Making this same Kamigawa because of being historically connected and being japanese only restrict their design space. This should had been detach and had been separated with Kamigawa.
Ritokure, please stop feeding the troll. No genuine person could possibly present a full quote definitively proving themselves wrong and present it as proof they are right. They'll stop mucking up this thread if you stop provoking them.
Look it's over. It might be you that is not a genuine person because it stopped already and your the that is provoking me.
It wasn't even the full article it was just "the portion of the article that discuss Kamigawa" which was very elaborate and specific about the mechanic issues.
I just commented here about that it was mostly the mechanics and aesthetic. it was he the one that responded saying that it being too much Japanese Myth also another cause. Which I disagree because it's more WOTC's interpretation that just took inspiration to Japanese Myth.
Japanese Myth are not just kami, samurai, ninja. rat, kitsune, snakes and oni. It's richer and more broad than that. The thing is WOTC just failed to execute their own concept of a Japanese myth set because of it's mechanics being terrible. WOTC aren't as restricted with Kamigawa, Clearly Kamigawa isn't like how Arabian Nights and Portal Three Kingdoms were designed.
Because I believe regardless it being a Japanese Myth base set if the mechanics were done right it wouldn't be a unpopular plane. AM I wrong?
Japanese myth are not boring and lackluster even now. It's one of the most used and loved setting along with medieval fantasy and greek mythology
If you agree with him and if you believe that my initial opinion was wrong that's okay.
Because you're wrong. You talking bull to another person doesn't changes the fact you're talking bull.
Look your misleading the comment and just talking for the sake of talking. it wasn't for you move on. it was clearly saying about "it doesn't exist and bold part comment.
Because you took my statement, demanded proof, then painted it as "FALSE". Your arguments for doing so are flimsy and erroneous, using sources that were used by multiple people to prove that you're wrong, and using selective arguments to misrepresent MaRo's opinions on the discussed matter. Therefore, I contested your "FALSE" statement with a simple alternative, and you still haven't delivered.
Look I only asked for the link were Maro said that because you said Maro said it. I don't know it so I ask for it because most I have seen are spolight regarding mechanics being terrible in Kamigawa and even back in the day it was a major criticism.
We even think when Kamigawa was tease to be something that might be cool but turned out differently to our expectations and it's terrible.
and because Japanese Mythology isn't an outdated theme even today.
There's nothing wrong asking the link people can see that in the early comments because I'm not aware of what your talking about and I knew the mechanics is the faulty.
Your the one saying demanding and saying it's a game and it's my turn or something like putting weird like some rules like not quoting maro
I only ask for the link it's not a demand like what your doing to me like give what's "not to" and implementing some "rules" to me. your the demanding one.
I only ask for a link and I posted your sources and it's clear that mechanics is the huge downfall. which was my initial comment so I said it's false.
your trying to reason that it being a japanese myth base also contribute to it's downfall right? that's when I started to defend.
it's WOTC's execution and implementation of designing a Japanese myth plane that would be cause it to be a failure or a success. Not because it's hard or not traditional to how they used to.
Yes I did people can look on the early comments that I was defending the Japanese Mythology as not the downfall of the plane. I still remain consistent on that.
while all you do is answering different things like quoting me from different person that I was commenting with, also giving some sort of rules and demanding something weird and your reason your doing that is because I'm asking for a link? WTF
Good, I already said you win and go play your game with your rules to somebody else. I'm not interested. I was talking to another person not you. In the first place it was you that engage with me in the early conversation.
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica". This is NOT "defending Japanese mythology", because Japanese mythology was never attacked by anyone.
Wrong Your lying and twisting arguments. No one was attacking Japanese Myth here,
I was defending it when you started quoting me.
Calling it now: Lukka will be the villain of Kamigawa 2.0 and he'll be the one to bring Kaijus into the plane. No idea why he would do that, but then again it's Lukka. Dude couldn't even keep a consistent personality and motivation on a single set, nevermind a year.
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Not entirely true, at least based on what MaRo told us. In their attempt to make Kamigawa accurate to Japanese myths and properly portray it in Magic lore, they "dug too deep" into Japanese mythology and showcased every part of the least resonant aspects of it.
My initial claim was it failed because mostly about it's mechanics I even said even if the mechanics was in other planes it would fail. I don't need to defend in that point because I'm basically just saying a personal opinion and I started defending because you quoted me that includes it.
My claims was also right that the mechanics is the mainly the cause of it's downfall because of tumblr and the article also mostly spotlight it clear not just a bit or a contributing because the weakness and worst of Kamigawa is it's mechanics. that was also according to your sources
My point is it was the mechanics that failed Kamigawa not the it being based on an interpretation of a Japanese myth.
To end this once
My initial comment was it's mechanical which was the main cause. That's it then you point out a snippet which talks about Japanese Myth. Which put's me to defend that Japanese Myth.
My initial comment was an opinion not my second was a response to you were I started defending.
I wasn't defending before you responded. The comment progression in the first page says that clearly.
If Kamigawa mechanics were designed better and good. I don't even think it being a Japanese Myth base plane would be an issue here or a spotlight at all like other eastern plane and non-dominaria like plane that has already done.
Kamigawa wasn't too accurate also with the mythology. They just created a Japanese myth plane with a very terrible mechanics. If the mechanics were done right as par or average to the set in it's era like Onslaught and Ravnica being it as a Japanese Myth base plane wouldn't even be an issue. It an underwhelming set compare to the mentioned sets in terms speed, flexibility and synergy because of the mechanics.
I believe it's entirely possible to create a japanese myth base plane with good mechanics and it would be appealing and standout. An expansion with a plane that is a usual favorite for being familiar plane can be a disliked as an expansion if the mechanics were poorly designed as terrible like Kamigawa.
Except that was not your argument, AT ALL, you're moving the goalposts. It's as if you started this conversation stating that "the sky is blue because there's an ocean in the sky", and now that you've been proven wrong, you're acting as if people are trying to prove you wrong on the "the sky is blue" part of the statement.
And second, no, emphasizing a part of a quote via bold text while ignoring the rest is not any different from quoting specific parts of a larger argument. Both have the exact same purpose and both are equally legitimate forms of information as long as you provide your sources. The difference is that latter is not plagiarism nor an eyesore to read.
False
First of all your quoting me from my response in somebody else? That clarifying the it didn't exist of comment of someone else.
To begin with your the one that engage and disagree with my comment so I asked link from where your claims are found.
People can see it in thread.
And all I have asked you is for a link. You start saying this is a game and starts creating rules and demanding me not to quote maro. I'm not moving goal post I only ask for the link.... stop projecting yourself on me.
Im am consistent and your the one throwing saying thing like "all-knowing" and all I do was defending Japanese mythology at the beginning of the argument.
All I did was asking for the sources link in the initial post from were your claims and I didn't required you to do other
thats how clarification works asking links from your claims and I posted the whole one so and I didn't ask anything any futher or greater
So, here you go: Give me ONE quote from Mark Rosewater stating that Kamigawa's flavor was NOT a contributing factor to its failings. DO NOT quote him saying that Card Design was a factor, quote him saying that Card Design was the ONLY factor.
while later you demanding and creating weird condition like it was a game to you. Your even said in other comments I need to play your game? Your starting to give me rules and I only ask for the link lol
WTF lol. I was only here asking the link of your claims then I post the whole article then starts your saying to me I'm playing a game with you? lol
I'm just defending Japanese Myth here lol
Why I should I not quote MARO lol? when it's my point I did post the whole article to give clarity...
Man if you believe Japanese Mythology is not for a MTG plane. it's fine but don't force me or command me to NOT to or AVOID QUOTING Maro. I don't even just quoted him I posted the whole thing to be seen.
And all I have asked you is for a link lol
It doesn't mean I asked for the link for your claims that it also means I'm playing a game? lol
You can play your games with someone else. I'm not interested and I was just defending Japanese Myth here.
I'm not saying that flavor of kamigawa is good or one of the better planes since maro said it's one of the unpopular ones.
It's Kamigawa's mechanics along to how it is played compare to onslaught, mirrodin and ravnica that probably made the Japanese mythology theme of Kamigawa to be unpopular compare to the other expansions along it's line. It's underwhelming when were speed, flexibility and synergy are common appeal on those sets.
The Kamigawa's mechanics being restrictive and slow are the contributing factor to dislike a Japanese mythology based plane.
It's safe to say that they could do another different Japanese mythology plane that isn't Kamigawa but wouldn't suffer the same fate as Kamigawa if most of the mechanics isn't to be expected to be exactly the same as Kamigawa and the mechanics are more designed like the other successful blocks, sets and expansion.
It could have been more loosely and flexible in it's tribal mechanic like how onslaught block were handle and it could have been fun than being what they came out with their mechanics from conditions and requirements.
Imagine if Ninjutsu would require you to return only an attacking Ninja creature. Probably we wouldn't seen it played much as today like Bushido and etc worst mechanics. Bushido sounds cool and promising in a teaser but as soon the mechanic is reveal in-game is so terrible. It wasn't because it was called Bushido but how it works in-game
Fun fact: Just because you specifically don't bold the parts that contradict your argument doesn't mean those parts of the quote don't exist.
I didn't need to bold the whole article to begin with.
No one claimed it didn't exist, What I claimed was the snippets of the guy was part of the article that supported my claims. So I posted the whole article instead which clearly said it was the mechanics. That the mechanics is also the cause for the Kamigawa Set to be one of unpopular set and not for it being based on a Japanese Myth.
SO basically bolding the other text or whole article is non-sense and the best way is to post everything for clarity, it's better than cherrypicking fragments of that article.
I don't care about your childish non-sense game or whatsoever. because it's logical fallay an "Ad Ignorantiam"
My point is it was the mechanics that failed Kamigawa not the it being Japanese myth. plain and simple and every "sources you post supported my claims. which was also back up by multiple Kamigawa discussion and all you got is out of context and misquoting a single article that supported my claim also. lol
First off, fallacy fallacy. Ad ignorantiam is not used to disprove a claim under ignorance but create one, it's made to make a unverifiable claim under the pretense we don't know X therefore Y must be true. YOU made the bold statement "FALSE!" as a counterargument, and therefore burden of proof falls under you now and said argument can be disproven by lack of proof at any time.
Second, moving the goalposts. Your initial argument was NOT "failed Kamigawa not the it being Japanese myth", whatever that poor imitation of English even means. The goalpost was pretty clear from the first post - "It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa.", disproven by my source as MaRo did mention that the aesthetic and atmosphere DID fail Kamigawa and backed up by another user with several more claims.
Third, once again, no misquotes happened, unless you can prove otherwise, in which case we're back into my game. Once again, a counterargument is still an argument, and if you can't substantiate it with the proof estabilished by my rules you lose.
I don't need to continue this because all the sources and the one that came yours supported mine.
Based on how conversation progress from the beginning.. all the issues were cleared and sources presentated i have gave everything in unbiased and complete form... along with other multiple tumblr of Maro which supported it.
..while all you do was throw in logical fallacy and just used out of the context text from the article that also supported my claims.
It's not about who talks the most and talks the last. It's who is supported by multiple sources in a clear and not misinterpreted.
It's terrible basically those were just taken out of context and misquoting a single article because in complete detail it prove my claims to be true which is also supported by other discussion in the same topic in tumblr. So you lose.
Wrong. Because we aren't playing your game. I already did, I provided a source which confirmed what I said. The rest of the context is irrelevant because it's neither relevant to what you asked in the first reply to me nor relevant to my own argument.
Now it's your turn to play my game, and I laid the simple game rules and you can't follow them. I asked ONE singular source, saying in black and white that a flavor wasn't a factor. You didn't provided any, therefore you lose.
I don't care about your childish non-sense game or whatsoever. because it's logical fallacy an "Ad Ignorantiam"
My point is it was the mechanics that failed Kamigawa not the it being based on an interpretation of a Japanese myth.
Plain and simple and your so called "sources" you post even supported my claims in complete details. which was also back up by multiple Kamigawa discussion and all you got is out of context and misquoting a single article that supported my claim also. lol
Complete Details in an article + other topics out of the context snippets in a single article ...
...that article even supported also my claims lol
that's how things works especially truths that are unbias and NOT misleading.
Four citations, not one proving your point about Card Design being the only failing of Kamigawa. Try again.
Look thats still another "Ad Ignorantiam"
It's terrible, basically those were just taken out of context and misquoting a single article
That FACT that those out of context snippets claims of yours came from the an article that clearly supported my claims in complete detail which also supported by other related discussion in tumblr which was linked earlier with the same topic that is Kamigawa. So you lose.
Give up and move on your only shaming yourself even we continue from here obviously the early comments of mine answered yours. We could continue this but if people read this and how you take it. it's basically yourself as the shameful because your clearly wrong and your being desperate while trying hard.
Complete Details in an article + other topics > out of the context snippets in a single article .... that's how things works especially truths that are unbias and NOT misleading.
I could even leave this thread and let you continue like but your claims stays and mine and mostly you got no choice but reuse the links posted earlier which complete and most proves mine in complete details.
WHY? Because YOU asked me to give any source to my claims that Kamigawa's worldbuilding and flavor was considered a failure by MaRo, and I did. Your argument is that Design failed it while also disregarding the failings of the setting's flavor. Therefore, either acknowledge the failings of the "plane's aesthetic or atmosphere" according to the provided MaRo quotes or give me proof of the contrary. Not that hard to understand, and it's literally the only demand I made while complying with yours.
See your misleading me with Ad Ignorantiam because everything supported my claims even your source favor mine when looked clearly in the details of the page
And which proves my point because here is what your sources said:
Takenuma | Art by: Cliff Childs
Previously seen in: Champions of Kamigawa, Betrayers of Kamigawa, and Saviors of Kamigawa
Popularity: Unpopular
Of all our polling, this is the world that had the lowest ratings. Even in modern times when we ask about older worlds, Kamigawa ranks at or near the bottom. That said, there's a small but loud enfranchised minority that's very passionate about Kamigawa, so it's a topic that comes up a lot on my blog and on social media.
Mechanical Identity: Weak
Kamigawa block didn't do a great job of creating a strong mechanical identity. The set was designed top-down, but it doesn't have the mechanical cohesiveness of a set like Innistrad. The loudest component surrounded the Kami (aka the Spirits), but that was trying to play up the war that was the key conflict of the block and probably wouldn't play as big a role in a return.
Creative Identity: Average
Kamigawa was very faithful to its source material, but played around in a lot of spaces that weren't very resonant for the majority of the audience, making the set feel more "weird" than focused. It definitely has a distinctive look, but not one that scored well in the market research. Again, through the lens of time and the Commander format, it has built up some new fans.
Room for Expansion: Some Room for Expansion
The Kamigawa block took places over a thousand years ago from a story perspective, so a lot could change with a return. The biggest issue isn't what new could be there, but what old things would be expected. I've spent a lot of time on social media asking what players would expect upon a return, and the expectations are pretty broad. The biggest desire is a return of many of the creature types which each come with their own baggage.
Story Continuation: Minor Plot Line
The Kamigawa story mostly ended, but there are a few threads one could pick up, none which tie all that much into the modern story. The best potential for a storyline surrounds Tamiyo, a Planeswalker from Kamigawa. Most of the glimpses of Kamigawa through the modern story are seen through Tamiyo, so any return would probably have to focus on her.
Rabiah Scale Rating: 8
As I've explained numerous times on social media, this return is a tough sell for me to make internally based on how disastrous the first visit went. The biggest factor that a return hinges on is how much are we allowed to change and still call it Kamigawa. The set has minimal mechanical space we want to return to and many creative choices we would do differently if we started over with the source material. I wouldn't count out the chance of a return, but it's not a big one.
Another thing is if you read how Maro rate other expansion/sets in the link you posted... it's mostly along average or strong and solely the only one that got the weak rate is kamigawa and being specific it's on the mechanical part which is downfall and the tumblr claims supported it all.
And it's not just that article because every thing that Maro would say on Tumblr about Kamigawa supported me not just a single article like yours lol
So, here you go: Give me ONE quote from Mark Rosewater stating that Kamigawa's flavor was NOT a contributing factor to its failings. DO NOT quote him saying that Card Design was a factor, quote him saying that Card Design was the ONLY factor.
LOL your demands are entire ridiculous. That's kinda "Ad Ignorantiam"
WHY?
It's like asking me to give you ONE evidence that the art or either the flavor text of Omnath, Locus of Creation was NOT a contributing factor to cause it to be banned in some format.
He doesn't even need to say it's NOT and all I need was his claims to align with me.
MaRo himself on all the angles Kamigawa failed, you'll see the words "Design: Weak" and disregard every other point while proclaiming yourself the all-knowing game designer, I'll rebuke your stupid claims providing more sources and we'll be repeating this all week while further derailing this thread.
I never proclaimed being all-knowing where did you get that
I posted the whole article that you even linked and it's clearly still point the mechanics it's not your interpretation that is "Design: Weak".
The complete multiple detail from the article and multiple tumblr that proves my argument is true and it is a consistent true which, I posted it here which backed me all even your posted link.
The whole thing is basically talking about terrible mechanics that even includes the link you provide
Which entirely supports my claims in a clear in details. Clarity proves it's true rather thank you just posting links and your own words not the article
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Either way, I don't think Maro was the person who needed convincing. As I understand the situation, it was the business suits who didn't want to go back to a world that sold poorly last time.
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Imagine those cards swap creature type and mechanic turned into another usual generic plane or something close to Dominaria plane it would still fail.
This was the complete post which makes it right and backup by the sources
It's the design that failed it.
It's kinda terrible to judge Kamigawa as failure because the settings was based on Japanese Mythology. Nowadays we had other set that weren't to similar to dominaria and other strong artifact set.
Also, "misleading quoting" is a terrible argument when the original source is also provided. Every quote of any written source is shortened for brevity, be it in news or scientific/academic texts, otherwise you'd have to copy the whole thing and then you'd be doing plagiarism.
Because the details are important which clearly mentioned that it was the mechanics that failed it.
penguinhorowitz asked: Could you explain what a lot of players didn't like about Kamigawa block? I know it came on the tail-end of an incredibly powerful, well-received set, but other than that I can't quite figure out the hate. I'm a huge fan, but I also wasn't playing back then, so I wasn't there for that standard and draft environment. I am also partial to the set because I'm a huge EDH fan.
The set mechanically was very parasitic (it required too much playing with itself) and the setting, while authentic, was not recognizable enough by most players. It rated very low in market research on mechanics and world.
per-mariam-ad-jesum asked: Do you believe the admittedly bad mechanics of Kamigawa cannot be divorced from the awesome flavor and setting of Kamigawa? Is it possible to go back to Kamigawa without any of its last mechanical execution?
We test both the mechanics and creative elements for sets. Kamigawa did poorly on it’s mechanics. It did even worse on its world (I believe it holds the record for the worst results for any world since we did market research on them - Ulgrotha predates the market research). The idea that it was successful creative married to bad mechanics is false. At the time, both were strongly disliked.
mrtitanic asked: Kamigawa may have been a legitimate design flaw, but I can tell you that as a setting, it was brilliant, and it's one of the most popular blocks in EDH (not just because of having many Legendaries, but in general). The only issue was the mechanics were weak and slow, and the Kami were weird. But Minamo Academy, Oboro and the Moonfolk etc. were all successes. Everyone loves Tamiyo.
I believe players love elements of Kamigawa block although I believe the huge numbers of legendary creatures is the primary cause for the Commander love. We tested the creative as well as the cards and the world (once again, not just the cards) didn’t test well. It didn’t quite jell with a majority of the players.
The reason I think there are people who are huge fans of Kamigawa is that there are elements that are very cool. The source material has tons of fans so it seems to reason that players would like those elements they see reflected in the game.
Tamiyo, by the way, has a very split reaction. She tends to be polarizing. Those that like her really like her but those that don’t really don’t. Now I think Magic should have polarizing things so I’m a huge fan of Tamiyo. Worlds, though, are not the things that are supposed to be polarizing. We want as many players as possible to love our worlds.
As you saw in Planechase 2, we understand their are fans of parts of Kamigawa and we will try where appropriate to do some fan service for those players. I’m just trying to be honest with all of you and say that I don’t see a Return to Kamigawa being the best way for us to capture many of those things that players loved from the original block.
@Ritokure grabing a portion is a bit mislead it's being a Japanese them it's clearly the mechanics that made it unpopular
Takenuma | Art by: Cliff Childs
Previously seen in: Champions of Kamigawa, Betrayers of Kamigawa, and Saviors of Kamigawa
Popularity: Unpopular
Of all our polling, this is the world that had the lowest ratings. Even in modern times when we ask about older worlds, Kamigawa ranks at or near the bottom. That said, there's a small but loud enfranchised minority that's very passionate about Kamigawa, so it's a topic that comes up a lot on my blog and on social media.
Mechanical Identity: Weak
Kamigawa block didn't do a great job of creating a strong mechanical identity. The set was designed top-down, but it doesn't have the mechanical cohesiveness of a set like Innistrad. The loudest component surrounded the Kami (aka the Spirits), but that was trying to play up the war that was the key conflict of the block and probably wouldn't play as big a role in a return.
Creative Identity: Average
Kamigawa was very faithful to its source material, but played around in a lot of spaces that weren't very resonant for the majority of the audience, making the set feel more "weird" than focused. It definitely has a distinctive look, but not one that scored well in the market research. Again, through the lens of time and the Commander format, it has built up some new fans.
Room for Expansion: Some Room for Expansion
The Kamigawa block took places over a thousand years ago from a story perspective, so a lot could change with a return. The biggest issue isn't what new could be there, but what old things would be expected. I've spent a lot of time on social media asking what players would expect upon a return, and the expectations are pretty broad. The biggest desire is a return of many of the creature types which each come with their own baggage.
Story Continuation: Minor Plot Line
The Kamigawa story mostly ended, but there are a few threads one could pick up, none which tie all that much into the modern story. The best potential for a storyline surrounds Tamiyo, a Planeswalker from Kamigawa. Most of the glimpses of Kamigawa through the modern story are seen through Tamiyo, so any return would probably have to focus on her.
Rabiah Scale Rating: 8
As I've explained numerous times on social media, this return is a tough sell for me to make internally based on how disastrous the first visit went. The biggest factor that a return hinges on is how much are we allowed to change and still call it Kamigawa. The set has minimal mechanical space we want to return to and many creative choices we would do differently if we started over with the source material. I wouldn't count out the chance of a return, but it's not a big one.
It's the design that made it terrible like the mechanics and etc not that it was a japanese myth theme.
It was clearly mentioned that the mechanics is the problem and it mentioned most of the time.
SO I AM RIGHT
Kamigawa was a set close to the likes of Onslaught, Mirrodin and Ravnica so it would be seen really slow. It's not because it being a Japanese Myth it's the mechanic that failed it. Obviously and mentioned clearly. Later on MTG would go more on other eastern theme and it's not a problem as long the mechanics works.
It's impossible that being a Japanese Myth makes it automatically worse in the aspect of game design
There is also a successful Japanese Theme TCG before Kamigawa
This era of modern that MTG is doing another thing like they did in portal and Arabian nights if people feel alienated it's not the huge case compare to the mechanics they did. It's not a big deal as something would make the set terrible.
If Mtg did something like a strong tribal set on Kamigawa like Onslaught I don't think it would fail the set is slow and force on revolving to itself.
Mirrodin was a powerful set and Ravnica was a diverse set and Kamigawa was in the middle with a force eco system of gameplay and poor mechanics.
For example mechanics named like Bushido can have been a different way of buffing
Epic could had been a different mechanic
Ninjutsu was a really likable mechanic
Soulshift and Arcane could had been better if it's more flexible in other condition of triggers
Dominaria has a improve Legendary theme compare to the restrictive Kamigawa set
Calling it now: Lukka will be the villain of Kamigawa 2.0 and he'll be the one to bring Kaijus into the plane. No idea why he would do that, but then again it's Lukka. Dude couldn't even keep a consistent personality and motivation on a single set, nevermind a year.
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Not entirely true, at least based on what MaRo told us. In their attempt to make Kamigawa accurate to Japanese myths and properly portray it in Magic lore, they "dug too deep" into Japanese mythology and showcased every part of the least resonant aspects of it.
FALSE
Can you link an article were MARO said that and also were he claimed it was too accurate that cause the failure?
because that is impossible, I'm speaking of Game Design STANDPOINT?
It's not even too ACCURATE Japanese myths. It's not the Japanese myth that makes a card game fail it was how they delivered how they would play.
Your main point is the Kamigawa being the failure because of the Japanese Myth in it.
It's like Japanese mythology isn't compatible to MTG
Saying Kamigawa was too Accurate to Japanese myth that made it fail is a terrible analogy to game design specially when it's as flexible like MTG.
Are familiar with the other Japanese TCG back then.
Either way, I don't think Maro was the person who needed convincing. As I understand the situation, it was the business suits who didn't want to go back to a world that sold poorly last time.
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Imagine those cards swap creature type and mechanic turned into another usual generic plane or something close to Dominaria plane it would still fail.
Making this same Kamigawa because of being historically connected and being japanese only restrict their design space. This should had been detach and had been separated with Kamigawa.
It wasn't even the full article it was just "the portion of the article that discuss Kamigawa" which was very elaborate and specific about the mechanic issues.
I just commented here about that it was mostly the mechanics and aesthetic. it was he the one that responded saying that it being too much Japanese Myth also another cause. Which I disagree because it's more WOTC's interpretation that just took inspiration to Japanese Myth.
Japanese Myth are not just kami, samurai, ninja. rat, kitsune, snakes and oni. It's richer and more broad than that. The thing is WOTC just failed to execute their own concept of a Japanese myth set because of it's mechanics being terrible. WOTC aren't as restricted with Kamigawa, Clearly Kamigawa isn't like how Arabian Nights and Portal Three Kingdoms were designed.
Because I believe regardless it being a Japanese Myth base set if the mechanics were done right it wouldn't be a unpopular plane. AM I wrong?
Japanese myth are not boring and lackluster even now. It's one of the most used and loved setting along with medieval fantasy and greek mythology
If you agree with him and if you believe that my initial opinion was wrong that's okay.
I was talking to different person not you. Look I only asked for the link were Maro said that because you said Maro said it. I don't know it so I ask for it because most I have seen are spolight regarding mechanics being terrible in Kamigawa and even back in the day it was a major criticism.
We even think when Kamigawa was tease to be something that might be cool but turned out differently to our expectations and it's terrible.
and because Japanese Mythology isn't an outdated theme even today.
There's nothing wrong asking the link people can see that in the early comments because I'm not aware of what your talking about and I knew the mechanics is the faulty.
Your the one saying demanding and saying it's a game and it's my turn or something like putting weird like some rules like not quoting maro
I only ask for the link it's not a demand like what your doing to me like give what's "not to" and implementing some "rules" to me. your the demanding one.
I only ask for a link and I posted your sources and it's clear that mechanics is the huge downfall. which was my initial comment so I said it's false.
your trying to reason that it being a japanese myth base also contribute to it's downfall right? that's when I started to defend.
it's WOTC's execution and implementation of designing a Japanese myth plane that would be cause it to be a failure or a success. Not because it's hard or not traditional to how they used to. Yes I did people can look on the early comments that I was defending the Japanese Mythology as not the downfall of the plane. I still remain consistent on that.
while all you do is answering different things like quoting me from different person that I was commenting with, also giving some sort of rules and demanding something weird and your reason your doing that is because I'm asking for a link? WTF Good, I already said you win and go play your game with your rules to somebody else. I'm not interested. I was talking to another person not you. In the first place it was you that engage with me in the early conversation. Wrong Your lying and twisting arguments. No one was attacking Japanese Myth here,
I was defending it when you started quoting me.
Here: My initial claim was it failed because mostly about it's mechanics I even said even if the mechanics was in other planes it would fail. I don't need to defend in that point because I'm basically just saying a personal opinion and I started defending because you quoted me that includes it.
My claims was also right that the mechanics is the mainly the cause of it's downfall because of tumblr and the article also mostly spotlight it clear not just a bit or a contributing because the weakness and worst of Kamigawa is it's mechanics. that was also according to your sources To end this once
My initial comment was it's mechanical which was the main cause. That's it then you point out a snippet which talks about Japanese Myth. Which put's me to defend that Japanese Myth.
My initial comment was an opinion not my second was a response to you were I started defending.
I wasn't defending before you responded. The comment progression in the first page says that clearly.
If Kamigawa mechanics were designed better and good. I don't even think it being a Japanese Myth base plane would be an issue here or a spotlight at all like other eastern plane and non-dominaria like plane that has already done.
Kamigawa wasn't too accurate also with the mythology. They just created a Japanese myth plane with a very terrible mechanics. If the mechanics were done right as par or average to the set in it's era like Onslaught and Ravnica being it as a Japanese Myth base plane wouldn't even be an issue. It an underwhelming set compare to the mentioned sets in terms speed, flexibility and synergy because of the mechanics.
I believe it's entirely possible to create a japanese myth base plane with good mechanics and it would be appealing and standout. An expansion with a plane that is a usual favorite for being familiar plane can be a disliked as an expansion if the mechanics were poorly designed as terrible like Kamigawa.
False
First of all your quoting me from my response in somebody else? That clarifying the it didn't exist of comment of someone else.
To begin with your the one that engage and disagree with my comment so I asked link from where your claims are found.
People can see it in thread.
And all I have asked you is for a link. You start saying this is a game and starts creating rules and demanding me not to quote maro. I'm not moving goal post I only ask for the link.... stop projecting yourself on me.
Im am consistent and your the one throwing saying thing like "all-knowing" and all I do was defending Japanese mythology at the beginning of the argument.
All I did was asking for the sources link in the initial post from were your claims and I didn't required you to do other
thats how clarification works asking links from your claims and I posted the whole one so and I didn't ask anything any futher or greater
while later you demanding and creating weird condition like it was a game to you. Your even said in other comments I need to play your game? Your starting to give me rules and I only ask for the link lol
WTF lol. I was only here asking the link of your claims then I post the whole article then starts your saying to me I'm playing a game with you? lol
I'm just defending Japanese Myth here lol
Why I should I not quote MARO lol? when it's my point I did post the whole article to give clarity...
Man if you believe Japanese Mythology is not for a MTG plane. it's fine but don't force me or command me to NOT to or AVOID QUOTING Maro. I don't even just quoted him I posted the whole thing to be seen.
And all I have asked you is for a link lol
It doesn't mean I asked for the link for your claims that it also means I'm playing a game? lol
You can play your games with someone else. I'm not interested and I was just defending Japanese Myth here.
It's Kamigawa's mechanics along to how it is played compare to onslaught, mirrodin and ravnica that probably made the Japanese mythology theme of Kamigawa to be unpopular compare to the other expansions along it's line. It's underwhelming when were speed, flexibility and synergy are common appeal on those sets.
The Kamigawa's mechanics being restrictive and slow are the contributing factor to dislike a Japanese mythology based plane.
It's safe to say that they could do another different Japanese mythology plane that isn't Kamigawa but wouldn't suffer the same fate as Kamigawa if most of the mechanics isn't to be expected to be exactly the same as Kamigawa and the mechanics are more designed like the other successful blocks, sets and expansion.
It could have been more loosely and flexible in it's tribal mechanic like how onslaught block were handle and it could have been fun than being what they came out with their mechanics from conditions and requirements.
Imagine if Ninjutsu would require you to return only an attacking Ninja creature. Probably we wouldn't seen it played much as today like Bushido and etc worst mechanics. Bushido sounds cool and promising in a teaser but as soon the mechanic is reveal in-game is so terrible. It wasn't because it was called Bushido but how it works in-game I didn't need to bold the whole article to begin with.
No one claimed it didn't exist, What I claimed was the snippets of the guy was part of the article that supported my claims. So I posted the whole article instead which clearly said it was the mechanics. That the mechanics is also the cause for the Kamigawa Set to be one of unpopular set and not for it being based on a Japanese Myth.
SO basically bolding the other text or whole article is non-sense and the best way is to post everything for clarity, it's better than cherrypicking fragments of that article.
I don't need to continue this because all the sources and the one that came yours supported mine.
Based on how conversation progress from the beginning.. all the issues were cleared and sources presentated i have gave everything in unbiased and complete form... along with other multiple tumblr of Maro which supported it.
..while all you do was throw in logical fallacy and just used out of the context text from the article that also supported my claims.
It's not about who talks the most and talks the last. It's who is supported by multiple sources in a clear and not misinterpreted.
But if your persist okay you win. lol
I don't care about your childish non-sense game or whatsoever. because it's logical fallacy an "Ad Ignorantiam"
My point is it was the mechanics that failed Kamigawa not the it being based on an interpretation of a Japanese myth.
Plain and simple and your so called "sources" you post even supported my claims in complete details. which was also back up by multiple Kamigawa discussion and all you got is out of context and misquoting a single article that supported my claim also. lol
...that article even supported also my claims lol
that's how things works especially truths that are unbias and NOT misleading.
Because I was right and it was a logical fallacy like I said in another comment that was an "Ad Ignorantiam" a logical fallacy
Stop cherry picking a single article and the links back it up and it's clear.
Man it doesn't mater how many thing you post or try because I already won because the article clear said so along with
Look thats still another "Ad Ignorantiam"
It's terrible, basically those were just taken out of context and misquoting a single article
That FACT that those out of context snippets claims of yours came from the an article that clearly supported my claims in complete detail which also supported by other related discussion in tumblr which was linked earlier with the same topic that is Kamigawa. So you lose.
Give up and move on your only shaming yourself even we continue from here obviously the early comments of mine answered yours. We could continue this but if people read this and how you take it. it's basically yourself as the shameful because your clearly wrong and your being desperate while trying hard.
Complete Details in an article + other topics > out of the context snippets in a single article .... that's how things works especially truths that are unbias and NOT misleading.
I could even leave this thread and let you continue like but your claims stays and mine and mostly you got no choice but reuse the links posted earlier which complete and most proves mine in complete details.
And which proves my point because here is what your sources said:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rabiah-scale-part-1-2018-11-12
Another thing is if you read how Maro rate other expansion/sets in the link you posted... it's mostly along average or strong and solely the only one that got the weak rate is kamigawa and being specific it's on the mechanical part which is downfall and the tumblr claims supported it all.
And it's not just that article because every thing that Maro would say on Tumblr about Kamigawa supported me not just a single article like yours lol
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/175499625718/could-you-explain-what-a-lot-of-players-didnt
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/171535849908/do-you-believe-the-admittedly-bad-mechanics-of
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/77834619992/kamigawa-may-have-been-a-legitimate-design-flaw
That ultimately ends and favors my claims for it being consistently mentioned not just in one article but most of the time the topic resurface.
LOL your demands are entire ridiculous. That's kinda "Ad Ignorantiam"
WHY?
It's like asking me to give you ONE evidence that the art or either the flavor text of Omnath, Locus of Creation was NOT a contributing factor to cause it to be banned in some format.
He doesn't even need to say it's NOT and all I need was his claims to align with me.
I never proclaimed being all-knowing where did you get that
I posted the whole article that you even linked and it's clearly still point the mechanics it's not your interpretation that is "Design: Weak".
The complete multiple detail from the article and multiple tumblr that proves my argument is true and it is a consistent true which, I posted it here which backed me all even your posted link.
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/819230-potential-upcoming-set-leaked-for-2022?page=2#c30
The whole thing is basically talking about terrible mechanics that even includes the link you provide
Which entirely supports my claims in a clear in details. Clarity proves it's true rather thank you just posting links and your own words not the article
Legends of the Five Rings have you heard it kid?
This was the complete post which makes it right and backup by the sources
It's the design that failed it.
It's kinda terrible to judge Kamigawa as failure because the settings was based on Japanese Mythology. Nowadays we had other set that weren't to similar to dominaria and other strong artifact set.
Because the details are important which clearly mentioned that it was the mechanics that failed it.
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/171535849908/do-you-believe-the-admittedly-bad-mechanics-of
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/77834619992/kamigawa-may-have-been-a-legitimate-design-flaw
@Ritokure grabing a portion is a bit mislead it's being a Japanese them it's clearly the mechanics that made it unpopular
MaRo's "Rabiah Scale" article:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rabiah-scale-part-1-2018-11-12
It's the design that made it terrible like the mechanics and etc not that it was a japanese myth theme.
It was clearly mentioned that the mechanics is the problem and it mentioned most of the time.
SO I AM RIGHT
Kamigawa was a set close to the likes of Onslaught, Mirrodin and Ravnica so it would be seen really slow. It's not because it being a Japanese Myth it's the mechanic that failed it. Obviously and mentioned clearly. Later on MTG would go more on other eastern theme and it's not a problem as long the mechanics works.
It's impossible that being a Japanese Myth makes it automatically worse in the aspect of game design
There is also a successful Japanese Theme TCG before Kamigawa
This era of modern that MTG is doing another thing like they did in portal and Arabian nights if people feel alienated it's not the huge case compare to the mechanics they did. It's not a big deal as something would make the set terrible.
If Mtg did something like a strong tribal set on Kamigawa like Onslaught I don't think it would fail the set is slow and force on revolving to itself.
Mirrodin was a powerful set and Ravnica was a diverse set and Kamigawa was in the middle with a force eco system of gameplay and poor mechanics.
For example mechanics named like Bushido can have been a different way of buffing
Epic could had been a different mechanic
Ninjutsu was a really likable mechanic
Soulshift and Arcane could had been better if it's more flexible in other condition of triggers
Dominaria has a improve Legendary theme compare to the restrictive Kamigawa set
FALSE
Can you link an article were MARO said that and also were he claimed it was too accurate that cause the failure?
because that is impossible, I'm speaking of Game Design STANDPOINT?
It's not even too ACCURATE Japanese myths. It's not the Japanese myth that makes a card game fail it was how they delivered how they would play.
Your main point is the Kamigawa being the failure because of the Japanese Myth in it.
It's like Japanese mythology isn't compatible to MTG
Saying Kamigawa was too Accurate to Japanese myth that made it fail is a terrible analogy to game design specially when it's as flexible like MTG.
Are familiar with the other Japanese TCG back then.
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Imagine those cards swap creature type and mechanic turned into another usual generic plane or something close to Dominaria plane it would still fail.