On How Much Tracking We Deem Acceptable

User avatar
Riria
Posts: 771
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by Riria » 3 years ago

While using counters to grant creatures evergreen keywords is a relatively new addition to Magic, it has been around for long enough that (I think) it's pretty safe to say that it is within the realms of reasonableness as to how much clarity issues/tracking issues the game can support, as in the older players aren't really complaining about it and the newer players don't really find it particularly confusing/easy to lose track of.

Now. If we agree that counters with evergreen keywords is acceptable, then I would pose that anything less troublesome than counters with evergreen keywords should also be acceptable. The reason why I'm saying this (and why I wanna talk about this subject) is that, for the most part, the reasons we might have been worried about whether counters with evergreen keywords are fine are the same as, if not amplified versions of, the reasons Wizards has given for why they cannot have both +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters in the same set.

So, having said all that, what do y'all think? Is it time to lift that design restriction and have both +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters in the same (standard legal) set? And on a broader note, is there any particular mechanic/interaction you might like to see in the game that is probably considered more okay now than it was in the past?

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

I don't think it is important enough to worry about. Mainly because lifting that restriction probably doesn't do a whole lot anyway. There is only so much room in sets for different types of keywords and mechanics so you have two things that would need to happen: either each has their own space in the set, taking away from something that is probably more exciting, or sharing that space with each other which just lessens the amount we get to see each mechanic.

Now, there is clearly the option of just doing Giant Growth effects that grant +1 counters and their opposite that grants -1 counters. They don't need to be tied to mechanics and can go on a couple different cards without taking a bunch of space away from other things. But traditionally, +1 and -1 counters are more prevalent with an associated mechanic so for a one or two off card, it hardly seems worth it.

It is also important to note that the keyword counters don't really provide a "fix" to the +1 and -1 counter issue. The main issue is just confusion, as you allude to, and keyword counters don't fix that. People are still just going to use dice and when you are dealing with limited environments or prereleases and a plyer sees 4 creatures with dice on them and has no idea what they mean, it is going to lead to some bad situations where they think one creature has a -1 counter when it really had a +1 counter.

I just don't think it ends up being worth it in the end since it isn't like we are missing out on anything here. And the added satisfaction or added experience from having both seems exceptionally limited to the point where most players aren't even going to notice anyway.

User avatar
OneAndOnly
Posts: 2289
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by OneAndOnly » 3 years ago

One breaking point was Frankenstein's Monster, where a single card generated enough different types of counters for itself that it was difficult to determine what the final result was.

There are definitely many more abilities that add +1/+1 counters than in the early years of Magic, and, I'll be honest, they become a bit of a blur at some point. I'm not certain Magic needs bolster and mentor and graft and ...

I think abilities that remove counters (whether one at a time, all on a single permanent, all counters of a single type, etc.) should become more prevalent, to counter how prolific adding counters has become; but ultimately, in my heart of hearts, I really just want good creatures, not creatures with counters on them.
SPOILER
Show
Hide
So, I decided to compile three lists. I'm sure this has been done before. List one is a list of keyword mechanics that put a +1/+1 counter on a creature -- mentor, graft, etc. List two is a very similar list, but these are mechanics that can add a +1/+1 counter, but can also do something else, like fabricate (create a Servo creature) or explore (find some land.) The third list are non-keyword mechanics that are part of cycles which also involve +1/+1 counters, Hydras, Nishobas, and Spikes are on this list, among others.
.
LIST ONE: Just +1
Adapt (Cost: Put a + on this if it doesn't have a +.)
Amplify (Reveal other creatures: Put a + on this.)
Bloodthirst (Put a + on this if an opponent was damaged this turn.)
Bolster : (Put a + counter on your creature with least toughness.)
Dethrone (Whenever this attacks player with highest life, it gets +).
Devour (Sac creatures to put + on this.)
Evolve : (When another creature enters, if has greater p/t, put a + on this.)
Graft (CIP with +; when another creature enters, move a + onto it.)
Mentor : (When this attacks, put a + on creature with lower power.)
Modular (CIP with +; when it dies, move + onto another artifact creature.)
Monstrosity (Cost: Put +, it becomes monstrous.)
Outlast : (Cost, T: Put a + on this as a sorcery.)
Reinforce (Cost, discard this: Put a + on creature.)
Renown : (When this deals damage, it gets + and renowned.)
Scavenge : (Exile this: Put + on creature)
.
LIST TWO: + or ?
Amass (Cost/Trigger - Create an Army or put a + on one.)
Awaken (Put + on land, it becomes a creature.)
Explore (Draw a card if it's land, or put a + on this.)
Fabricate : (Create a Servo or put a + on this.)
Megamorph : (Cost, turn this face up with a + on this.)
Riot (Put a + on this or it has haste)

Unleash (Put a +, if you do it can't block.)
( Converge )
(Sunburst)
(Undying?)
(Heroic?)
.
LIST THREE: Non-Keyword +
Clockwork Creatures
Hydras
Phantoms
Spikes
Volvers

HM: Proliferate
Last edited by OneAndOnly 3 years ago, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Riria
Posts: 771
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by Riria » 3 years ago

WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
I don't think it is important enough to worry about. Mainly because lifting that restriction probably doesn't do a whole lot anyway. There is only so much room in sets for different types of keywords and mechanics so you have two things that would need to happen: either each has their own space in the set, taking away from something that is probably more exciting, or sharing that space with each other which just lessens the amount we get to see each mechanic.
I feel like +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters are so normalized (you could even say evergreened) that it's not really the case that you create more design space when you remove them. To give an analogy, do you think a set would have more space for a new mechanic if it didn't have Flying in it? In a vacuum, maybe, but in the current state of the game, people are so baseline used to flying that it didn't take up space to begin with.

Now, you do use up design space by having both per se, because of the way they interact with each other, so the question is then whether that's the best use of design space. I personally lean more towards probably not than towards probably never.
It is also important to note that the keyword counters don't really provide a "fix" to the +1 and -1 counter issue. The main issue is just confusion, as you allude to, and keyword counters don't fix that.
I never claimed keyword counters fix the clarity issue. I claimed that keyword counters, by the very fact that they exist and their existence is acceptable, prove that the clarity issue was never too big to begin with.

I just don't think it ends up being worth it in the end since it isn't like we are missing out on anything here. And the added satisfaction or added experience from having both seems exceptionally limited to the point where most players aren't even going to notice anyway.
That's cool. Part of the reason I made the thread was to see if people see the appeal of doing the + and - counters in the same set (I do, but I didn't assume this about most people, which is why I asked. Although it *would* be an educated guess that multiple people historically asking Wizards if they're ever gonna do this kinda shows there is some interest regardless.) But another part of the reason, and I stated this in my ending question, was to see what people would like to see in the game now that our threshold for clarity is more lenient. So when you say you don't think it's worth it, are you talking about simultaneous +/- counters specifically, or mechanics with potential clarity issues in general?

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

Riria wrote:
3 years ago
I feel like +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters are so normalized (you could even say evergreened) that it's not really the case that you create more design space when you remove them. To give an analogy, do you think a set would have more space for a new mechanic if it didn't have Flying in it? In a vacuum, maybe, but in the current state of the game, people are so baseline used to flying that it didn't take up space to begin with.
I just want to clarify this point. I was talking about the fact that +1 counters are far too often used as part of a mechanic. Monstrosity, Outlast, Bolster, Explore, Adapt, Amass, etc.

And usually when we see -1/-1 counters, it is also part of a mechanic or a core set identity: Persist, Wither, Infect. -1 counters are used far more sparingly, but I was just pointing out that counters, are often used as part of a mechanic.

I will agree +1/+1 counters are "evergreen" and are often used outside named mechanics. Zendikar has around 40 cards that do this. So, it isn't outside the realm of possibility to do that more with -1/-1 counters. I am not disagreeing with that point.

And when I talk about not being worth it, I am just talking about this situation. I am fine with complexity and introducing clarity issues (and Wizards obviously is too with Mutate and Adventures and MDFCs). I am just saying that there seems to be very little gain here. I am not sure what other mechanics you might be thinking of as something we might like to see now. I mean, if Wizards is fine with the three I mentioned, I am not smart enough to come up with something even more outlandish than those.

Finally, so I don't give off the wrong impression: I am not strictly opposed to the idea of both in the same set. If Wizards came out tomorrow and said Kaldheim is going feature both, great. I am just offering the opinion that lifting this particular design restriction isn't all that exciting and the end result of having both seems so inconsequential as to not really offer anything of substance.

User avatar
The Fluff
Le fou, c'est moi
Posts: 2398
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 3 years ago

OneAndOnly wrote:
3 years ago
I think abilities that remove counters (whether one at a time, all on a single permanent, all counters of a single type, etc.) should become more prevalent, to counter how prolific adding counters has become;
perhaps we need spike cannibal to come back? Or at least, a functional reprint of it.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // Clearing 4 domain with Qiqi
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “General Discussion”