I love writing if only for the simplistic ideal of holding a conversation with readers.  While, admittedly, most writing is a one-way conversation I really do enjoy engaging with the reactions and responses elicited.

Of course, responding to readers is as easy as it gets for conversation starters: you ask questions and I provide “answers”.

So without further delay let’s dive into some of the questions you provided.

Design is In Session

Due in no small part to the Great Designer Search 2, I received a few questions around design.  The first was from @Norbert88.

The idea of ‘Thieving Magpie Idol’ was a joke when the Scars of Mirrodin DevChat was going on an he was about to get voice; if you’re not away, this guy collects and loves Thieving Magpie like no  other player.  Naturally, there’s no one else who would want to know about such a theoretical card than the Magpie man himself.

Using Glint Hawk Idol as an example, Thieving Magpie Idol would be a card something like this:

Thieving Magpie Idol

Artifact

Whenever another artifact enters the battlefield under your control, you may have Thieving Magpie Idol become a 1/3 Bird artifact creature with flying and “Whenever this deals damage to an opponent, you draw a card.” until end of turn.

: Thieving Magpie Idol becomes a 1/3 Bird artifact creature with flying and “Whenever this deals damage to an opponent, you draw a card.” until end of turn.

Seems logical, right?  Costs more and has the same triggered and activated abilities.  All is well.

Except for the card-drawing machine this card would be.  Like Raging Ravine, multiple activations would apply the card draw ability multiple times.  Pretty silly even if it cost more; sorry.

The next design question isn’t really a question but more of a throwback to old-school Magic:

Dandân is something long-time players can never forget: high power, low toughness, and an awful island-requiring drawback duo.  Interesting?  In some ways, yes.  Exciting?  Definitely not.

While a Dandân Lord that makes more Dandân is awkwardly appealing, modern Magic has provided ways to turn lands into Islands.  Speading Seas, anyone?  However, if I were to propose the lord of the Dandân it would be something as follows:

Hawai’i, Queen of the Dandân

Legendary Creature – Fish

Fish creatures you control get +0/+3 and Islandwalk.

All lands are Islands in addition to  their other types.

4/1

What does the lord of Dandâns do?  Make every Dandân awesome, that’s what!  Using the precedent set by Ghastlord of the Fugue, our Dandân queen is a 4/4 for five and packs a little help for our fellow Dandâns.  Of course other fish stand to benefit, like hammerhead Shark, but the point is that Dandâns get the lord they always wanted.

Or needed.

The final design-related questions comes from down under:

Nothing can be a crime against “colour” since that isn’t a word.  If you’re referring to color then I can answer: no.

It doesn’t take much to visualize a black-green creature that is the same thing as Wurmcoil Engine.  But is the Engine a crime?  I don’t believe so for the same reasons that Equipment isn’t  a crime against green, Perilous Myr isn’t a crime against black, Moonglove Extract isn’t  a crime against red, and Golden Urn isn’t a crime against white.

Artifacts have long been able to do just about anything.  While the prevailing thought is that they have to do it worse the reality is that rarity weighs in heavily on abilities on cards.  For a mythic rare artifact to be as strong as something on-color at what I would say is rare seems fine.

Artifacts are the one source of anything goes and for the second block built around artifacts did you really expect anything less?   After Hornet Sting anything is possible.

Round 2

With the easy questions out of the way let’s look at some of the tougher one, like this one:

Yes.  That’s a good question.

I stopped cheating when I got back into the game early in college.

Details?  Oh, those.  Sure.

Something I’ve struggled with my whole life is being a sore loser.  It isn’t that I don’t understand that every game inherently has losers or that my own decisions led to my loss, but that somewhere in my unconscious there is a strong attachment to the idea that I play better than others and, therefore, shouldn’t really lose.

It’s more awkward than you’re imagining, I’m sure.

I’m not sure how I picked up this baseline of “I don’t lose.” but it’s something that crops up despite efforts on my part to always head it off.

I remember mana weaving my deck and stacking a card on top.  I remember peeking at other players hands and fudging mana by stacking lands.  Many of the crude, rudimentary methods of cheating were ones that I heard, learned, or discovered – than executed them with friends.

I can recall getting “caught” from time to time but when everyone would peek at the top of their decks, reveal cards that they didn’t know how to use, and make trades and switch up cards in their decks in the middle of the game the idea of “cheating” was a bit fast and loose: the perfect environment for me to run free.

Getting back into Magic a few years later brought back these memories but, this time, I was a different person.  While I still have this internal desire to win I actively resist my unfair baseline and work against any cheating in every game, and not just my own but all shenanigans.

In summary, I stopped cheating when I grew up and became a more socially responsible person.  Which makes the next question almost hilarious.

There are two things going on here, either:

1. You don’t know I don’t play blue, or
2. You think I hate everyone who plays blue.

I’ll address both.

I’ve already written about how blue and I have interacted over the years so reading that is requisite to understanding the next part: blue just isn’t exciting for me on the whole anymore.

I do like certain things about blue:

• Bounce spells
• Card draw and filtering
• Counterspells to answer otherwise unanswerable plays
• Control effects

It’s like a classic “Best Of” album of things blue has always excelled at.  However I have a real distaste for blue being “unfair.”  Unfair isn’t the word I want but it attaches some the meaning I try to convey.

The now classic comparison of Counterspell to Terror is a contextual example of what I mean.  Terror kills the creature.  The creature is already in play and hasn’t done anything in the game. Counterspell stops the creature from ever being: there is nothing except graveyard.

Yes, these situations are functionally equivalent (for all creatures without “enters the battlefield” effects).  However they feel different.  It’s that feeling, the different between “I’m going to kill your awesome dude.” and “I’m not going to let you even have your awesome dude.” that sets a tone.

I like to do stuff but I understand that what I’m doing may not be great for everyone else.  I get Wrath of God and Akroma’s Judgment.  I get Forbid with buyback against Darksteel Forge.  Mindbreak Trap for when the storm guy does his thing.  I get it.  I used to play blue-based control.

But when every other spell is simply “No, you don’t get to do that.” or “Put that back in your hand and start all over.” it gets old.  I’m not talking about tournament or competitive play – that’s a whole different realm of things to consider and understand – but the kitchen tables, stores with newer players, and EDH tables full of expensive (wacky and/or strong) spells.

The argument I hear most often is “Players need to learn how to beat counter decks.”  I’ve been considering my response for awhile and I’ve finally readied it: Where the hell did that need come from?  Players don’t need to do anything.  Magic is a game with a lot of room for exploration.  There isn’t a rule about having to use a bunch of weenies, big huge fatties, discard effects, land destruction, or removal.

Are trying and understanding these things important for the overall consideration of the game?  Absolutely.  Does it need to be our pathological imperative to demonstrate control decks, or any other archetype for that matter, to everyone who will sit down?  No. Letting players explore at their own pace is one of the most challenging things to do as an experienced player.

I see it all the time: things that can be “improved” and “play sequences” that make more sense.  But it’s not my job or duty as a fellow player to force principles and perspectives into other players.  Newer and inexperienced players deserve respect and that respect is often most needed in the form of openness to explore whatever is it that they like about the game.  There’s a reason I grab certain EDH decks against certain players: I personally choose to scale my more appropriately, if possible.  When they start asking questions I’m more than willing to show them the difference between a few different decks.

Is that what you should do?  I’m not sure as the idea of playing with suboptimal decks is a big turnoff for some of you.  I don’t know if I have the best solution for everyone, but the principle of handling players with respect to their personal considerations is one everyone can keep in mind.

It isn’t easy and there isn’t a clean, clear answer for these issues.  I hope, if nothing else, you pause an consider further the implications of your decks and actions on the players around you.

And, finally, I’ll end with a funky question:

Which planeswalker would be the best?  My bet would be Venser.  As a man who tinkers, designs new things, and is willing to rationally explore the knowledge he has it makes sense that he’d be able to dive into making cards without going off the deep of things that work.  And teleporting would probably make him a hero within R&D.

However there is a different option I could see: Nicol Bolas.  If there was ever a planewalker who wanted to ascend to the realm of bring a true god, Bolas was the first and foremost.  I could see the conversation go something like this:

Questions Without Answers

I hope you’ve found something interesting or entertaining here today.  I really enjoyed thinking about the questions provided; reflecting and considering these types of ideas is always an awesome adventure!  Thanks!