The "Face-Walker" Problem
General forum
Posted on March 21, 2017, 9:58 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Planeswalkers are an awesome card type, but I feel that they have been overcrowding every other card type in the game, recently, and I know that other players feel that way, as well.
I recently found this article, here, in which the author speaks of how he feels that making planeswalkers the face of this game is problematic. I very much like how he gives clear and rational reasoning and is not simply complaining, as do some players.
As a personal note, I really do not wish for WotC to turn M:tG into a major franchise to rival those from Marvel, DC, and so forth; it should be game that focuses on being fun, not on trying to be popular and trendy.
I do hope that WotC realizes how planeswalkers are overshadowing all other card types, and does something to keep them in check. What does everyone else say about this article? Do you believe that the popularity of planeswalkers is problematic for the game, and what solution do you propose to fix it?
@Busse That's partly because of how much effort it takes to ult a walker. Ulting a walker requires quite an investment, and is typically failed when attempted. If you were able to remove emblems from the game in an effect that say, exiles an emblem, think about it like this: the person who had the walker devoted creatures to block, mana to remove threats, and other resources to protect the walker and ult it. But for one simple card, the other guy can simply remove it. And I have to disagree with it being hard to deal with walkers. Direct damage for one is a really good way to deal with them, and they are hit hard by any bounce effect, as if it resolves they start back at their base amount of counters. Some of them such as Liliana of the Veil and Karn Liberated can be really powerful, but in the end they typically don't win games (by themselves) owing to the amount of investment needed to keep them alive for long.
Incidentally, what format are you talking about DemonDragonJ?
March 21, 2017 10:38 p.m.
As a B/G player, bounce and direct damage are unavailable to me. Few options not counting Ultimate Price.
We still don't have that many options to manage PW appropriately. And by that I dont mean "pay 1: exile target emblem or PW", but a sorcery or instant that removes counters or something like that wouldn't hurt the game.
March 21, 2017 11:09 p.m.
AEther Snap, Vampire Hexmage, Hex Parasite and Thrull Parasite work nicely against walkers if you are running black.
March 21, 2017 11:14 p.m.
Busse: Black specifically has Hero's Downfall and Ruinous Path and green gives you access to Beast Within, potentially Abrupt Decay and Garruk, Apex Predator if you really wanted to. Not to mention all the proactive discard black provides.
March 22, 2017 1:37 a.m.
I can absolutely see the story of amonket now:
The Jacetice League goes to Amonkhet to chase Tezz, but find Bolas. By Hour of devastation, Bolas has assembled the League of Evil Walkers, feat. Tezzeret, Nahiri, Ob Nixilis, Garruk, Vraska.
Seriously, it is such a overload. Zendikar, innistrad and kaladesh have had a same-y story progression - the League of Extraordinary Planeswalkers gets a clue to go a plane, there is something nefarious going on, they get tangled in it despite being able to easily walk away from it, and they end up beating up the big baddy via the power of ex-machina mostly.
I dislike the story and have not been following it since Origins and the retcon of Nissa, particularly because of the extreme focus on uninteresting planeswalkers.
Where is the Squee, Gerrard and Ertai of this era? You know, characters with depth and progression and growth?
March 22, 2017 6:13 a.m.
I would like to see the new Bolas able to deal with Emblems - maybe something like an ult which removes all other emblems and give you an emblem with 'other planeswalkers come into play with -1 loyalty'
March 22, 2017 8:08 a.m.
@DemonDragonJ My "From-The hip" proposal to keep Planeswalkers in check would be a rule change in regards to loyalty counters. I propose that the loyalty counters whether up of down would reflect on its controllers life total. Ill use Venser, the Sojourner for example.
If you use his +2 and its controller would gain 2 life. and by using his -1 lose 1 life and same for his -8 lose 8 life. This would also mean hitting him with a Lightning Bolt he would lose 3 loyalty and its controller uses 3 life. Im also in favor of a Creature that has trample or double strike would continue to damage its controller after Killing said planeswalker.
I think by doing this we can still have Great/Fun planwalkers but with an added risk/danger of playing them allows for a good trade off for the "Untouchable Emblems." This way if you get the Emblem you definitely EARNED it; rather than create a new line of cards to strictly answer those conditions.
March 22, 2017 9:46 a.m.
Hero's Downfall, DAMMIT
WotC is running out of card names
March 22, 2017 11:33 a.m.
landofMordor says... #12
Technically speaking, Entrei is totally on point. In faster formats like Standard and Modern, planeswalkers will not be used for their ultimate, but for the incremental value they accrue. Modern and Standard both have a ton of threats to keep walkers in check, from discard to aggro/evasive Vehicles in Standard. In EDH, even though walkers have enough time to go ultimate, there's every answer from Imprisoned in the Moon to Oblivion Ring, so I'd argue walkers aren't mechanically overpowered in that format either (even if some players abuse walkers, they aren't inherently broken, just like Storm isn't broken until you build decks dedicated to abusing it).
That brings us to the lore of walkers. Yes, the Gatewatch is very Superfriends-esque. Yes, some plot points are contrived, and the Gatewatch has been absurdly good at killing Eldrazi and winning revolts, etc. But I would remind the reader that we are only three short blocks into the Gatewatch. That is barely enough time to establish tropes and relationships between characters, let alone strain and twist those characters in new ways. It's fair to say those characters aren't deep, but only because WotC has barely had enough blocks to establish a status quo in the Gatewatch. If Bane had broken Batman's back in Batman Begins, it wouldn't have had as much meaning as when it happened in the third Nolan movie. Likewise, the Gatewatch need a status quo for us to be surprised by character depth and new situations. A careful observer will note that the all the signs point to an impending Gatewatch loss -- Ajani is ditching them on Amonkhet, Bolas and Tezzeret are waiting, and Liliana is prepping to kill a demon master. Something's going to go down, and I am optimistic that it will be very different than the status quo Wizards has established.
March 22, 2017 3:16 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #13
Busse, an emblem is supposed to be be a permanent change to the state of the game, so being able to remove an emblem would defeat their purpose. The original wording for Elspeth, Knight-Errant's emblem, the original emblem, was "for the remainder of the game, artifacts, creatures, enchantments, and lands that you control are indestructible," so WotC conceived of emblems as an easy way to mark that change, and then expanded emblems from there.
However, I do agree that Kiora's emblem is slightly too powerful, and should have been less powerful.
March 22, 2017 10:23 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #14
Let's just kill every member of the Gatewatch that isn't Ajani. I'm sick of the actions of non-Gatewatch characters being virtually meaningless and redundant because people want Jace-on-a-stick. Just ice them all, and leave Ajani to pick up the pieces.
Busse says... #2
I agree, we are nowadays lacking cards that deal efficiently with PWs, and we have absolutely no answer to things like Emblems (See the Kiora U/G that creates octopus tokens... plainly sick).
I share your concern.
March 21, 2017 10:09 p.m.