You obviously still don't get it, by the time WotC knew that the DFC's were a success, it was to late to change AVR without holding it back a year, which would have destroyed M:TG.
My last post already answered this concern. I understand why their were no DFC in AVR, but the Werewolf subtype was brought back to replace the old werewolf typing template, which the Wolfir now use. They could have just gave the Wolfir the werewolf type, since they just brought it back to stop using the Wolfir's current Template. Then one of the block's major themes (a tribal) would continue into the final set without DFC. Easy solution, everyone wins. This is something basic enough (don't drop major themes partway through,) that they already knew better, and it's a solution they already developed for another problem, so it's not like they actually had to come up with it.
And again, you completely missed the point I was making: They knew we wanted a werewolf legend, but they did not know we wanted a legendary werewolf LORD, because no one bothered to tell them. Not in *one* of the replied to messages on MaRo's tumbler regarding a werewolf legend does people even mention it should be a lord. It was the same with the spider legend, not *once* did people mention that they wanted a JUND colored legendary spider. When people don't tell them exactly what people are expecting, it is pretty damn hard for them to deliver. And contrary to popular belief, employees of WotC neither have the time, nor permission to trawl message boards for the odd post that tells them what people want. They are simply not allowed to because it could compromise their design process and could potentially lead to lawsuits (they stole my idea! Wah, wah, wah, I have sand in uncomfortable places). They have enough crap on their plate due to people not understanding the concept of "volunteering". If you want to let the designers know what you want to see (except whole card designs/new mechanics) in a general sense, then you need to contact them, specifically MaRo, on their tumblers or other social media, because that is the only chance you have. Complaining on it on forums doesn't do anything but waste your time. They are not perfect, they are human, just like I assume you are.
If they can't look, and they can't ask (via surveys or whathaveyou,) they have to just pray people volunteer the information. This is the crux of my issue. It's not necassary they do it this way, and worse than if they just asked or looked. If that's how they do it, so be it. I don't like it, and I don't respect it, but in the end it's their choice to make.
I'll be sending a very detailed analysis of werewolf design to Wizards explaining in depth how they could better design them on the next return. I can't believe I never thought to do this before, so thank you for telling me exactly what I need to do. No sarcasm intended. I know it can come across that way in text.
I get why they weren't included, but Wizards did nothing to make it better. AVR Wolfir could have been werewolf typed, since they brought back the the type so they didn't have to use the (wolf human [class]) type on things that are obviously werewolves. There are many things like that tied in with werewolves. At every point they could have screwed up with werewolves they did.
They knew before OG Innistrad we would want a legendary werewolf, but decided it was more important we had planeswalker. This was confirmed in an article by Rosewater. They had five years (six if you count the development year) to figure out what to do. It's not like we magic players don't like complaining. They would have known exactly what players wanted if they looked at a few rants. All they had to do was throw a manasink on the front face and it would have been perfect, and everyone would be happy. As it stands, Duskwatch Recruiter would have made the better legend.
Its understandable how they screwed this up, but I expect more from them. They are the best, and they get paid like the best, so I expect the best. These mistakes are amature mistakes. Or maybe the mistakes of people secure in their positions who have stopped trying.
Funny you should suggest it, the Cecani siblings are currently my only EDH deck. It's wonderful, and Wizards really did a great job on the card. I also play the three titans in the deck because I love how true their designs are to the lore. A friend has Tazri built, and although I don't care for it, it performs well and plays true to allies.
That said, the Werewolf legend comes off as an afterthought, mediocre for every possible use, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that's true. Just checking off a box on a checklist. I just read an article where Rosewater says they designed Ulrich to be strong in multiplayer. He showed no sign that he's aware the card isn't even that great in the place he intended it to be played.
It just feels like for every thing they could screw up with werewolves (past the initial design, which was amazing and a huge part of why I love the tribe so much,) they not only screwed up, but did so in jaw-dropping ways, like their total absence from the third set of their debut block directly after they did the same thing with allies and said they wouldn't do it in the future. It had already gotten old five years ago.
They don't even know there's a problem though, and I doubt they will figure it out by the next return to Innistrad.
I really enjoy the brainstorming happening here for the possible mechanic. Now, Maro keeps trying to play the ignorance card when referring to why Ulrich was so disappointing. He repeatedly says that all Wizards knew was that we wanted a legendary werewolf. He claims they didnt realize that we thought a Legendary werewolf, desired really only for needs of Commander, should have tribal synergies (Let's not even discuss the fact that the only reason people wanted a legendary werewolf specifically as opposed to just another R/G Legendary creature was for the Commander tribal build).
So, here is what I am hoping for. I would love to see continued brainstorming on what we think a single-faced werewolf mechanic would be. Or if we just want to have the werewolf creature type with an already transformed werewolf art. Basically, it sounds like we need to be super specific in the event that R&D sees this...
The issue is one of communication between the vocal populace and WotC, Maro even stated as múch after EMN was released. Just take Ishkanah, Grafwidow as an obvious example. WotC was under the impression that Commander players wanted a Legendary Spider (we did and still do) with a green/black color identity, completely missing that we wanted a Jund colored Legendary Spider rather than a Golgari one, to play with all our spider themed cards (well, almost all, but nobody cares about Ancient Spider anyway). It is the same with Ulrich, WotC knew we wanted a legendary werewolf, but they completely missed that we wanted a legendary werewolf *LORD* for our werewolf decks. But it is a two way street. We need to be more clear in what we want, and they need to be more attentive when we tell them. But they are only human after all, and both Ishkanah and Ulrich are good cards in their own right, even if they were not what we wanted.
They could just ask. I don't know why they feel the need to pretend to exist in a seperate reality, but it gets old fast.
In all fairness, everything can be compared, so no two things are "completely different." It was hyperbole on my part, a bad habit I need to work on fixing.
The thing about V:TES was just an fyi. Not a counter to your point. Another fyi though, a tcg is said to be dead if the company with the rights to produce it no longer do. With the high failure rate in the industry it's a useful word to describe if a game is still being made, since it's simple, quick, and intuitive.
---
My theory is that the number of early adopters for a game is the primary factor for success. Every game currently on the top ten (excluding non-ccgs which I can't speak for) had strong support from release, while other games that didn't (Adventure Time Card Wars anyone?) fell off right after the initial interest faded.
How games got that support is another thing. Hearthstone made a super simple game and marketed it very well. Also Blizzard. It's Blizzard. Pokemon, DBZ, and Yugioh got there through the popularity of their source material AND the solidness of the mechanics of their games. You'll notice that the ccgs of other popular media never quite got there, and this can be attributed to either clunky and confusing design or a lack of marketing.
FOW probably got popular initially because people just already knew how to play, I agree with you on that, but it's overall success I believe stems from that early support, not because it's mechanics are so similar to magic's.
Ultimatally people just want to to play, and that means playing the games other's play.
The Planeswalker card type was poorly designed. A little too late to do anything about that though.
OP is mostly right, and has a great point. I should be able to rolling thunder multiple 'walkers. It would make sense from both a flavor and a gameplay perspective, and deserves a fix.
Note I am only arguing that this should be done. I don't care to get involved in the how's of it, but the resistance I am seeing in this thread compelled me to say at least that much. It upsets me to see good points met with resistance as opposed to effort to improve it. It's a really destructive mindset to have.
And how did Netrunner and Jyhad do? Netrunner was discontinued (the new version is a similar but still different product) and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle isn't in the top 10 selling TCGs (according to ICv2).
V:TES died in 2010 fyi. The game was specifically multiplayer focused, which probably hurt it more than anything conaidering it's intended audience.
The Big Three CCGs all play completely different, putting a little more than a small dent in your theory. The success of a game seems to have little to do with quality and originality, and FAR more with how many early adopters you can get.
what happened with the hypnotoad I mean gitrog monster, I know its more a short story but its just a wee personal thing?
The art book has a minor note about all the "monsters" the cults have been worshipping (like the frog) were warped by Emrakul into eldrazi horrors, no long recognizable as a natural creatures.
I finally got my art book. Do you remember what section this is in?
These charts of the Top 5 Collectible Games Over-all, Top 3 Mass Market Channel Collectible Games and Top 10 Hobby Channel Collectible Games reflect sales in Spring 2016. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.
Top 10 Hobby Channel Collectible Games – Spring 2016
Title - Publisher
1 Magic: The Gathering - Wizards of the Coast [+0}
2 Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG - Konami [+0]
3 Pokemon TCG - Pokemon USA [+0]
4 Force of Will - Force of Will [+0]
5 Marvel and DC HeroClix - WizKids [+0]
6 Cardfight!! Vanguard - Bushiroad [+1]
7 Dice Masters - WizKids [-1]
8 D&D Fantasy Miniatures - WizKids [+1]
9 Pathfinder Battles - WizKids [NEW]
10 Dragon Ball Z TCG - Panini [NEW]
No longer top ten: Future Card Buddyfight and Weiss Schwarz by Bushiroad.
Notes:
Bushiroad's most successful game is higher rose a rank on the chart, but it's other two fell off the top ten. Curious.
Dragonball Z made it into the top ten!
Pathfinder Battles marks the 4th non-ccg to make it to the top ten.
Dicemasters appears to be still losing it's momentum. I wasn't very impressed with the game, but it was a novel idea, and heaven knows the industry needs more of those.
G&G match my playstyle almost perfectly. I like decks with infinate advantage, held back only by mana production. I like strong synergies (like tribal for example.) I like replaying things. I don't like overpowering my opponents through brute force. I don't like infinate combos (but I'll play the ones that want to be in the deck.) G&G are perfect me.
OP, the numbers in Drain Life's post are spot on. You may want to go up to 35 lands thanks to the mulligan rule change, but otherwise follow that exactly and you'll be fine. For the rest of the deck, if you focus on strong etb value zombies and kill spells you will have a respectabke deck, and with a little time you will figure out what works well, what doesn't, and which themes work best for you.
Also, play 3-4 sac outlets. Carrion Feeder, Grim-Grin, and Altar of Dementia are obvious, then one or two more of your choice. They are have a ton of utility in edh.
I'm still testing Waxing Moon, but in theory I don't like it, except as a combo with weredrazi. With classic werewolves your entire deck should be set up to allow you guys to flip naturally, making Waxing Moon redundant, but it's too inconsitant with weredrazi unless you have a high enough density of of them. To get a high enough density of them to make the card consistantly good you have to play some bad ones.
That said, if you play 4 Kessig Prowler and 6 others I can see it being strong. Any time trample is good too.
It depends on what you expect to see. Assuming a generic meta I'd add two more cage. That would also make sideboarding easier with out 4 young wolf in 4 Grafdiggers Cage being a common move.
The two full moon's rise in the board is against traditional control which I always face at least one of. I agree with you on the effectiveness of nihil spellbomb, but if I added it, I would splash black. I'm just OCD with my mana bases. I'd love to hear how it worked for you.
My last post already answered this concern. I understand why their were no DFC in AVR, but the Werewolf subtype was brought back to replace the old werewolf typing template, which the Wolfir now use. They could have just gave the Wolfir the werewolf type, since they just brought it back to stop using the Wolfir's current Template. Then one of the block's major themes (a tribal) would continue into the final set without DFC. Easy solution, everyone wins. This is something basic enough (don't drop major themes partway through,) that they already knew better, and it's a solution they already developed for another problem, so it's not like they actually had to come up with it.
If they can't look, and they can't ask (via surveys or whathaveyou,) they have to just pray people volunteer the information. This is the crux of my issue. It's not necassary they do it this way, and worse than if they just asked or looked. If that's how they do it, so be it. I don't like it, and I don't respect it, but in the end it's their choice to make.
I'll be sending a very detailed analysis of werewolf design to Wizards explaining in depth how they could better design them on the next return. I can't believe I never thought to do this before, so thank you for telling me exactly what I need to do. No sarcasm intended. I know it can come across that way in text.
They knew before OG Innistrad we would want a legendary werewolf, but decided it was more important we had planeswalker. This was confirmed in an article by Rosewater. They had five years (six if you count the development year) to figure out what to do. It's not like we magic players don't like complaining. They would have known exactly what players wanted if they looked at a few rants. All they had to do was throw a manasink on the front face and it would have been perfect, and everyone would be happy. As it stands, Duskwatch Recruiter would have made the better legend.
Its understandable how they screwed this up, but I expect more from them. They are the best, and they get paid like the best, so I expect the best. These mistakes are amature mistakes. Or maybe the mistakes of people secure in their positions who have stopped trying.
That said, the Werewolf legend comes off as an afterthought, mediocre for every possible use, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that's true. Just checking off a box on a checklist. I just read an article where Rosewater says they designed Ulrich to be strong in multiplayer. He showed no sign that he's aware the card isn't even that great in the place he intended it to be played.
It just feels like for every thing they could screw up with werewolves (past the initial design, which was amazing and a huge part of why I love the tribe so much,) they not only screwed up, but did so in jaw-dropping ways, like their total absence from the third set of their debut block directly after they did the same thing with allies and said they wouldn't do it in the future. It had already gotten old five years ago.
They don't even know there's a problem though, and I doubt they will figure it out by the next return to Innistrad.
That's an amazing idea. Near perfection. Great job.
They could just ask. I don't know why they feel the need to pretend to exist in a seperate reality, but it gets old fast.
The thing about V:TES was just an fyi. Not a counter to your point. Another fyi though, a tcg is said to be dead if the company with the rights to produce it no longer do. With the high failure rate in the industry it's a useful word to describe if a game is still being made, since it's simple, quick, and intuitive.
---
My theory is that the number of early adopters for a game is the primary factor for success. Every game currently on the top ten (excluding non-ccgs which I can't speak for) had strong support from release, while other games that didn't (Adventure Time Card Wars anyone?) fell off right after the initial interest faded.
How games got that support is another thing. Hearthstone made a super simple game and marketed it very well. Also Blizzard. It's Blizzard. Pokemon, DBZ, and Yugioh got there through the popularity of their source material AND the solidness of the mechanics of their games. You'll notice that the ccgs of other popular media never quite got there, and this can be attributed to either clunky and confusing design or a lack of marketing.
FOW probably got popular initially because people just already knew how to play, I agree with you on that, but it's overall success I believe stems from that early support, not because it's mechanics are so similar to magic's.
Ultimatally people just want to to play, and that means playing the games other's play.
OP is mostly right, and has a great point. I should be able to rolling thunder multiple 'walkers. It would make sense from both a flavor and a gameplay perspective, and deserves a fix.
Note I am only arguing that this should be done. I don't care to get involved in the how's of it, but the resistance I am seeing in this thread compelled me to say at least that much. It upsets me to see good points met with resistance as opposed to effort to improve it. It's a really destructive mindset to have.
V:TES died in 2010 fyi. The game was specifically multiplayer focused, which probably hurt it more than anything conaidering it's intended audience.
The Big Three CCGs all play completely different, putting a little more than a small dent in your theory. The success of a game seems to have little to do with quality and originality, and FAR more with how many early adopters you can get.
Thanks! A little sad we lost some great monsters, but hopefully this opens up room for new monsters to fill the void (no pun intended.)
I finally got my art book. Do you remember what section this is in?
No longer top ten: Future Card Buddyfight and Weiss Schwarz by Bushiroad.
Notes:
Bushiroad's most successful game is higher rose a rank on the chart, but it's other two fell off the top ten. Curious.
Dragonball Z made it into the top ten!
Pathfinder Battles marks the 4th non-ccg to make it to the top ten.
Dicemasters appears to be still losing it's momentum. I wasn't very impressed with the game, but it was a novel idea, and heaven knows the industry needs more of those.
OP, the numbers in Drain Life's post are spot on. You may want to go up to 35 lands thanks to the mulligan rule change, but otherwise follow that exactly and you'll be fine. For the rest of the deck, if you focus on strong etb value zombies and kill spells you will have a respectabke deck, and with a little time you will figure out what works well, what doesn't, and which themes work best for you.
Also, play 3-4 sac outlets. Carrion Feeder, Grim-Grin, and Altar of Dementia are obvious, then one or two more of your choice. They are have a ton of utility in edh.
That said, if you play 4 Kessig Prowler and 6 others I can see it being strong. Any time trample is good too.