We can have nice things
October 5th 2010 00:04
“The storm is here!”
-- Lightning, in Final Fantasy XIII
A Magic card named “Lightning Bolt” always had to be powerful. The first version of it appeared in Limited Edition Alpha, and was based on a Dungeons and Dragons spell that you could ricochet off walls to kill eight people. A lot of eyebrows were raised when the new M10 version was confirmed. I know this because one of them was mine.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the card – I think it’s great. It has excellent art, an excellent name, history in Magic, history outside of Magic, and nowadays it also makes me think of Final Fantasy XIII. Finding it on the M10 list, though, seemed to contradict more than ten years of stated design philosophy about which creatures you were supposed to be able to flash-fry for just one red mana. As you may know, this is kind of one of my “things.”
It’s been discussed very often, but it always bears remembering that one reason that so many cards from the Limited Edition seem ridiculous in hindsight is because Richard Garfield never expected people to have more than one or two of them. One of the reasons Lightning Bolt is considered overpowered is because modern decks might draw up to four of them in a game, and 12 damage is worth more than half your opponent’s starting life total, four Lords of Shatterskull Pass, and three times Elspeth’s starting loyalty.
The four-of rule was originally considered a limitation, to put an end to degenerate decks like “20 Mountain, 20 Lightning Bolt.” But it seems to have worked a lot less than they expected it to – nowadays, in the era of both the four-of rule and increased awareness of power level on the designers' part, there are still people who feel pressured by cards they feel are overpowered. Wizards of the Coast’s real mistakes may not have been Lightning Bolt, or Bitterblossom, or Jace the Mind Sculptor; they may have been making the rules in such a way that it is possible to construct a deck where you see Lightning Bolt or Bitterblossom or Jace the Mind Sculptor in every game.
The four-of rule may be nearly as old as Magic itself, but so was the mana burn rule before M10 removed it. Antiquity and tradition are no barrier to change in this game. A deck that makes the same plays in every game is boring to play with, boring to play against, and contradicts the fundamental concept of the game, which promises a multiverse of ever-changing adventures and ever-growing mysteries. Given a choice between not seeing cool things like Lightning Bolt every game, and not having those cool things at all, I know which one I’d go for. If only one thing happens in 2011, it should be the end of the four-of rule and the beginning of the one-of rule.
-- Lightning, in Final Fantasy XIII
A Magic card named “Lightning Bolt” always had to be powerful. The first version of it appeared in Limited Edition Alpha, and was based on a Dungeons and Dragons spell that you could ricochet off walls to kill eight people. A lot of eyebrows were raised when the new M10 version was confirmed. I know this because one of them was mine.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the card – I think it’s great. It has excellent art, an excellent name, history in Magic, history outside of Magic, and nowadays it also makes me think of Final Fantasy XIII. Finding it on the M10 list, though, seemed to contradict more than ten years of stated design philosophy about which creatures you were supposed to be able to flash-fry for just one red mana. As you may know, this is kind of one of my “things.”
It’s been discussed very often, but it always bears remembering that one reason that so many cards from the Limited Edition seem ridiculous in hindsight is because Richard Garfield never expected people to have more than one or two of them. One of the reasons Lightning Bolt is considered overpowered is because modern decks might draw up to four of them in a game, and 12 damage is worth more than half your opponent’s starting life total, four Lords of Shatterskull Pass, and three times Elspeth’s starting loyalty.
The four-of rule was originally considered a limitation, to put an end to degenerate decks like “20 Mountain, 20 Lightning Bolt.” But it seems to have worked a lot less than they expected it to – nowadays, in the era of both the four-of rule and increased awareness of power level on the designers' part, there are still people who feel pressured by cards they feel are overpowered. Wizards of the Coast’s real mistakes may not have been Lightning Bolt, or Bitterblossom, or Jace the Mind Sculptor; they may have been making the rules in such a way that it is possible to construct a deck where you see Lightning Bolt or Bitterblossom or Jace the Mind Sculptor in every game.
The four-of rule may be nearly as old as Magic itself, but so was the mana burn rule before M10 removed it. Antiquity and tradition are no barrier to change in this game. A deck that makes the same plays in every game is boring to play with, boring to play against, and contradicts the fundamental concept of the game, which promises a multiverse of ever-changing adventures and ever-growing mysteries. Given a choice between not seeing cool things like Lightning Bolt every game, and not having those cool things at all, I know which one I’d go for. If only one thing happens in 2011, it should be the end of the four-of rule and the beginning of the one-of rule.
| 70 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
