1.X to a new audience of players. I don't think the values of the originals would go down much; look at the price for an Arabian Nights City of Brass. And even if they did, the collections of players who own these cards are worth huge amounts of money anyway."Oh no, my $3,250 collection is only worth $2,850." The cards would obviously have to be banned in the formats they were introduced in, or else introduced in a tournament-legal promo set. I think the benefits of this would be much greater than any drawbacks.

Long time ago, me and by brother Ted here were walking down a long and lonesome road.

Then all of a sudden, there shined a shiny demon

In the middle

Of the road.

-End Part I-