Is WotC Being Inconsistent in this Matter?
General forum
Posted on Jan. 26, 2024, 11:06 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
I saw this post, here, in which a user laments the lack of creatures that have downsides in exchange for below-average mana costs, and Mark Rosewater responded by saying that WotC only rarely prints creatures with downsides, because downsides on creatures are not popular, but that bothers me, because Rosewater also said that WotC would not change their mind on the "once per turn" or "activate only as a sorcery" restrictions due to player feedback, and I find that to be inconsistent, since he gave two different responses to very similar questions.
I personally was very fond of creatures that had downsides in exchange for being more powerful and/or less expensive, as they perfectly fit into black's philosophy, so I hope that WotC shall continue to print them, on occasion, and I would gladly see more of them in exchange for having the "once per turn" and "activate only as a sorcery" restrictions be used less often (again, I would like to emphasize that my problem is not with the existence of those restrictions, but with how often they are used, since I believe that several cards either do not need them or should not have them).
What does everyone else say about this? Is WotC being inconsistent on this matter?
I personally see a distinction between downsides and restrictions. Both are ways to limit the utility of the card, but downsides give you an outsized effect for the cost, but it actively hinders or harms you, while a restriction limits when or how the effect can be used.
Like, Volcanic Spite doesn't have a downside because it can't hurt players. That's a restriction. Similarly, the "activate only one per turn" clause isn't a downside because it doesn't actively hurt you or prevent you from playing. It simply limits how it can be used.
A couple of downside examples would be Steel Golem, which prevents you from casting any more creature spells, or Demonic Pact, which gives you lots of resources, but will cause you to straight up lose eventually.
Basically, if you would want to Donate it to an opponent, it's a downside. If you want to keep it but use it more often, it's a restriction. If it simply costs too much (Ember Shot) it's inefficient.
January 27, 2024 12:16 a.m.
wallisface says... #4
legendofa yeah good-call, most of the cards I listed are more deckbuilding-restriction than straight downside
January 27, 2024 12:19 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #5
wallisface, those three cards that you mentioned are perfectly fine; I am referring to cards such as Whispering Wizard, which has no reason to have that restriction, since Murmuring Mystic does not have it; Sunshot Militia, because, if it did not have that restriction, I could amass an army of tokens, use them to block, and then, during my opponent's end step, tap those tokens to deal massive amounts of damage to my opponents; and Slimefoot and Squee, because, if they did not have that restriction, I could revive them during my opponent's end step and then attack with them during my next turn.
January 27, 2024 8:55 a.m.
DemonDragonJ I'm not a professional designer, but if I had to guess at the reasonings for the restrictions on those cards:
Whispering Wizard is a 3/2, which carries a lot more pressure than a 1/5. It also triggers off planeswalkers, no creature artifacts, and battles, while Murmuring Mystic is instants and sorceries only.
Your desired used of Sunshot Militia is hugely above the expected complexity of a common card. It would be more powerful, but it would also be a rare card, at a glance. There's a loose but present ceiling on what a common should be able to do. And upgrading one red creature card's rarity means that either another red creature card has to get downgraded, or a rare red creature gets scrapped and a new common red creature created. And that's the minimum level of changes, assuming this was done very early in the process.
Instant-speed reanimation is unusual and expensive. When it does happen, it's 5+ mana Gravewaker, short-term Apprentice Necromancer, single-use Doomed Necromancer, or carries some other restrictions. (All my examples are activated abilities, but the same goes for spells, too). Permanently returning two creatures for four mana, at instant speed (so surprise blocker + haste), with the option of reusability, would make Slimefoot and Squee the strongest reanimator spell by far in the Modern era.
January 27, 2024 1:28 p.m.
wallisface says... #7
DemonDragonJ you already know my viewpoint specifically on the sorcery-speed and once-per-turn abilities very well, so I won’t go over that again here ;)
January 27, 2024 3:33 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #8
legendofa, in the case of Whispering Wizard, what if it cost 1 more mana? Would its ability then be allowed to trigger multiple times per turn? What if a more expensive version of sunshot militia was printed? Could its ability be used as an instant?
January 28, 2024 10:51 a.m.
Again, not a professional designer. But:
Compare Whispering Wizard to cards like Monastery Mentor or Third Path Iconoclast. I would say if or got added to the cost and it became a 2/2, it would be more likely to be triggered on any use. is the weakest color for continual token generation.
Sunshot Militia would need a shift up to at least uncommon, if not rare. It's already a reasonably efficient pinger, in that it can be activated multiple times in a turn and hits each opponent. Adding or maybe to the mana cost and upshifting the rarity would be enough to remove the restriction, I think. Ghirapur AEther Grid and Kyren Negotiations are my references here.
January 28, 2024 11:58 a.m.
Another WOTC consistency problem... why is Monastery Mentor mythic?? But that's off topic.
Mark Rosewater made an episode of Drive to Work adressing the whole downside thing, and I think it was interesting enough that anybody concerned should give it a listen :)
wallisface says... #2
I don't see any inconsistency here?
The "once per turn" or "activate only as a sorcery" text on cards aren't technically a downside, they're baked-in text to allow Wotc to strengthen the effect of the card itself - without that text they'd presumably be changing how the card functions (i.e. it'd be a completely different card), so the text isn't an upside-or-downside, just a tool for card-execution (I do get that when players read this text, that it's easy to assume its a setback on the card).
So purely on Wotc stance on downsides, I'm not seeing a dichotomy here.
Personally I'd also like to see more cards with downsides and/or restrictions - as these cards require more deckbuilding care and consideration instead of just being "auto-includes" in every goodstuff deck (some examples of cards I think have great downsides are Death's Shadow, Goblin Guide, and Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar, as all of these cards downsides aren't debilitating, but require you to build around them to avoid having a bad-time. And they're actually playable).
January 26, 2024 11:51 p.m.