Common Design: Nyxborn Shieldmate and Nyxborn Eidolon

Today in Limited Information Marshall Sutcliffe spoiled five common enchantment creatures from the upcoming set Born of the Gods. These cards are all excellent examples of what a common should be. I'm not here to go over that for these. Rather, I am going to take a look at two of the cards and talk about how well they explore the conflict between the colors White and Black and serve as an introduction to the game of Magic. Clearly I have to be talking about Nyxborn Shieldmate and Nyxborn Eidolon (as if the title wasn't a dead giveaway). When you look at these cards they seem like limited fodder.

But they are so much more. They are cards you actively want to show someone who is just getting into Magic.

Let's start at the most basic element: white and black. These concepts are well ingrained into culture as opposing forces (just look at Star Wars or the Yin and Yang). This duo do so much to illuminate the conflict in Magic while tapping into this inherent capital. As if the color of the borders were not enough the idea is hammered home since the power and toughness on these cards are the inverse of each other. They cancel each other out - a positive and negative ion. Immediately the idea of a war between the colors is thrown in front of a gamer. This helps to make the other color conflicts and alliances easier to grok in the long term.

The Shieldmate tells us a lot about white. With a lower casting cost we can infer that white is better at small creatures (or maybe it won't come as a surprise in the long term). Having the higher toughness of the pair also aligns white with the concepts of defense and protection; with life. Contrast this with the Eidolon which is more expensive and is more aggressive. If white is about life and protection then black is about death and aggression. While not a direct link it can be easier to understand that black is more interested in its self as one plumbs deeper into color philosophy. What is more readily understood is that black is a more assertive color - it is willing to pay more to advance its goal (winning the game). 

This of course gives us the first hint of Magic strategy: more aggressive creatures cost more. From here it is not a huge cognitive leap to understand that attacking is valued as a path to victory while defense is not. 

These creatures also share a mechanic in Bestow. Why is the Shieldmate cheaper on this metric? It takes some hindsight and involvement in the game but a few minutes of introductory study can give volumes of information. White is clearly better at the enchantment style of magic but why is black worse? Hmm, well, black is the color of death and magical auras don't really die. Rather they cease to be. Maybe black, being so associated with the mortal coil, is much better at dealing with things that are alive instead of ephemeral (of course there is a flavor fail here since the Eidolon is a spirit).

So what are these cards: Limited fodder, Pauper Cube inclusions, or windows into the world of Magic? I think it's important to examine commons on more than just the base level because sometimes you will find gems like these that do so much more than attack and block.

Common Design: Goblin Bushwhacker

Happy New Year everyone! I hope the holiday treated you well and you're all ready for 2014! I know I am. I recently opened up submissions for Common Design on my Facebook page (please feel free to make future suggestions there or in the comments) and decided to take on the challenge set by long time fan Maurillo and examine Goblin Bushwhacker. Just as a refresher here are the criteria I look at to see if a card succeeds as a common:

• Support casual play
• Support limited play
• Serve as an entry point into Magic
• Viable for high level constructed
• Adheres to New World Order
• Color Identity

Blazing the trail we have Casual Play. Goblin Bushwhacker has a huge advantage in this realm in that it is a Goblin. This creature type is supported in just about every Core Set and every other block. Goblins are an incredibly popular tribe and this is an easy addition to any Goblin deck. More than that it serves as a cheap one shot lord style creature. While cards like Goblin King and Goblin Chieftain don't really break the bank the Bushwhacker can provide a similar effect at a fraction of the monetary cost.

The road forks here and we get to another bonus from Bushwhacker - it doesn't just affect goblins. This means that our tribal pilot from the first paragraph can get extra utility from this card in any deck running Mountains. This card is a solid investment for multiple decks and someone who isn't a heavily invested player can get a lot of mileage out of this little guy. It pushes towards a specific deck design which can also help a player proceed from a base level of understanding to more advanced (or as invested players will understand it, rudimentary) deck building. 

I remember Zendikar limited fondly. I had just returned to playing paper Magic and was doing quite well (opening a Volcanic Island at the prerelease helped). For those that were not around, Zendikar was an incredibly fast limited format. Attacking was paramount and blocking was nearly nonexistent.  Most matches were races (very often decided by Vampire Nighthawk. Goblin Bushwhacker did work in this format because it could provide a win from nowhere victory. In other formats this would not be a great thing but in the hyper-aggro world of triple Zendikar Goblin Bushwhacker helped to give decks a chance of peeling a win from the top very early in the game. Goblin Bushwhacker was also instructional - it (along with cards like Goblin Shortcutter) provided a map for the red mage: attack early and often.

Goblin Bushwhacker does a fine job of being the start of someone's Magical journey. It relies on a well worn fantasy species while also giving insight into one of the core philosophies of red. It also taps into the trope of the Goblin horde, a Tolkien inspired attribute, that can be understood easily by anyone with basic fantasy knowledge.  While doing this it also provides insight into the world of Zendikar - in what sort of world do you need a guide and someone to help you through the backwoods trails...and in what world would you trust a goblin to do this?

Oh, and let's not forget this card's tournament pedigree. Andrea Giarola used Goblin Bushwhacker to propel himself to a top 8 berth at Pro Tour San Juan (and 3rd place finish) in 2010 with a 7-1-2 constructed record. At Pro Tour San Diego 2010, potential Hall of Famer Paul Rietzl played a Goblin Bushwhacker deck to 23rd place. Goblin Bushwhacker is a tournament caliber card.

New World Order is all about board complexity and Goblin Bushwhacker shines here. It has an impact on the turn it is played but then it reverts to Mons's Goblin Raiders. This is an excellent level of complexity - it does something then goes to be a perfectly normal creature. Goblin Bushwhacker scores high marks here because it is quite the simple card (in execution) with a huge level of potential play packed in the elegance.

As a halcyon of red, well, Bushwhacker excels once again. It has the small red creature type in goblin. It plays into reds love of all out aggression and the emphasis the color plays on attacking - the act now think later motif. Goblin Bushwhacker also is a nod to red's ability to stoke emotions- I'm angry, you should be too!

Let's face it. Goblin Bushwhacker is a powerful card that did unfair things in Pauper Storm Combo decks. But the fact remains it is an excellent implementation of a common. If it came from a set where attacking was not the way of the day I could see it being an uncommon but as is Goblin Bushwhacker lives up to its black expansion symbol.

Common Design: Watchwolf

Watchwolf? Isn't that an uncommon? Yup, sure is. Part of this series is going to be looking at cards from Magic's history and seeing if they can be downshifted to common. Magic has certainly come a long way since Zvi previewed the card in 2005 and it is reasonable to ask if Watchwolf, today, could be a common. Common Cause cohost Mike Vadman did just that after our last recording session and I decided to tackle it for this column. 

As a refresher, the criteria I look at include:

• Support casual play
• Support limited play
• Entry point into Magic
• Viable for high-level constructed
• Adheres to New World Order
• Color Identity

First up - casual play! Watchwolf has no problems here. It is large enough that it can be an impact play at multiple points in a game. Being a 3/3 on turn two is nothing to sneeze at in tournaments or on kitchen tables. It also fits nicely into multiple green/white or Selesnya strategies - the small creature rush or the GW Little Kid Special. Watchwolf is also a card that holds up over time. Even though the eight year old luster has worn off the Wolf is still a reasonable creature by today's standards. Watchwolf might not be exciting but it has a role in casual play. In fact, it is this lack of excitement that makes it perfect for common.

Limited play is another matter entirely. Watchwolf came from Ravnica: City of Guilds, a set and block with a two color (or guild) theme. At the time of printing Watchwolf was solidly an uncommon. Today, well, it depends. Alara Reborn, another set in a multicolor block, gave us Qasali Pridemage which is sort of like a Watchwolf, only with way more text. If Watchwolf were printed today, it could likely be a common if only because creatures have gotten better as a whole since 2005.  As seen in cards like  Garruk's Companion and Porcelain Legionnaire green and white can have three power two drops at common. While the GW casting cost might be easier than the GG of Companion in a gold set, the size of the creature should not be a problem for modern design. With regards to limited play I see no reason why Watchwolf could not be common.

As a gateway to Magic, Watchwolf passes, but not at the front of the class. It does a good job of showing off white and green as the creature colors and the art is spectacular. The flavor text and art does a great job of conveying the nature Ravnica while also alluding to the unique nature of this creature. To me the big fail is the creature type. Wolf is not a heavily supported tribe and could be misleading to newcomers. However, it is still cool enough to be a common, especially if tribes were incidental to the block structure. 

Watchwolf is a card that would see high level constructed play in modern magic. Efficiency is always valued and creatures with power greater than their casting cost are always attractive. Watchwolf saw play in some of the earliest "Zoo" decks after Ravnica came out and I do not doubt it would see feature match tables today. on top of that, at common it could help enable a "cost effective" option for people looking to dip their toe in competitive play. 

The Ravnican wolf aces the New World Order test. It adds nothing to board complexity besides three power and three toughness. It would be a simple and elegant common.

Watchwolf also aces the color identity test. Green and white are the creature colors, with white getting the more creatures lower on the curve and green getting the larger creatures. Combine the two and you get a cheap and large threat. 

So is Watchwolf a common? All signs point to yes. Given the correct block structure (one that cares about multicolored cards), Watchwolf would hit every note a common should. It is an elegant execution of a simple card the exemplifies its colors. A real winner. 

And to think, it was once revolutionary...

Common Design: Quirion Ranger

Last week on #MTGPauper there was some discussion about the importance of Quirion Ranger to Stompy. The sheer amount that this elf can do got me thinking about its design and development, and whether the card would be a common under today's standards.

The metrics, for review, are:

• Support casual play
• Support limited play
• Entry point into Magic
• Viable for high-level constructed
• Adheres to New World Order
• Color Identity

Also, as pointed out by MTGColorPie, I am looking at a whole released card and not just the design. As such this will touch on development as well (at least in Magic terms). 

So Quirion Ranger does quite a few things. Looking at the realm of casual it appears to be a winner. It sports a casual friendly creature type in Elf, making it play nice with a wide swath of cards. Elves are omnipresent in any two year span so it is likely a less entrenched player will have access to others of the pointy eared tribe. If not, no matter- Quirion Ranger is not a tribal required card. It has utility for Johnnies as well - the ability to replay a land and untap creatures can be important to different contraptions. Not only that but the ability plays very nicely with the popular Zendikar mechanic of Landfall. It also lends itself to allowing people out of mana woes (one land can net two mana, two lands nets three) which can increase the amount of feel good in any one game. Quirion Ranger does a lot of heavy lifting and making it easy to acquire (at least in rarity) is a benefit to people playing for fun.

My experience with Mirage block limited is, well, limited. From what I know this is a format where three drops mattered (with all the Flanking knights) and cards like Man-'o-War and Fallen Askari  played important roles because they broke the "turn three" rule. Quirion Ranger is an oddity here as it could potentially aide a player in casting their three drop, but at a hefty price in tempo. Mirage block also lacked a lot of creatures with Big that could take advantage of the pseudo-Vigilance granted by the Ranger. Quirion Ranger is far more likely a limited role player, similar to the modern world's build around uncommons - key in their deck, but not so much elsewhere. I imagine it would be a beast of a one drop in triple Zendikar mono-green.

As a gateway, Quirion Ranger scores middling marks. Sure, it's an elf and provides insight into the Quirion stripe of these green staples. The art certainly implies that these elves are far more likely to be found in the jungles of Jamuraa than the snow-covered forests of Fyndhorn. The flavor text also reenforces that these elves care about the ground beneath their feet and are its stewards. This is a common fantasy trope and makes the game more accessible to newcomers. 

Quirion Ranger seems like a card that should see upper level play. It was an important card in various Recurring Nightmare- Survival of the Fittest decks, both in Standard and Extended (hah, remember Extended?) while also seeing current play in Legacy Elves!. It played nice with Winter Orb back in the day and has an effect that continues to influence Pauper Stompy today. So as far as a common goes, it succeeds here.

New World Order. Ho boy. Quirion Ranger fails miserably here. It is not just because two subsequent homages, Wirewood Symbiote and Scryb Ranger are both uncommon but also due to the way Ranger can muddy up a board state. Suddenly every Forest represents an on board trick forcing players to remember an otherwise innocuous 1/1.  Sure, this is awesome, but imagine having to do it every draft. Worse yet, the added complexity and land drop reset could lend itself to awkward judge calls. As a common Quirion Ranger could cause massive headaches in a modern limited environment.

That being said this is a color identity direct hit. Not only is it the right size and creature type for a green common, it also exemplifies green's ties to nature and shows hints of green's future adoption of Vigilance. As far as mana elves go, only the trinity of Llanowar Elves, Fyndhorn Elves, and Elvish Mystic do a better job (at common, at least) of hammering home the connection to the wild world. We love lands, and we love them enabling our giant monsters. We're going to smash your face now and keep them up on defense now, kay?

The verdict? Today I am fairly certain that Quirion Ranger would be an uncommon. While it does a great job of selling the color and acting as a starting point for Magic, it also holds a level of complexity that is far too great for common now a days. But on behalf of Pauper Stompy players everywhere, I am glad this card came out in 1997 and five years later - we'd never be able to use Shinen of Life's Roar as pinpoint removal otherwise.

Common Design: Delver of Secrets

Well, this was going to come around sooner or later. One of the most offensive cards in Pauper, Delver of Secrets has made its pest like presence felt across every 60-card format in which it is legal.  The question remains - is it a good design for a common? 

A refresher on the metrics:

• Support casual play
• Support limited
• Entry point into Magic
• Viable for high-level constructed
• Adheres to New World Order 

I want to add another one that I missed yesterday:

• Color 

Basically, how good does the card reflect its color identity,

So Delver. On the casual play front, this card is a line drive single. Delver of Secrets creates a great moment of "will it flip" which translates to stories. Hey, remember that time you bricked on Delver for the entire game and still won? That was awesome. Delver of Secrets also allows new players to explore different avenues of deck building a design - now it makes sense to run creatures with a heavy compliment of spells. I can see the Little Kid smiling broadly as he (because in these scenarios, I'm the LK) figures out how Spellheart Chimera and Delver of Secrets work in the same deck. 

Delver of Secrets also has decent, if not fantastic repeat value. Yes, it gets tiresome when someone always flips Delver, but that's in competitive constructed. I imagine there have been far more games played with UCB Delver than Sorkin Delver. 

Also, Transform is just a cool mechanic. Getting two cards out of one is something everyone can appreciate and people who see it for the first time can genuinely appreciate both the weird and awesome in their new toy.

How about limited? Swing and a slow grounder, easy put out. Delver of Secrets presents a build around limited card of the worst kind - one that leads a player down a bad path. Limited is largely about creatures and Delver, while a creature, requires a higher density of spells than most 40 cards can supply. Normally this would be a complete miss but in the incredibly deep world of Innistrad draft, having  a two-faced blank isn't the worst thing ever.

As a gateway into Magic and the world? A ringing double. For Innistrad  this card is great. It drips Gothic Horror and dips into pop culture/high literature with allusions to both Kafka's Metamorphosis and the film The Fly. Immediately one can glean some information about this world. Nils Hamm also hits the art right on the sweet spot.

Delver of Secrets also provides a glut of information about Magic. Not only are there these things creatures, but instants and sorceries too! I wonder what other types of cards there are...

The big miss for me is the fact that Delver is a double-faced card. So far only two sets have used this technology and it could be misleading to a newcomer that this is the norm. After a few sets of cracking packs without such a card, they would get the message and I don't think that amount of feel bad is enough to drive people away from the game.

High level constructed? Just click here.

As far as New World Order goes, Delver does eat up a ton of complexity points (as does the transform mechanic). This is fine since it is a major theme of the block. Also, for all the complexity, it actually exists in two very simple states, keeping the on board complexity down. All in all, this card passes the NWO test.

How about color? Well, in the sense that blue is stupid good, so is Delver. In other words, this is a bloop single and advancing to third on defensive incompetence. Sure, Delver plays nice with blue's strength in spells but Insectile Aberration is a seriously pushed creature. If it had two power or one toughness I think it would be more in line with aggressive azure animal stats, but as is it feels a few hairs too good. Execution of color philosophy: excellent. Execution of late 90s power level: spot on. 

So is Delver of Secrets a common? Absolutely. It is a very good card that toes the power line in a format limited by rarity and helped to define Standard, but it still is not an affront to the color of its expansion symbol. In fact, it's hardly the most egregious error in Pauper Delver. To me, the cards in Delver that cause the most problems when playing against the deck, starting with the biggest, looks something like:

1. Cloud of Faeries
2. Ponder/Preordain
3. Preordain/Ponder
4. Spellstutter Sprite
5. Delver of Secrets

Edit: I do not think any of these cards warrant being banned at the moment. Cloud of Faeries is on my personal watch list, but not for reasons related to Delver.

Aside from being on the upper deck of power level, does Delver really fail as a common - what do you think?

Common Design: Teroh's Faithful

I am trying to write more. Now that I've moved I want to write a little, every day. Some days I know I will need a prompt, and this series will hopefully serve to aide that. I am going to examine the  existence of commons through the light of the parameters I set out here and others that strike my fancy.

I wanted to get started and couldn't think of a good topic on my own so I went to Gatherer and hit "random" until a common of some interest came up. That card: Teroh's Faithful.

Since this card comes from before the advent of New World Order, I think it is important to look at that element first. With regards to on board complexity, Teroh's Faithful is actually a fantastic card. It has an enter's the battlefield effect and then sits around to act as a Horned Turtle. This is an ideal execution of the NWO. The card is elegant in design and execution but I wonder how it lends itself to repetitive game play. As Mark Rosewater often opines, Odyssey block draft was one of the Spike-ist formats of all time. Given the repeat factor of Magic Online one wonders if the four life boost by the Cleric would be too much when taken at a macro level. This is mitigated somewhat by being a common in the middle set in what is likely to be an underdrafted color due to the black heavy theme and draft order placing the White incentive later (that is unless you're Zvi). 

Tweaking the knobs and making this a slightly smaller creature for altering the mana cost to 1WW might affect the replay value, but all things considered (given the color diversity of the block), I feel that Teroh's faithful, from a pure limited perspective, is a fantastic common.

It also hits the right notes for a casual card. Players of all stripes love lifegain and this one comes in a respectable package. It also makes a fine defensive creature and has a relevant creature type in Cleric. While Teroh's Faithful might not be a stellar build around for a kitchen table affair, it does enough to provide solid game play value to warrant inclusion in brews of all kinds. it is also a high impact card, meaning that a player on a limited budget could always have one on hand to thwart that pesky red mage.

What about selling the world? Well, Odyssey did have some world building issues (namely resetting major creature types) but this one does some important things. First, it establishes white's role as a religious high ground in the set while also alluding to the character Major Teroh. The issue? This card has little to do with the actual Teroh and a player might not ever know that Teroh is a bird (would it be too hard to provide some avian iconography on those robes?). The flavor text also does not do a great job of highlighting the nature of the set as black heavy, but it is very hard to ask one card to do that, so it gets a pass.

So what's the verdict? Teroh's Faithful is more or less an ideal common. While it might need some massaging the current world of MTGO drafts and reduced limited complexity, it would not seem out of place (at least stats wise) in a modern block. 

But that's what I think- what about you? Tell me what you think about Teroh's Faithful and some other commons you'd like to see examined.

A Common Problem

Every few weeks, a question (and subsequent answer) shows up on Mark Rosewater's blog:

"teancrumpetsfan asked: Could you reprint a bunch of good uncommons as commons in a supplementary set for Pauper? Thanks.

Pauper is a format about working within the restrictions of common. Putting cards that don’t belong into common just to make them available for Pauper fights the very nature of the format."

-retrieved from Blogatog on November 26th, 2013

Without fail vocal members of the Pauper community will chime in and ask for certain powerful effects to be pushed down to common. The argument boils down to:

"Other formats are not beholden to rarity - why should ours?"

Here's the thing: Pauper is a format that exists only because there is a restriction of rarity. There have been errors from the past that have been corrected via the ban list including cards with Storm (an admitted mistake mechanic from Magic R & D) and those with unintended interactions (Invigorate and Infect) but the core of the format is to play Magic with only commons available on Magic Online (I am not going to debate the online vs offline issue today). Let us operate from the core principle: Pauper is a competitive format where you are only allowed to play commons. This begs the question: What is a common?

Commons are the bread and butter of Magic. They serve multiple functions and I hope to hit them all today. 

Commons have to be interesting enough to support casual play: This is probably the most important and most ignored attribute of commons that many Pauper players miss entirely. The vast majority of Magic is not played with full playsets and developed metagames. A lot of times its just two players jamming whatever they've cracked in their booster packs against one another. These players might have the resources to visit a web store like Star City Games or Channel Fireball and maybe they are entrenched enough in Magic to devote some of their care to improving their stack. Just as likely is that Magic is a game they play between playing other games. In this situation commons have to do tons of work. Not only do they have to serve as an entryway to the game (more on this later) but they have to supply consistent, fun, play value. 

Looking at Theros, examine Wingsteed Rider. This is clearly a powerful common that can go into many casual white decks. It does just fine on its own or supported with other cards (and is exceptional when paired with cards from Theros). It is consistent and will provide tons of play decisions over the course of many games. It forces the match to be played rather than decided. On the other side take a card like Nylea's Emissary. This card is simple enough to be common but over the course of ten or fifteen games when the Emissary player continues to draw their one copy and crush the Rider player, do we really think the white mage in this battle is going to want to keep up with Magic and learn more?

Commons are an entry point to the game and worlds of Magic: Open a booster pack and get transported to a new world every year. Commons have to tell this story. Mark Rosewater is fond of saying that "if a set's theme is not at common then it is not your theme." Commons bear so much weight of setting the tone that they have to be simple and elegant. By design they have to be the distilled essence of any new mechanic or trope. Additionally, they also have to sell the game of Magic to new players. Since you're going to get eleven commons for every one rare, the rare might be the paint job but the commons are the excellent gas mileage. Commons have to be able to hook three different kinds of Magicians: brand new, returning, and entrenched. Not only this, but each audience has a slightly different need. The best way to do this is to make simple and elegant cards that are still fun to play in games.

Wingsteed Rider tells you so much about Theros and does so in an incredibly interesting way. Compare this to Loyal Cathar- both are white commons but they clearly come from different worlds but by virtue of casting cost they go together. Two commons and suddenly there is a ton of information for a newcomer. 

Commons have to support limited: Yup. Here it is. People love to draft and with the advent of Magic Online there are more drafts happening than ever before. Commons are going to show up in every draft and often times in multiples. Much like the first point limited forces commons to have amazing repeat value. Sure, Gray Merchant of Asphodel can be a pain to face in the realm of 40 cards but it asks for some serious devotion. But what about when the deck doesn't come together? Then Gary is merely okay. And that's going to happen. Compare this to Sparksmith or Timberwatch Elf- commons that warpped formats and would clearly be Uncommon today. 

One reason that certain formats are worse for draft -Avacyn Restored, for example- is that the games play out largely the same. Look at successful draft formats -Rise of the Eldrazi and Innistrad- and you will find a bevy of reasonable commons that could provide tons of repetitive play value.

Commons have to see play in constructed: This is new but Wizards has stated that they want to see cards of all rarities in high level play. I think they are succeeding at this with pushed, if not broken, common cards.

So where does this leave us: Commons have to be elegant executions that provide insight to the worlds of Magic while providing solid repeatable game play experiences while also being strong enough to appeal to three large parties of players.

Are there cards out there today that are not common that could be "downgraded" in rarity? Absolutely! In fact, I want to know some Uncommons or Rares you think are reasonable at Common- post them in the comments or hit me up on Twitter or Facebook. Or if you have designs for Commons, let me know - would love to see them - but make sure they work at Common.

Pauper is about the restriction to common - don't shoehorn in any other rarity just because. If a card isn't common, well, it doesn't belong in Pauper.