Post removed because it contained too many small bits of inappropriate material. Infraction issued. Back off raidendart. The rest of you, there'll be more infractions if this continues.
my annoyance starts and end with two things
1. it is a RARE! "so was one with nothing!" you say. well, one with nothing facilitates hellbent
it does somethiing
One with Nothing does nothing. And was a bad card. Now, this is a 3/3 in the same way that One with Nothing facilitated hellbent. But they're both bad cards.
Boss is a hill giant, and since i cant afford to have four of him, and i probably wouldnt play him unless his second ability did something,he does nothing for me
He's poorly designed regardless of whether you can afford him (just cutting off the inevitable reply "Buy you're poor, so your opinion doesn't count" that someone would no doubt bring up.
which brings me to my second point
2. as crazy as it may seem, a useless ability definately makes a card less good, even if only on a psycological level.
it makes you go, wow, think of what this card WOULD have been, had we had Riggers! it makes us want something and thus even more dissapointed when we dont get it
Good point. If the second ability works like "noobs" think it does, then it's fricking awesome. But the rules don't work that way now, and changing the rules for no reason is bad.
the flavor is cool, a steampunk Magic universe is kinda cool, but that already smells of Izzet to me, and flavor does little to help a card's worth, or power. no amount of flavor will ever make squire good
Flavor's cool - but I assume even good cards can have good flavor. If you're only worried about flavor, then you're satisfied either way. Why not try to satisfy the most people, not "any number greater than 0."? I mean, making people happy is how you sell cards - it's what games are meant to do, among other things.
Well, yes, no one wants to open the Rigger. ... so it is a bad card. And it does sort of spit in our face.
I, uh, am skeptical about the rest of what you said, though. I mean, what you say is possible, but it doesn't really convince me of anything.
Also, your reputation as a nonsensical raving madman is not well-earned.
Given two equally valid options (1 making bad cards, or 2 making bad-for-a-format-cards), either is okay. But if one has a better outcome than the other, aim for that one. 2 > 1, so Rosewater is wrong... his arguments don't tell you why 2 is bad, they tell you why "something as good as 1 for X is good"... and 2 meets X as well or better than 1 (for example good standard cards could be bad for multiplayer).
Assume the second paragraph read, "If a Rigger you control would assemble a Contraption, it assembles two Contraptions of the same type instead." That seems like more legitimate templating that could actually appear on a card. Would you still be insulted?
You are one person. No one in this thread is making this argument but you. Only the original poster is even arguably saying what you're saying, and his argument seems to me to turn on the fact that there are no other Riggers for the Boss to pump - a complaint about the first paragraph of Steamflogger Boss, not the second.
I find it interesting that I wrote a dozen+ paragraphs and you pick one or two points and think you've shown I'm wrong. Clealy you can't believe that's true.
But, in regards to your question - if the templating was more legit, then I wouldn't be "as" offended. But the point is that right now it's game text that does nothing. If it did something, there wouldn't be the same problem.
As for me being one person - that doesn't matter. I have a position - an argument - that the card is bad, bad for the game, bad for you, bad for me, even bad for those who like it. Dismissing it as the ramblings of "just one man" is irresponsible. You might not know what's wrong with it (hint: There is nothing wrong with my argument, other than perhaps the impercise way I've stated it) - but don't dismiss it just because "one" person holds it.
And the rigger pumps other riggers (even of the same name) - see Goblin King in 8th.
That's swell. However, the argument I'm referring to is "The second paragraph of Steamflogger Boss' rules text is a spit in the face of all Magic players. The card would be perfectly fine if it weren't for the second paragraph."
Maybe. I won't say one way or another. But it wasn't printed like that, was it? Despite the fact that that is all it is.
If you were handed the following card, what would you think:
Savana Lions W
Creature - Lion
Whenever a Pickle comes into play, unhinge the all tackle-barts that you control. If a tackle-bart would be unhinged in this way, put a riot counter on each stencil you control for each tackle-bart unhinged in this way.
Stencils have Bands with Fruit. Dang, no room for flavor text!
2/1
What would you say?
What about if it was in Unhinged 3?
Mass of Hundred Souls6WWWW
Legendary Creature - Spirit
Mass of Hundred Souls can only be blocked by 3 or more creatures.
Mass of Hundred Souls can block up to 3 creatures.
When you splice Mass of Hundred Souls put three 1/1 white spirit tokens into play.
Splice onto Arcane - WW
10/10
Again, appeal to experience. I'm going to have to show why - DESPITE THE FACT that you think it's a fun card, it's not. (Or that any card that would replace it AND meet my criteria would be "as fun").
Appeal to ignorance. This is not a good argument. I think I've done a relatively good job of explaining WHY this is an insult. Please check above and pm me if you think I don't succeed in my task. But to recap:
1. The second block of text on the rigger purports to be game text, but in reality it appears to be meaningless.
2. Game text is always meaningful, even if it is only "rarely" meaningful (Great Wall discussion above). For it not to be meaningful is to harm the game (in the same way as carelessness about creature types or card wording leads to eratta).
3. The text appears to be designed "to look meaningless" - so even if it is relavent in the future, new rules will be needed to be written to do what the old rules can currently accomplish (see above discussion of artifact tokens, etc.)
_____________________
The text is a mistake.
It implies a possible, if unlikely, future, and the possibility of it having increased value in the future is somewhat intriguing.
Sadly, I think I've shown that either it's a poorly worded "possible future" - or, more likely, a purposely misworded red herring. Neither of which is enjoyable or respectable.
If you're insulted by WotCs decision to make cards for a variety of tastes, don't be. That's the way it is.
I'm insulted when WOTC thinks "I think this might be a possible future".
I'm scared that YOU think this might be a possible future.
And you can't say "this is how it is, so it must be okay" - There is no "ought" from "is".
Tlaon, I respect your opinion. However, it scares me a little. From my point of view it's as if WOTC is handing you an overcooked hamburger that's been purposely overcooked. The have a perfectly well cooked hamburger they could give to you, but instead they'll throw it away so that noone can eat it. You, innocently enamored with "a new kind of burger" - the crunchy burger, gladly pay WOTC. When you eat it - even if you somehow like the taste - it isn't healthy for you (pretend the burger has lost it's nutritional value). I want to yell *STOP! The burger's bad!* to protect you, but I *ALSO* want to criticize WOTC for selling you a bad product... and for doing so when there's a good product they could have otherwise sold you but will now go to waste. You're an unfortunate victim, who could have had a better burger with NO MORE WORK on WOTC's part, and WOTC has inexplicably given you the burger.
Sure, Rosewater might say "listen - some people might like crunchy burgers" or "If every burger is good, people won't really appreciate the good burgers" or even "if every burger that people buy is good, they'll invariably stop buying burgers because it lacks the surprise value" - or even "in order to keep the public happy, we have to lie to them and tell them that the vegiburger's a real hamburger, else they won't buy the vegiburger and will not get the nutrition of vegitables." But these are bad arguments. Don't defend the burger flipper who makes bad burgers on purpose.
But it's good in tribal unicorns, thus it's a good card.
Did you miss the context, or are your purposely mischaracterizing my position. Neither is good.
Fine. You didn't answer my own reasoning, that there are different sorts of players who enjoy Magic in different ways, and that Steamflogger Boss isn't for your type.
Uh... Noone can "enjoy" the rigger because of the "secondary text" - unless they enjoy being made fun of. And we have flavor text to make fun of players, and un-sets. This is neither, thus it's wrong.
I answered your "reasoning" - you don't have a coherent position. Players can enjoy the game for any number of reasons, but this satisfies none of them. Show me how I'm wrong.
Take Gibby41's advice, focus on cards you enjoy rather than rant about this one that isn't meant for you.
Ignore the bad, consider only the good. Let's institutionalize this policy. After all, I'm not in the military - so what should I care if the military is sent off to fight in unjust wars? Oh, wait, I'm in the military? Let me focus on the good and not the bad. I know I'm risking my life so that Bush and oil companies can make money... but if I die, my wife gets a big check from the government! Focus on the good!
If this position seems nonsensical, it's because it is. Absurd positions cannot be reasonably held. Surely G41 has some other position in mind. How much you wanna bet it's something like "a 95% success rate is pretty good...".
You've got two options: adapt to the environment, or leave it.
Does WOTC want me to stop playing magic? Do you? Because I'm pretty sure WOTC wants to appeal to a lot of players. And appealing to those who like your game and want it to be better seems better than appealing to those who don't know when they've been scammed. Long-term health of the game dictates quality over quantity.
And, of course, it's unknown whether this will remain a junk rare or move into completely broken.
Again, the second line is nonsense as-is. If new sets make it "broken", that's poor design. I can make Mon's Goblin Raider broken too... watch:
Mons Goblin Watch R
Instant
Split Second
Search your library for up to 4 cards named Mons Goblin Raiders and put them into play. The get +4,+4 and haste until end of turn. Stack your deck. You can't lose the game this turn, and your opponent can't win the game this turn.
Wow, I guess Mons Goblin raiders were a good card... too bad they've not been reprinted! Silly me, you showed me I'm wrong: Mons Goblin Raiders is a broken card.
Yep, I'm a crazy person who likes this card, and obviously our two opinions cannot coexist in the world.
All joking aside, the fact of the matter is that game text is designed to do soemthing. Here we have game text that does nothing. It's flavor text in disguise. Not only will the text itself NOT be programed into MTGO, but the rules don't tell you what they do. Hence, that part of the card DOES NOT exist on the card as games text. It's a misprint.
Feel free to like misprints. I had an Urza's saga wurm that was misprinted. Half of the Jayas I've opened have an impurity in the art - a fog over her face. Misprints are kind of fun. *BUT* they should not misprint cards solely to please those that like misprinted cards - the majority of people will stop playing because the cards don't do what they say they do, and the people who like misprints will likely stop liking them because they're not "misprinted" - but designed to look misprinted - and that's not fun as the standard, but only as the exception.
You've found yourself in the position of defending a misprint, or for proving it's not. To prove it's not, you must make sense of the game text. When MTGO comes out with the FS patch, show me what the games text does on this card - and you'll have proven me right. Or, of course, you can defend printing misprints on purpose. As you can tell, I don't think this is really a coherent position. You just have to show me that I'm wrong, and I'll thank you for it.
"1. If there is rules text that has no use, or cards that will see no play, then they ought not be printed."
I contest this point, as I purchased 4 Great Walls simply because they have rules text that has no use.
I can change to islandwalk to plainswalk with one of the magical hack type cards, then you can't block my creautre. Or I can give my giant slug plainswalk for the low cost of 5 mana. Then I give it +19/+0 and win the game. OH NO! GREAT WALL!
The fact that you rarely use Great Wall doesn't mean it has no use.
Sorry if it's not your cup of tea, but the point is that it's someone's, and that this someone likes those cards.
Actually, I think I've argued that it's noone's cup of tea. I can't take you at your word, since you didn't state this EXCEPT to try and prove me wrong in your SECOND reply to me. I have every reason to think you're grasping at straws to defend your position, as you've advocated several different, and inconsistent, views within this very post. (Note: As a philosophy doctoral student, I can provide you entire articles on this illigitimate tactic if you're TRULY interested. Just ask yourself if, before I presented my position, you believed in "ignoring the bad things in life and focussing on the good" (example: Your parents are being murdered, do you walk away and watch tv because it's not depressing, or try and help your folks?), or did you believe that it was in Magic's interest to make people unhappy and make people leave the game?
Seriously - I'm open to an argument, or at least an explanation, why bad cards should be printed. Rosewater tries, and fails, as my assertion that "good but not absolutely good" satisfies all the benifits of printing bad cards without actually printing any.
So you are, like, personally offended by this card? "The spit in the face?" Man, you should go lie down or something. I think you have a bad case of the anger.
Though you say "we" a lot in this paragraph, I'm pretty sure there aren't very many people arguing your position. I'm not a fan of the card either, but I wouldn't like it any more without the second paragraph.
Pretend your Boss calls you an idiot - and you mishear him and think he said "Good job". Is this an insult? Yes. Do you think you've been insulted? No.
I've argued that this card should be considered an insult - they're making fun of you because they have game text that doesn't do what game text does. It's flavor text that looks like game text. (See argument above). If you're not convinced by this argument, I'm sorry. Still - ask yourself WHY they would print this non-sense text. If the term "red herring" comes up - then they're misleading you. On purpose. Of course, since the game text is, and necessarily so, nonsense, it's not a "what if this is the future" red herring, but a "this actually doesn't make sense, and if it ever does make sense it's simply bad templating turned into official templating to trick you into thinking it's false". Long story short, WOTC is suggesting you're "too stupid" to know what nonsense text is. And this is an insult, regardless of whether you realize it.
As for "we" - any group of people more than 1 is plural, and "we" works.
Well, it makes more sense when you say it with less vehemence ;), but I still can't fully agree. This particular set was released knowing that certain parts of the text were there to show what was in the works, not necessarily give effect to those parts of text, just like the tarmogoyf discussion on "planeswalker" that sent people into a torrent of rumors. It's there because the cards are supposed to be from future sets.
However, I would still say that having a useless line of text is hardly a reason to get angry - the card can only become better because of that second block of text. While it can't be used now, that block does not in any way make the card weaker, so its not really worthwhile to complain about it. The only reason to complain about it is because you want to see what that block of text will let it do in the future. If you are wondering that...then the card, like it or not, has served its purpose.
I would say for now, just enjoy the 3/3 red, non tramply Aurochs (remembering back to when it had no friends) and we'll see what it amounts to later on
Actually WOTC has said they're things they "might do" - so, in reality this set is no different from any other unique and interesting set - EXCEPT that they decided to keyword almost everything that could be keyworded - WITHOUT meeting the minimum amount of cards for "keywordness". Sadly since the rigger text is either nonsense, or purposely misleading (which would transfer into unclear rules text if ever followed up on), this doesn't count as being productive or interesting - it counts as wasteful, ignorant, insulting, and harms the game.
Having a useless line of text designed to be useless, misleading, and that has no benifit but only harm SEEMS like a good reason to get angry. If you're part of the "minority" that thinks that the second block of text COULD do something in the future - I take it that WOTC has tricked you. The text is NOW nonsense. If they're tokens, then they should be tokens - not constructs (We have enchantment tokens now...). But they also have to be comething that can be doubled... so they can't be cards... or sets of cards... or combinations of cards (think complex imprint chain). If they're spells, the "contraption" seems like a poor name for them. A careful reading of the text shows that it's not only *NOW* nonsense, and designed to be so, but for it ever *NOT* to be nonsense, they'd have to introduce several misleading, confusing, or otherwise "poorly formated" rules into the game just to make it work. As I said before, look at MTGO's text - this "block of text" will be functionally the same as flavor text. It *DOES NOTHING* and never should.
Had it been "whenever an effect of a rigger you control would put an (artifact token - ) Contraption into play, instead that effect puts two tokens into play." then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Coldsnap made fun of the ambiguity of creature types/card names in Ice Age. Fine. But this is a whole new league of substandard design - and unlike early creature-type mistakes, this is done on purpose.
I'd be happy to pop Steamflogger Boss, just for the coolness value.
So everyone who doesn't like them can blame me for making it profitable for WotC to print cards that are bad, yet cool at the same time. The fact that cards like Nephilim, Magemarks, Thran Golem, One with Nothing, etc. exist makes me happy, and I'm never really disappointing popping one, even though I know that they're bad. It's satisfying somehow.
Uh... sadly there was a rather efficient aggro magemark deck - especially in triple guildpack draft, so I guess Magemarks aren't bad (not absolutely bad). Nephilims all have potentially powerful effects (Although had they all been 3/3s, some might have seen constructed play). A friend of mine got one out on turn 3 with a signet, and put lots of sand tokens into play the next turn. So, again, I hate to say it - Nephilims aren't absolutely bad. The rigger is a 3/3 for 4 with tribal effects. IN THAT REGARD - it's not bad. But we're not talking about it in that regard, as I've tried to make clear.
So, if you want to repeat your "argument" that says "I like bad cards, so WOTC is making me happy, and thus doing a good job" (FYI, this is a rather good argument if WOTC really is making you happy). But to do so, you'll have to explain how you like Squire or Moonlace. And not for "homage value" as other cards could have been picked solely for this purpose but not been absolutely bad. And not for "ballance issues" since other cards could have been picked that would have maintained the ballance and still been cooler to open. And you can't even say "I like it because others don't" - because there will always be cards that others don't like - they'll just be "relatively bad" - not absolutely bad.
Mark Rosewater has written a few articles on this subject. I'd suggest starting with this one and following the links in that article to his others.
*Maybe*
He's wrong/lying.
Question authority.
And don't fall for propoganda.
*logically possible*
It's perfectly consistent to say "All cards can be good, but not all cards can be absolutely good."
Instead of Moonlace, why not give me some card that is ONLY decent in tribal goblins, or in emporer (there's a mask like this I hear...), or in 2 headed giant... or in legacy or type 1 (Trinisphere anyone?). Maybe a card that's not very good, but has a unique creature type to facilitate tribal unicrons.
Rosewater can't answer that satisfactorily. If you think he does, SHOW US. QUOTE the passage that's relevant. Bush can tell you that there's WMD in Iraq but you damned well shouldn't believe him until you see proof. And it better be impartial evidence, and not tampered with to "justify" his behavior.
Pointing to Rosewater and saying "he's had more practice than we have, he knows best" is feigned ignorance. Especially when Rosewater doesn't adequately do the job.
Given that we have no clue what "riggers" are, how they would make a "contraption" or what such a "contraption" would do, your pre-emptive complaining about how they shouldn't be done seems almost as irrelevant as this card.
Try to remember, wizards doesn't print cards for you - they print cards for people who want to enjoy the game, instead of whining when every card doesn't suit them. Some of those cards will suit you, and you can play with them. Other cards will suit people who love "irrelevant" cards.
Casual players can have fun with it - Combo this little guy with conspiracy? All creatures you control get +1+0 and haste....how about followed footsteps? Sure there's better things to do with better cards, but that doesn't mean the card is a waste of space.
Unfortunately, your rant seems to indicate that you'd rather complain than just play with the cards that you do like. Too bad really, you'd have a lot more fun if your anger weren't busy being such a wast of space.
edit: Right on Zith
1. We have a good idea of what riggers "are" - it's a creature type.
2. "assemble a contraption" sure tells you that they're not putting a token into play, but "instead they assemble two" tells you that it's an effect easily doubled. Then there's the english meanings of the terms involved, which have clear definitions. We know far more than you claim we do, and we are not amused.
3. WOTC prints cards for $$$. Well, that's not true. They practice a craft - and make money as a result of that craft. That craft is to make a fun game. So, WOTC *OUGHT* make a fun game when they're doing their job right. Riggers aren't fun, they've failled, end of story.
4. I know the card has "other uses" - it's a 3/3 for 3R... that gives bonuses to creatures who are, or are turned into, riggers. YeaH! But we're WORRED ABOUT THE SECOND BLOCK OF TEXT. If it could have been printed w/o the latter NON-FLAVOR text and had the SAME EXACT EFFECT on the game, then it should have been. If for no more reason then to save ink and people the time reading the useless games text. If you want to tell me that a 3/3 for 4 with a random first ability is a worthwild card, I probably won't argue with you about it. But we're discussing the second ability - the nonsense ability - the spit in the face, insult you for buying the cards and playing the game ability.
Unfotunately you seem utterly confused about the topic of discussion here and are attacking me for no reason. Perhaps we've been "less clear" about the problem we have with the rigger - if that's so, I'm sorry. I hope this has explained it to you, but to recap:
Position:
1. If there is rules text that has no use, or cards that will see no play, then they ought not be printed.
2. Assertion: The second block of text on our rigger is such text.
_________
C: The second block of text on the rigger is a mistake/shouldn't have been printed/the card was poorly designed - take your pick.
Now, I hope, you're on the same page as the rest of us.
I'll fill you in. The idea of Future Sight is to hint at cards, and sets, from the future. The idea of possible futures.
In some ways, our reactions to these cards is affecting the future, since Wizards still has to make future sets.
But of course, to keep the whole set from being spoilers, not every card can be a veritical glimpse of the future. Some have to be plants.
I completely expect Contraptions, and their assembly, to stay out of magic for at least five years, if they show up at all.
And what's wrong with completely irrelevant cards? Squire. ?
No, I'll - give you a hint: The point of the set is to fulfill the role of a third set - to round out block, add varietty to standard, and introduce new cards for peope to play with.
So... at what point does "rigger tribal" help out block? Standard? Limited? Oh, wait, it doesn't. Fails in that regard.
Does it offer cards for people to play with? No... because you can't construct things - and never will be able to.
As for "future shifted cards" - what is this? Exploring new ideas? Fine. Transmute, Granduer, non-mana echo costs, etc. New ground to explore. A new cycle of cycles of duals? new ground to explore (literally). Land creatures, non-creature morphs, etc - new ground to explore.
Rigger? "Fake" future shifted card, something we'll never do and we're making fun of you by suggesting anything otherwise. So it FAILS to do what Future Sight has set out to do.
And you're right - the fact that everyone says "they'll never do riggers" will be just enough of a push for some j*ck*ass to say "ah, ha! Riggers!" - yet another spit in our face. "We're doing this just because you said it was a bad idea". So, yes, though it can be done - it really shouldn't and wouldn't unless this dumb card had been printed. Nothing like being your own grandfather to foster mental retardation and mutation into your genes.
As for what's wrong with "irrelevant" cards - you're asking the wrong question. What's RIGHT with Squire, with Moonlace, with this? If the answer is "nothing" then it's up to YOU to justify wasting time, killing trees, and disappointing people who buy your product. If you can't justify it then the set fails.
But don't take that as evidence that I don't have arguments about what's wrong with the cards - I have every reason to think they're a waste, an insult, and a poor choice for a company trying to make money. I'm just too tired to repeat it every time WOTC prints something that noone in their right mind, when informed, would want to open.
less than $3 really only useable in a select few combo decks. Control decks do not want to be tapping out on their own turn
You miss the point that this enables combo decks (along with the tutoring transmute land...). ALL "one turn win" combo decks in standard and extended will run this card. It will see serious play in type 1 and legacy.
At least 50% of the decks in the new standard will run this card. Think about that...
Easy...
1. Pact of Negation
2-6. The duals...all better than painlands, none better than shocks, tho.
7. Venser
8. Glittering Wish
9. Delay
10. Magus of the Vineyard
the duals get 5 spots because this set sucks, value-wise.
Korlash is a Nightmare for 2 less that regenerates in a format where that usually matters, with dual lands and swamp cyclers. How does this not "count" as better than a screwy hybrid mana filterland?
Jhoira single-handedly breaks Planar Chaos's X suspend cards, as well as several other cards; and single-handedly makes a suspend deck possible in standard and block (yes, you need a way to nix teferi... no pun intended).
Oh, then there's the morph land... mana acceleration and possible finisher all in one. Not quite Stalking Stones, but control decks can use it none-the-less.
Let alone MR. 5/5 flyer on turn 3...
But you're right - this set is seriously lacking good cards, and what good cards they have usually predicate a combo-season like noone's business.
Aether Sight :2mana::symu:
Instant - Arcane
Splice onto Arcane - :1mana::symu:
Look at target opponent's sideboard. You may choose an instant or sorcery from that sideboard, reveal it, and play it without paying it's mana cost. (Put it into it's owner's graveyard after the spell resolves)
Llanowar Starwatcher :1mana::symg:
Creature - Elf Shaman
Whenever an opponent plays a creature spell, you may discard a creature card. If you do, you may search your sideboard for a creature card with the same name as the creature your opponent played, and put it into play. The constalations tell the story of great beasts, locked in endless battle. To know their name is to demand their allegance.
1/3
Magus of the Moat so singularly denies MonoGreen, I am certain that exactly one of the following is true:
(1) R&D doesn't like monogreen aggro right now.
(2) R&D just made a MAJOR oversight.
The Magus devastates MGA. I can't think of a single card that so totally denies an entire COLOR in the history of the game. I guess... win before opponent draws it? Or perhaps, Magus will turn out not to be good enough to MD?
Again, Mouth of Ronom is solid. In standard, you can even tutor for it on turn 2. Or you could splash red/black... or blue.
A joke at who's expense? The games? (It is rules text) -> Bad. The players? -> bad. The designers? -> Bad.
Jokes are for unglued. To say it's a joke is to say it's wrong.
One with Nothing does nothing. And was a bad card. Now, this is a 3/3 in the same way that One with Nothing facilitated hellbent. But they're both bad cards.
He's poorly designed regardless of whether you can afford him (just cutting off the inevitable reply "Buy you're poor, so your opinion doesn't count" that someone would no doubt bring up.
From a design standpoint more importantly.
Good point. If the second ability works like "noobs" think it does, then it's fricking awesome. But the rules don't work that way now, and changing the rules for no reason is bad.
Flavor's cool - but I assume even good cards can have good flavor. If you're only worried about flavor, then you're satisfied either way. Why not try to satisfy the most people, not "any number greater than 0."? I mean, making people happy is how you sell cards - it's what games are meant to do, among other things.
Given two equally valid options (1 making bad cards, or 2 making bad-for-a-format-cards), either is okay. But if one has a better outcome than the other, aim for that one. 2 > 1, so Rosewater is wrong... his arguments don't tell you why 2 is bad, they tell you why "something as good as 1 for X is good"... and 2 meets X as well or better than 1 (for example good standard cards could be bad for multiplayer).
So, thanks. I might be mad, but I'm not a madman.
I find it interesting that I wrote a dozen+ paragraphs and you pick one or two points and think you've shown I'm wrong. Clealy you can't believe that's true.
But, in regards to your question - if the templating was more legit, then I wouldn't be "as" offended. But the point is that right now it's game text that does nothing. If it did something, there wouldn't be the same problem.
As for me being one person - that doesn't matter. I have a position - an argument - that the card is bad, bad for the game, bad for you, bad for me, even bad for those who like it. Dismissing it as the ramblings of "just one man" is irresponsible. You might not know what's wrong with it (hint: There is nothing wrong with my argument, other than perhaps the impercise way I've stated it) - but don't dismiss it just because "one" person holds it.
And the rigger pumps other riggers (even of the same name) - see Goblin King in 8th.
Maybe. I won't say one way or another. But it wasn't printed like that, was it? Despite the fact that that is all it is.
If you were handed the following card, what would you think:
Savana Lions W
Creature - Lion
Whenever a Pickle comes into play, unhinge the all tackle-barts that you control. If a tackle-bart would be unhinged in this way, put a riot counter on each stencil you control for each tackle-bart unhinged in this way.
Stencils have Bands with Fruit.
Dang, no room for flavor text!
2/1
What would you say?
What about if it was in Unhinged 3?
Three? For WW? Seems like a lot...
But your idea is very solid.
Argument by appeal to experience. Good start. Let me analyze what you say next to make it clear that we're using "enjoy" in the right way.
Again, appeal to experience. I'm going to have to show why - DESPITE THE FACT that you think it's a fun card, it's not. (Or that any card that would replace it AND meet my criteria would be "as fun").
Appeal to ignorance. This is not a good argument. I think I've done a relatively good job of explaining WHY this is an insult. Please check above and pm me if you think I don't succeed in my task. But to recap:
1. The second block of text on the rigger purports to be game text, but in reality it appears to be meaningless.
2. Game text is always meaningful, even if it is only "rarely" meaningful (Great Wall discussion above). For it not to be meaningful is to harm the game (in the same way as carelessness about creature types or card wording leads to eratta).
3. The text appears to be designed "to look meaningless" - so even if it is relavent in the future, new rules will be needed to be written to do what the old rules can currently accomplish (see above discussion of artifact tokens, etc.)
_____________________
The text is a mistake.
Sadly, I think I've shown that either it's a poorly worded "possible future" - or, more likely, a purposely misworded red herring. Neither of which is enjoyable or respectable.
I'm insulted when WOTC thinks "I think this might be a possible future".
I'm scared that YOU think this might be a possible future.
And you can't say "this is how it is, so it must be okay" - There is no "ought" from "is".
Tlaon, I respect your opinion. However, it scares me a little. From my point of view it's as if WOTC is handing you an overcooked hamburger that's been purposely overcooked. The have a perfectly well cooked hamburger they could give to you, but instead they'll throw it away so that noone can eat it. You, innocently enamored with "a new kind of burger" - the crunchy burger, gladly pay WOTC. When you eat it - even if you somehow like the taste - it isn't healthy for you (pretend the burger has lost it's nutritional value). I want to yell *STOP! The burger's bad!* to protect you, but I *ALSO* want to criticize WOTC for selling you a bad product... and for doing so when there's a good product they could have otherwise sold you but will now go to waste. You're an unfortunate victim, who could have had a better burger with NO MORE WORK on WOTC's part, and WOTC has inexplicably given you the burger.
Sure, Rosewater might say "listen - some people might like crunchy burgers" or "If every burger is good, people won't really appreciate the good burgers" or even "if every burger that people buy is good, they'll invariably stop buying burgers because it lacks the surprise value" - or even "in order to keep the public happy, we have to lie to them and tell them that the vegiburger's a real hamburger, else they won't buy the vegiburger and will not get the nutrition of vegitables." But these are bad arguments. Don't defend the burger flipper who makes bad burgers on purpose.
But it's good in tribal unicorns, thus it's a good card.
Did you miss the context, or are your purposely mischaracterizing my position. Neither is good.
95% success is pretty good. But when you AIM for 95% success, it's bad.
I know his argument isn't as good as mine. Knowledge > thinking.
Uh... Noone can "enjoy" the rigger because of the "secondary text" - unless they enjoy being made fun of. And we have flavor text to make fun of players, and un-sets. This is neither, thus it's wrong.
I answered your "reasoning" - you don't have a coherent position. Players can enjoy the game for any number of reasons, but this satisfies none of them. Show me how I'm wrong.
Ignore the bad, consider only the good. Let's institutionalize this policy. After all, I'm not in the military - so what should I care if the military is sent off to fight in unjust wars? Oh, wait, I'm in the military? Let me focus on the good and not the bad. I know I'm risking my life so that Bush and oil companies can make money... but if I die, my wife gets a big check from the government! Focus on the good!
If this position seems nonsensical, it's because it is. Absurd positions cannot be reasonably held. Surely G41 has some other position in mind. How much you wanna bet it's something like "a 95% success rate is pretty good...".
The fact that it's not the first is immaterial, the fact that it won't be last is reason to be sad.
Does WOTC want me to stop playing magic? Do you? Because I'm pretty sure WOTC wants to appeal to a lot of players. And appealing to those who like your game and want it to be better seems better than appealing to those who don't know when they've been scammed. Long-term health of the game dictates quality over quantity.
Again, the second line is nonsense as-is. If new sets make it "broken", that's poor design. I can make Mon's Goblin Raider broken too... watch:
Mons Goblin Watch R
Instant
Split Second
Search your library for up to 4 cards named Mons Goblin Raiders and put them into play. The get +4,+4 and haste until end of turn. Stack your deck. You can't lose the game this turn, and your opponent can't win the game this turn.
Wow, I guess Mons Goblin raiders were a good card... too bad they've not been reprinted! Silly me, you showed me I'm wrong: Mons Goblin Raiders is a broken card.
Saying it doesn't make it true. I offered an argument. I think I've shown your arguments aren't exactly convincing.
All joking aside, the fact of the matter is that game text is designed to do soemthing. Here we have game text that does nothing. It's flavor text in disguise. Not only will the text itself NOT be programed into MTGO, but the rules don't tell you what they do. Hence, that part of the card DOES NOT exist on the card as games text. It's a misprint.
Feel free to like misprints. I had an Urza's saga wurm that was misprinted. Half of the Jayas I've opened have an impurity in the art - a fog over her face. Misprints are kind of fun. *BUT* they should not misprint cards solely to please those that like misprinted cards - the majority of people will stop playing because the cards don't do what they say they do, and the people who like misprints will likely stop liking them because they're not "misprinted" - but designed to look misprinted - and that's not fun as the standard, but only as the exception.
You've found yourself in the position of defending a misprint, or for proving it's not. To prove it's not, you must make sense of the game text. When MTGO comes out with the FS patch, show me what the games text does on this card - and you'll have proven me right. Or, of course, you can defend printing misprints on purpose. As you can tell, I don't think this is really a coherent position. You just have to show me that I'm wrong, and I'll thank you for it.
I can change to islandwalk to plainswalk with one of the magical hack type cards, then you can't block my creautre. Or I can give my giant slug plainswalk for the low cost of 5 mana. Then I give it +19/+0 and win the game. OH NO! GREAT WALL!
The fact that you rarely use Great Wall doesn't mean it has no use.
Actually, I think I've argued that it's noone's cup of tea. I can't take you at your word, since you didn't state this EXCEPT to try and prove me wrong in your SECOND reply to me. I have every reason to think you're grasping at straws to defend your position, as you've advocated several different, and inconsistent, views within this very post. (Note: As a philosophy doctoral student, I can provide you entire articles on this illigitimate tactic if you're TRULY interested. Just ask yourself if, before I presented my position, you believed in "ignoring the bad things in life and focussing on the good" (example: Your parents are being murdered, do you walk away and watch tv because it's not depressing, or try and help your folks?), or did you believe that it was in Magic's interest to make people unhappy and make people leave the game?
Seriously - I'm open to an argument, or at least an explanation, why bad cards should be printed. Rosewater tries, and fails, as my assertion that "good but not absolutely good" satisfies all the benifits of printing bad cards without actually printing any.
Pretend your Boss calls you an idiot - and you mishear him and think he said "Good job". Is this an insult? Yes. Do you think you've been insulted? No.
I've argued that this card should be considered an insult - they're making fun of you because they have game text that doesn't do what game text does. It's flavor text that looks like game text. (See argument above). If you're not convinced by this argument, I'm sorry. Still - ask yourself WHY they would print this non-sense text. If the term "red herring" comes up - then they're misleading you. On purpose. Of course, since the game text is, and necessarily so, nonsense, it's not a "what if this is the future" red herring, but a "this actually doesn't make sense, and if it ever does make sense it's simply bad templating turned into official templating to trick you into thinking it's false". Long story short, WOTC is suggesting you're "too stupid" to know what nonsense text is. And this is an insult, regardless of whether you realize it.
As for "we" - any group of people more than 1 is plural, and "we" works.
Actually WOTC has said they're things they "might do" - so, in reality this set is no different from any other unique and interesting set - EXCEPT that they decided to keyword almost everything that could be keyworded - WITHOUT meeting the minimum amount of cards for "keywordness". Sadly since the rigger text is either nonsense, or purposely misleading (which would transfer into unclear rules text if ever followed up on), this doesn't count as being productive or interesting - it counts as wasteful, ignorant, insulting, and harms the game.
Having a useless line of text designed to be useless, misleading, and that has no benifit but only harm SEEMS like a good reason to get angry. If you're part of the "minority" that thinks that the second block of text COULD do something in the future - I take it that WOTC has tricked you. The text is NOW nonsense. If they're tokens, then they should be tokens - not constructs (We have enchantment tokens now...). But they also have to be comething that can be doubled... so they can't be cards... or sets of cards... or combinations of cards (think complex imprint chain). If they're spells, the "contraption" seems like a poor name for them. A careful reading of the text shows that it's not only *NOW* nonsense, and designed to be so, but for it ever *NOT* to be nonsense, they'd have to introduce several misleading, confusing, or otherwise "poorly formated" rules into the game just to make it work. As I said before, look at MTGO's text - this "block of text" will be functionally the same as flavor text. It *DOES NOTHING* and never should.
Had it been "whenever an effect of a rigger you control would put an (artifact token - ) Contraption into play, instead that effect puts two tokens into play." then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Coldsnap made fun of the ambiguity of creature types/card names in Ice Age. Fine. But this is a whole new league of substandard design - and unlike early creature-type mistakes, this is done on purpose.
Uh... sadly there was a rather efficient aggro magemark deck - especially in triple guildpack draft, so I guess Magemarks aren't bad (not absolutely bad). Nephilims all have potentially powerful effects (Although had they all been 3/3s, some might have seen constructed play). A friend of mine got one out on turn 3 with a signet, and put lots of sand tokens into play the next turn. So, again, I hate to say it - Nephilims aren't absolutely bad. The rigger is a 3/3 for 4 with tribal effects. IN THAT REGARD - it's not bad. But we're not talking about it in that regard, as I've tried to make clear.
So, if you want to repeat your "argument" that says "I like bad cards, so WOTC is making me happy, and thus doing a good job" (FYI, this is a rather good argument if WOTC really is making you happy). But to do so, you'll have to explain how you like Squire or Moonlace. And not for "homage value" as other cards could have been picked solely for this purpose but not been absolutely bad. And not for "ballance issues" since other cards could have been picked that would have maintained the ballance and still been cooler to open. And you can't even say "I like it because others don't" - because there will always be cards that others don't like - they'll just be "relatively bad" - not absolutely bad.
*Maybe*
He's wrong/lying.
Question authority.
And don't fall for propoganda.
*logically possible*
It's perfectly consistent to say "All cards can be good, but not all cards can be absolutely good."
Instead of Moonlace, why not give me some card that is ONLY decent in tribal goblins, or in emporer (there's a mask like this I hear...), or in 2 headed giant... or in legacy or type 1 (Trinisphere anyone?). Maybe a card that's not very good, but has a unique creature type to facilitate tribal unicrons.
Rosewater can't answer that satisfactorily. If you think he does, SHOW US. QUOTE the passage that's relevant. Bush can tell you that there's WMD in Iraq but you damned well shouldn't believe him until you see proof. And it better be impartial evidence, and not tampered with to "justify" his behavior.
Pointing to Rosewater and saying "he's had more practice than we have, he knows best" is feigned ignorance. Especially when Rosewater doesn't adequately do the job.
1. We have a good idea of what riggers "are" - it's a creature type.
2. "assemble a contraption" sure tells you that they're not putting a token into play, but "instead they assemble two" tells you that it's an effect easily doubled. Then there's the english meanings of the terms involved, which have clear definitions. We know far more than you claim we do, and we are not amused.
3. WOTC prints cards for $$$. Well, that's not true. They practice a craft - and make money as a result of that craft. That craft is to make a fun game. So, WOTC *OUGHT* make a fun game when they're doing their job right. Riggers aren't fun, they've failled, end of story.
4. I know the card has "other uses" - it's a 3/3 for 3R... that gives bonuses to creatures who are, or are turned into, riggers. YeaH! But we're WORRED ABOUT THE SECOND BLOCK OF TEXT. If it could have been printed w/o the latter NON-FLAVOR text and had the SAME EXACT EFFECT on the game, then it should have been. If for no more reason then to save ink and people the time reading the useless games text. If you want to tell me that a 3/3 for 4 with a random first ability is a worthwild card, I probably won't argue with you about it. But we're discussing the second ability - the nonsense ability - the spit in the face, insult you for buying the cards and playing the game ability.
Unfotunately you seem utterly confused about the topic of discussion here and are attacking me for no reason. Perhaps we've been "less clear" about the problem we have with the rigger - if that's so, I'm sorry. I hope this has explained it to you, but to recap:
Position:
1. If there is rules text that has no use, or cards that will see no play, then they ought not be printed.
2. Assertion: The second block of text on our rigger is such text.
_________
C: The second block of text on the rigger is a mistake/shouldn't have been printed/the card was poorly designed - take your pick.
Now, I hope, you're on the same page as the rest of us.
No, I'll - give you a hint: The point of the set is to fulfill the role of a third set - to round out block, add varietty to standard, and introduce new cards for peope to play with.
So... at what point does "rigger tribal" help out block? Standard? Limited? Oh, wait, it doesn't. Fails in that regard.
Does it offer cards for people to play with? No... because you can't construct things - and never will be able to.
As for "future shifted cards" - what is this? Exploring new ideas? Fine. Transmute, Granduer, non-mana echo costs, etc. New ground to explore. A new cycle of cycles of duals? new ground to explore (literally). Land creatures, non-creature morphs, etc - new ground to explore.
Rigger? "Fake" future shifted card, something we'll never do and we're making fun of you by suggesting anything otherwise. So it FAILS to do what Future Sight has set out to do.
And you're right - the fact that everyone says "they'll never do riggers" will be just enough of a push for some j*ck*ass to say "ah, ha! Riggers!" - yet another spit in our face. "We're doing this just because you said it was a bad idea". So, yes, though it can be done - it really shouldn't and wouldn't unless this dumb card had been printed. Nothing like being your own grandfather to foster mental retardation and mutation into your genes.
As for what's wrong with "irrelevant" cards - you're asking the wrong question. What's RIGHT with Squire, with Moonlace, with this? If the answer is "nothing" then it's up to YOU to justify wasting time, killing trees, and disappointing people who buy your product. If you can't justify it then the set fails.
But don't take that as evidence that I don't have arguments about what's wrong with the cards - I have every reason to think they're a waste, an insult, and a poor choice for a company trying to make money. I'm just too tired to repeat it every time WOTC prints something that noone in their right mind, when informed, would want to open.
Or we could run remand... delay... mana leak... remove soul... I mean, you're claiming we're in blue - right?
You miss the point that this enables combo decks (along with the tutoring transmute land...). ALL "one turn win" combo decks in standard and extended will run this card. It will see serious play in type 1 and legacy.
At least 50% of the decks in the new standard will run this card. Think about that...
Uh... if the point of Future Sight is to disappoint magic players, I "get it" - but I don't understand WHY they would want to disappoint their base...
Korlash is a Nightmare for 2 less that regenerates in a format where that usually matters, with dual lands and swamp cyclers. How does this not "count" as better than a screwy hybrid mana filterland?
Jhoira single-handedly breaks Planar Chaos's X suspend cards, as well as several other cards; and single-handedly makes a suspend deck possible in standard and block (yes, you need a way to nix teferi... no pun intended).
Oh, then there's the morph land... mana acceleration and possible finisher all in one. Not quite Stalking Stones, but control decks can use it none-the-less.
Let alone MR. 5/5 flyer on turn 3...
But you're right - this set is seriously lacking good cards, and what good cards they have usually predicate a combo-season like noone's business.
Instant - Arcane
Splice onto Arcane - :1mana::symu:
Look at target opponent's sideboard. You may choose an instant or sorcery from that sideboard, reveal it, and play it without paying it's mana cost. (Put it into it's owner's graveyard after the spell resolves)
Creature - Elf Shaman
Whenever an opponent plays a creature spell, you may discard a creature card. If you do, you may search your sideboard for a creature card with the same name as the creature your opponent played, and put it into play.
The constalations tell the story of great beasts, locked in endless battle. To know their name is to demand their allegance.
1/3
Again, Mouth of Ronom is solid. In standard, you can even tutor for it on turn 2. Or you could splash red/black... or blue.