So I jumped back into standard recently with the launch of arena; and pioneer with its recent release. Having been mostly a modern/Commander/kitchen table player for ages, I wanted to start a discussion about planeswaker design. With Oko and T3feri making for some seriously bad gameplay; some people are calling for planeswalkers to be banned. that theyve ruined the game. Others that just 3cc planeswalkers are overall too strong. However I think that theres been some really home-run PW designs, even at 3cc. There's been a lot of discussion about what makes a planeswalker GOOD; ie it protects itself, generates some sort of advantage, and wins the game if left unchecked. But with PWs becoming a more dominant part of almost every meta, and a series of degenerate PWs being printed, for the future of the game I think there needs to be discussion into what makes a planeswalker FUN; as i think the current generation of PWs are seriously flawed.
The fundamental strength of planeswalkers is that they're repeatable modular spells that are very hard to answer cleanly. Cards that answer planeswalkers (Hero's Downfall) pay a premium in mana cost, and since PWs get an activation as soon as they come down, targeting them directly is usually already a loss. The weakness is that they can be attacked, which is completely negated by high loyalties. Anything over 2 is going to lead to significant loss for the player playing against it;
ex. A PW that draws a card and then eats 2 damage is pretty much an even trade. A common play pattern would be something like Garruk Wildspeaker, downtick, make a beast. Beast gets bolted and garruk gets hit for 2.
Anything more than 2, and you typically have to commit extra resources into killing the thing. Be it in directing extra burn, swinging into an unprofitable trade, or overcommiting to the board and opening you up to a blowout. IMO any planeswalker that has an effective starting loyalty greater than 2 should pay for it in higher mana cost, or not generating a whole card worth of advantage, or being a niche card.
Im going to start by laying out some criteria to evaluate planeswalkers;
The goal here is to generate some objective criteria to evaluate planeswalkers, and try and find designs that consistently hit the "sweet spot" of fun and interesting without being degenerate, or too weak.
>>ROLE<<
This is basically how broad or narrow a design is, and is going to determine which decks are going to be able to run the card. From a design standpoint; narrower cards SHOULD be more powerful; rewarding players for jumping through certain hoops and commiting to certain archetypes, as opposed to just giving them a worse version of effects that already exist. I'm giving this classification 3 broad categories; Staple, Roleplayer, and Niche.
Staple;
this is a card that can be put into any deck that runs the colours. These cards are worth considering in any deck that can play them.
examples of non-PW staples; Thoughtseize, Mana Leak, Lightning Bolt
Roleplayer;
These cards perform a specific function in their respective deck and contribute to the strategy as a whole. Personally i feel like this is the sweet spot for design, and makes for really interesting deck building decision, in between jamming all the best cards, or searching for every card with "Merfolk" on it. I would love to see more and more planeswalkers falling into this category, as I think it opens up more deckbuilding options without becoming degenarate.
examples of non-PW roleplayers; Ghostly Prison, Walking Ballista, Grim Flayer
>>EFFECTIVE STARTING LOYALTY<<
The loyalty the PW has after using its most commonly used ability. Where 2 or more abilites are commonly used; we should discuss both separately.
>>RELEVANT ABILITES<<
Essentially is every ability printed on the card relevant. I've played modern for years; ive never seen a Karn ultimate. I don't think its a stretch to say that most players dont know what most ultimates even do.
>>SELF-SYNERGIES<<
If every ability on the card were a different spell, would you put them all in the same deck?
>>Bypass<<
Is it possible just to attack past the planeswalker and still win?
Anyway sorry for the long preabmle. TLDR im trying to make some criteria for planeswalkers that encourage fun and interesting play patterns and deck building.
I'll get things rolling with what I think is the gold-standard for planeswalker design;
I've never played with Garruk where he feels dead in hand, or against garruk where you get groans of "pws are broken." He doesnt go in every deck, but plays a critical role in the ones he does. His ultimate can win, but not without significant set-up, and synergizes with his -1, while simultaneously slowing himself down. His effective starting loyalty of 2 means the opponent can make a clean trade with im, and he opens up a lot of possible gameplay pathways for both the active player and the opponent.
Oko, Thief of Crowns
Role: Roleplayer
ESL: 5/6
Relevant abilities: yes
Self synergy: yes
Bypass: no
Oko's actually pretty close to being a good design. His abilities synergise with eachother in a way thats interesting. However, the effective starting loyalty of 5 or 6 is through the ceiling at 3 mana, and because he can downgrade creatures and gain heaps of life, you can't effectivly race him. Combine that with the fact that he can be put in any deck willing to run UG, and the reason for the current Oko meta is pretty clear.
The fundamental strength of planeswalkers is that they're repeatable modular spells that are very hard to answer cleanly. Cards that answer planeswalkers (Hero's Downfall) pay a premium in mana cost, and since PWs get an activation as soon as they come down, targeting them directly is usually already a loss. The weakness is that they can be attacked, which is completely negated by high loyalties. Anything over 2 is going to lead to significant loss for the player playing against it;
ex. A PW that draws a card and then eats 2 damage is pretty much an even trade. A common play pattern would be something like Garruk Wildspeaker, downtick, make a beast. Beast gets bolted and garruk gets hit for 2.
Anything more than 2, and you typically have to commit extra resources into killing the thing. Be it in directing extra burn, swinging into an unprofitable trade, or overcommiting to the board and opening you up to a blowout. IMO any planeswalker that has an effective starting loyalty greater than 2 should pay for it in higher mana cost, or not generating a whole card worth of advantage, or being a niche card.
Im going to start by laying out some criteria to evaluate planeswalkers;
The goal here is to generate some objective criteria to evaluate planeswalkers, and try and find designs that consistently hit the "sweet spot" of fun and interesting without being degenerate, or too weak.
>>ROLE<<
This is basically how broad or narrow a design is, and is going to determine which decks are going to be able to run the card. From a design standpoint; narrower cards SHOULD be more powerful; rewarding players for jumping through certain hoops and commiting to certain archetypes, as opposed to just giving them a worse version of effects that already exist. I'm giving this classification 3 broad categories; Staple, Roleplayer, and Niche.
Staple;
this is a card that can be put into any deck that runs the colours. These cards are worth considering in any deck that can play them.
examples of non-PW staples; Thoughtseize, Mana Leak, Lightning Bolt
Roleplayer;
These cards perform a specific function in their respective deck and contribute to the strategy as a whole. Personally i feel like this is the sweet spot for design, and makes for really interesting deck building decision, in between jamming all the best cards, or searching for every card with "Merfolk" on it. I would love to see more and more planeswalkers falling into this category, as I think it opens up more deckbuilding options without becoming degenarate.
examples of non-PW roleplayers; Ghostly Prison, Walking Ballista, Grim Flayer
Niche;
These cards are only going in a very specific deck; as either build-arounds or very narrow effects.
examples of non-PW nice cards; AEtherworks Marvel, Sram, Senior Artificer, Prized Amalgam
>>EFFECTIVE STARTING LOYALTY<<
The loyalty the PW has after using its most commonly used ability. Where 2 or more abilites are commonly used; we should discuss both separately.
>>RELEVANT ABILITES<<
Essentially is every ability printed on the card relevant. I've played modern for years; ive never seen a Karn ultimate. I don't think its a stretch to say that most players dont know what most ultimates even do.
>>SELF-SYNERGIES<<
If every ability on the card were a different spell, would you put them all in the same deck?
>>Bypass<<
Is it possible just to attack past the planeswalker and still win?
Anyway sorry for the long preabmle. TLDR im trying to make some criteria for planeswalkers that encourage fun and interesting play patterns and deck building.
I'll get things rolling with what I think is the gold-standard for planeswalker design;
Garruk Wildspeaker
Role:roleplayer
ESL:2
Relevant abilities: yes
Self-Synergy: yes
Bypass: yes
I've never played with Garruk where he feels dead in hand, or against garruk where you get groans of "pws are broken." He doesnt go in every deck, but plays a critical role in the ones he does. His ultimate can win, but not without significant set-up, and synergizes with his -1, while simultaneously slowing himself down. His effective starting loyalty of 2 means the opponent can make a clean trade with im, and he opens up a lot of possible gameplay pathways for both the active player and the opponent.
Oko, Thief of Crowns
Role: Roleplayer
ESL: 5/6
Relevant abilities: yes
Self synergy: yes
Bypass: no
Oko's actually pretty close to being a good design. His abilities synergise with eachother in a way thats interesting. However, the effective starting loyalty of 5 or 6 is through the ceiling at 3 mana, and because he can downgrade creatures and gain heaps of life, you can't effectivly race him. Combine that with the fact that he can be put in any deck willing to run UG, and the reason for the current Oko meta is pretty clear.