How Have Planeswalkers Affected this Game?
General forum
Posted on Dec. 15, 2019, 10:12 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Next year (2020), planeswalkers will have been a part of this game for half of its lifespan (wow, how time flies!), so wish to discuss how they have affected the game in that time.
I, myself, do like them as a card type, because they added a new dimension to this game and its play, but I feel that they unquestionably have been given far too much focus since their introduction, and some of them have been infamous for their power (with the most notable example being Jace, the Mind Sculptor ). As I am very fond of legendary creatures, I feel that planeswalkers make them less special, especially since they are now legendary, as well.
I personally believe that this game currently has too many planeswalker cards, and I especially dislike how nearly every standard-legal set since their introduction contains at least one planeswalker; I personally feel that they would be much more awe-inspiring and special if they appeared only on rare occasion, rather than being almost as commonplace as legendary creatures (although both of them are still very rare).
What does everyone else say about this? How do you feel that planeswalkers have affected this game?
I am glad someone has already typed out my opinion in full, so I do not have to. Thanks xtechnetia! The only thing I would say is that my benchmark for powerful planeswalkers without being oppressive is actually Liliana, the Last Hope .
December 16, 2019 4:39 a.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #4
I hate them in draft. Players can make a trash deck but if they pull an Oko and get to jam it turn 3 they don't even need to cast another spell the whole game. However, I like that they add a different dimension to the game and give players more to think about when building constructed decks; threat diversity and resource management are very skill intensive choices and make the game more interesting then just smashing in with creatures or burning people to a crisp with spells.
December 16, 2019 10:49 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #5
xtechnetia, that is a great explanation, and also does convey how I feel about planeswalkers, as well.
December 21, 2019 9:02 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #6
By this time, has WotC realized how potentially problematic planeswalkers are? I would like to believe so, since there have been a greater number of cards that can directly affect them, although that does not explain how Oko was printed; WotC's playtesters must not have been paying close attention if Oko was actually physically printed.
January 26, 2020 9:41 a.m.
xtechnetia says... #7
Their postmortem on the Oko fiasco implies that they have acknowledged the need for more efficient planeswalker removal, but we'll see what shows up in the upcoming sets.
Oko itself was admitted as a mistake in playtesting by play design, who stated that they had never properly considered the ramifications of being able to elk opposing creatures.
Of course, it's possible they're lying because of goals like pushing pack sales or whatever, but broken formats typically lead to a downturn in business long-term, so I consider their given explanation (close enough to) the truth. YMMV.
January 26, 2020 5:07 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #8
xtechnetia, I would like to give WotC the benefit of the doubt on this subejct, as well.
As for Oko, I believe that would not have been overpowered if only one of two minor adjustments had been made to his second ability: either it should have been a negative loyalty ability, so that it could not be used indefinitely, or the transformation should have lasted only until end of turn. How could they not have realized such a simple solution?
January 26, 2020 9:41 p.m.
xtechnetia says... #9
That's up to speculation. It seems so obvious in retrospect, and it does seem like playtesting should have caught this, but perhaps mistakes like that really can be made.
Bear in mind that in theory, Standard at this point in time was supposed to have Oko being legal alongside Once Upon a Time, Nissa, Krasis, Veil of Summer, the new Destiny Spinner, and whatever else I forgot in . The thought of what that Standard would look like is probably best left as an exercise in morbid imagination.
xtechnetia says... #2
I don't think it's wrong to have planeswalkers in the game per se, but I dislike the way they tend to warp games around them.
Because of the way planeswalkers work, they're guaranteed to get one loyalty ability off before passing priority if they resolve (barring other triggers etc). Usually one of their loyalty abilities generates card advantage, so even if immediately answered with a removal spell, you usually trade down in cards in doing so, unless you have the board presence to kill the walker without expending cards to do so.
This wouldn't really be a problem if:
However:
I could go on and on, but you get my point. We have 1 mana removal for every other nonland permanent type, and those other permanent types are still widely played; the fact that we lack 1 mana planeswalker removal (Bolt doesn't count the way it does for creatures) is incredibly stupid.
That being said, I sort of understand introducing walkers. They can be fun and interactive (let's be honest, the vast majority of walkers may technically have the issues I've described, but are just bad enough on the whole that nobody cares about them), and the ones that are archetype-enabling ( Sorin, Imperious Bloodlord is a fine example) instead of just generic slam-me-down-if-I'm-in-your-colors bombs are, in my opinion, a positive influence on the game.
They also have the benefits of:
I think Liliana of the Veil has my vote for best powerful-but-fair planeswalker. She doesn't have insane loyalty numbers, she has BB in her mana cost (making her less splashable), the +1 is symmetrical (she's a build-around-me walker, not slam-me-if-you're-black walker), the -2 means she dies to a stiff breeze, and the ult, while powerful, isn't literally I-win-the-game.
December 16, 2019 1:55 a.m.