Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

What's the gameplay benefit of having art

So basically your answer is "flavor" but you'd prefer to present it as sarcasm?

Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[sgjackson]

Meld is weird because having one card flip over seems kinda boring but having both cards flip will probably be irritating once the novelty wears off. I'm not sure what the best hypothetical solution is and I'm curious to see what they went with and why.

 

[kirblar]

So basically your answer is "flavor" but you'd prefer to present it as sarcasm?

Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

His answer is "Angry Grimace, you are bad at this"

Just like "Angry Grimace, you are not getting mana screwed as much as you think you are"

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Meld is weird because having one card flip over seems kinda boring but having both cards flip will probably be irritating once the novelty wears off. I'm not sure what the best hypothetical solution is and I'm curious to see what they went with and why.

Just use the bottom half horizontally and put the other half aside.

this is actually hilarious

say it with a gif

I wonder if 2 for 1ing yourself is even a good idea the melded cards have to be very good to be worth it in limited to not be blown out by removal.

Also the SCG semifinal yesterday Jeskai vs Grixis was the grindiest game of modern I've seen in a long time.

 

[Takuhi]

So basically your answer is "flavor" but you'd prefer to present it as sarcasm?

Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

There's a lot of excitement in combining smaller creatures into one big creature, and there's interesting strategy there too, as you get a more powerful creature but concentrated in one body that's potentially easier to remove.

It's not really some radically new mechanic. Kyscu Drake and Spitting Drake could assemble to form Viashivan Dragon nearly 20 years ago (but searched for out of your library instead of as a transform effect).

 

[Angry Grimace]

There's a lot of excitement in combining smaller creatures into one big creature, and there's interesting strategy there too, as you get a more powerful creature but concentrated in one body that's potentially easier to remove.

It's not really some radically new mechanic. Kyscu Drake and Spitting Drake could assemble to form Viashivan Dragon nearly 20 years ago (but searched for out of your library instead of as a transform effect).

This seems like a confusing way to do it.

His answer is "Angry Grimace, you are bad at this"

Just like "Angry Grimace, you are not getting mana screwed as much as you think you are"

His answer is what he said, not whatever smartass thing you thought you'd jump in with because you're keeping a diary of all the times you're mad I bitched about mana flood or screw at some point.

 

[Imperfected]

What's the gameplay benefit of having art

Young kids who find your cards but can't read yet can make up their own rules and pretend to play.

Spoiler

They're just going to pretend it's Yu-Gi-Oh.

 

[charlequin]

So basically your answer is "flavor" but you'd prefer to present it as sarcasm?

When you're designing a TCG, 99% of mechanics you can come up with have some bone-dry, super-precise implementation that is boring and unmemorable. You can do everything DFCs can do with flip cards; you can do everything flip cards can do with an unillustrated card with two different text boxes and a penny. If you don't take presentation into account at all you might not lose all that much technical design space; you'll just make a bad game that no one likes or plays where all the mechanics are pointlessly confusing.

If your goal is to have a mechanic where you need to get card A and card B into play, and then in flavor they join together to form card C, then having form follow function improves that mechanic immensely. If you do the split-up big card, a player who finds either A or B for the first time will know that the card is half of such a pair and hunt down the other one. It supports the concept that the cards are "merging" by having both be equally important to the result. It makes actually dealing with the physical cards easier because both are on the battlefield when the merged permanent is, and go to the graveyard together; you don't need to exile one when you do the transformation or have any other silly extra rules text to support it, and the resulting permanent can work as you'd expect with bounce or raise dead or what have you. It sets these cards clearly apart from other DFCs so someone can easily refer to them separately. This is the stuff that goes into making every new mechanic.

It's mostly just really hard for me to believe that you really don't understand why they might do a mechanic like this. The marketing potential of these cards should be obvious given how people responded to the rumors. The only reason to try to do it with one card is out of some weird attempt to execute the mechanic in the most pedantic way possible.

 

[Angry Grimace]

When you're designing a TCG, 99% of mechanics you can come up with have some bone-dry, super-precise implementation that is boring and unmemorable. You can do everything DFCs can do with flip cards; you can do everything flip cards can do with an unillustrated card with two different text boxes and a penny. If you don't take presentation into account at all you might not lose all that much technical design space; you'll just make a bad game that no one likes or plays where all the mechanics are pointlessly confusing.

If your goal is to have a mechanic where you need to get card A and card B into play, and then in flavor they join together to form card C, then having form follow function improves that mechanic immensely. If you do the split-up big card, a player who finds either A or B for the first time will know that the card is half of such a pair and hunt down the other one. It supports the concept that the cards are "merging" by having both be equally important to the result. It makes actually dealing with the physical cards easier because both are on the battlefield when the merged permanent is, and go to the graveyard together; you don't need to exile one when you do the transformation or have any other silly extra rules text to support it, and the resulting permanent can work as you'd expect with bounce or raise dead or what have you. It sets these cards clearly apart from other DFCs so someone can easily refer to them separately. This is the stuff that goes into making every new mechanic.

It's mostly just really hard for me to believe that you really don't understand why they might do a mechanic like this. The marketing potential of these cards should be obvious given how people responded to the rumors. The only reason to try to do it with one card is out of some weird attempt to execute the mechanic in the most pedantic way possible.

Because the implementation just seems confusing in practice when its functionally identical to just flipping into one card and practically weird to have two cards on the battlefield that represent a single object.

 

[kirblar]

1 card is more confusing because then what do you do with the other card?

 

[Imperfected]

1 card is more confusing because then what do you do with the other card?

You hang it off the side like you're playing dominoes. Ideally, you keep Melding more cards into it until it becomes an ungodly tangle of right angles that no one at the table knows what to do with.

Flavor achieved.

 

[Angry Grimace]

1 card is more confusing because then what do you do with the other card?

Throw it in the trash. I don't know, is this a serious question?

 

[Hero]

1 card is more confusing because then what do you do with the other card?

You flip it and it's just the normal MtG card back, duh. /s

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

When you're designing a TCG, 99% of mechanics you can come up with have some bone-dry, super-precise implementation that is boring and unmemorable. You can do everything DFCs can do with flip cards; you can do everything flip cards can do with an unillustrated card with two different text boxes and a penny. If you don't take presentation into account at all you might not lose all that much technical design space; you'll just make a bad game that no one likes or plays where all the mechanics are pointlessly confusing.

If your goal is to have a mechanic where you need to get card A and card B into play, and then in flavor they join together to form card C, then having form follow function improves that mechanic immensely. If you do the split-up big card, a player who finds either A or B for the first time will know that the card is half of such a pair and hunt down the other one. It supports the concept that the cards are "merging" by having both be equally important to the result. It makes actually dealing with the physical cards easier because both are on the battlefield when the merged permanent is, and go to the graveyard together; you don't need to exile one when you do the transformation or have any other silly extra rules text to support it, and the resulting permanent can work as you'd expect with bounce or raise dead or what have you. It sets these cards clearly apart from other DFCs so someone can easily refer to them separately. This is the stuff that goes into making every new mechanic.

It's mostly just really hard for me to believe that you really don't understand why they might do a mechanic like this. The marketing potential of these cards should be obvious given how people responded to the rumors. The only reason to try to do it with one card is out of some weird attempt to execute the mechanic in the most pedantic way possible.

Both aren't equally important to the result, one side clearly has all the relevant text on it the other has the name, you literally don't need the top side in most cases.

 

[kirblar]

Throw it in the trash. I don't know, is this a serious question?

It's a question with no good answer. Which is why it stumped you.

 

[SigmasonicX]

Earlier, it was pointed out that Duel Masters already had a similar mechanic with combining cards, and part of its implementation was that when the creature was destroyed, you'd only get rid of one of the cards and the other would flip back over. I expect the same thing will happen here.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It's a question with no good answer. Which is why it stumped you.

You would put it wherever the mechanic told you, I suppose. I dunno, I'm not in the mood for your aggressive shit right now, just put me on ignore if you think I'm such a shitheel.

 

[kirblar]

You would put it wherever the mechanic told you, I suppose. I dunno, I'm not in the mood for your aggressive shit right now, just put me on ignore if you think I'm such a shitheel.

It's not aggression.

If you don't get why two cards flipping into one card is awesome and fun and cool....that's absolutely insane to the rest of us for whom it is obvious and intuitive.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

It's not aggression.

If you don't get why two cards flipping into one card is awesome and fun and cool....that's absolutely insane to the rest of us for whom it is obvious and intuitive.

Now that's bullshit, 2 cards flipping is nice but the endbringer test design looks cumbersome af.

 

[kirblar]

Now that's bullshit, 2 cards flipping is nice but the endbringer test design looks cumbersome af.

It's just B.F.M. on the other axis for a more traditional test/art ratio? It's not hard to figure out where the top and bottom is.

IIRC, BFM was the top of the Unglued Godbook survey.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It's not aggression.

If you don't get why two cards flipping into one card is awesome and fun and cool....that's absolutely insane to the rest of us for whom it is obvious and intuitive.

Yeah, if someone doesn't like your pet mechanic they must be stupid so you should definitely complain about their all their previous posts you don't like.

I'm simply questioning whether this mechanic as described is as clean as you're imagining. The concept of 2 cards flipping into 1 card isn't bad, in and of itself. But flipping 2 cards into one actual card has both rules baggage and actual physical baggage.

 

[The Technomancer]

toomuchmelatonin asked: Do you think we ever get some sort of supplement set where we get to see failed designs and mechanics? Or do you just wait and see if a failed idea works in a future set?

Many successful designs started as something that didn’t end up working out in a previous design. Ask about this in the fall. : )

Intriguing

 

[Hero]

I mean, aside from evidence with the giant Endbringer, this is something that MtG would do for a number of reasons.

Stuff like an all-creatures set or an all-gold set were used to market sets before. Having two cards that combine to form a giant one ala BFM is something that will get people excited to buy product.

From a gameplay perspective, it will be interesting in limited. If they play one half of a merge card, you have to take that into consideration. Let it live and risk them having the other half or do you waste removal to get rid of it when they don't even have the other card?

 

[SigmasonicX]

Bunch of Blogatog posts.

Theory that Jace is hated because of his sarcastic quotes on cards, with an explanation for why Wizards does that even though it's out of character for him
They actually do plan to stop doing it

obazervazi asked: I have a theory on why so many people hate Jace. In the Uncharted Realms, he's a very interesting, enjoyable character, but he is frequently out of character on the actual cards. Cards like Redirect, Lay Bare, Counterspell, and Jace, the Mindsculptor present an arrogant, condescending, invincible jerk. It's possible that the solution to Jace hate isn't less Jace, it's more (but in character, of course). Just be sure to give Tamiyo a fair shake.

Here’s my theory. Back when I wrote Ertai I started this trend of cocky flavor text in counterspells. Players enjoyed it. So when Jace came along, we kept writing the trash talking flavor text on counterspells and just put Jace’s name on then because he was now the Blue Mage. But that’s not remotely in Jace’s character. Ertai yes. Jace no. But it was on the cards so it’s created a warped sense of Jace.

==

mgmegadog asked: I fully agree with the counterspell Jace problem. The cocky quips on counterspells are cool, and I don't want to see them go, but they also aren't remotely Jace. Perhaps flavor more of them to random cocky blue mages on plane? (PS. Having read enough UR to know what Jace's character is really like, I now really dig Jace.)

It’s a problem we’re fixing.

No chance of Ravnica doing a guilds vs. Gateless plot
It's hard to do mechanically
MaRo considers them having made a big deal out of the Gateless in Return to Ravnica to have been a mistake

vorrenthalla asked: What are the chances of the next Ravnica block being about guilds vs the guildless?

Super low.

==

themastah asked: Why so low on guilds vs. guildless?

We have enough problem fitting in ten guilds when there’s nothing else going on. Also, I don’t care for “we’re the absence of what makes this plane special”.

==

certified-certifiable asked: Was establishing the Gateless plot a mistake, if you think it's antithetical to what people want out of a Ravnica block to pick it up again?

I believe so.

And lastly, MaRo acknowledges that Return to Ravnica's use of five-card cycles that didn't go across every guild was unpopular

general-hellkite asked: Not sure if this has been asked before, but is there a reason why the one drop hybrid creature cycle from Return to Ravnica was not completed in Gate Crash?

Some cycles in Ravnca blocks are full block ten-card cycles and some are just for that set five-card cycles. The latter seems to upset players so it’s something we’ll have to think about on a return to Ravnica.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

It's just B.F.M. on the other axis for a more traditional test/art ratio? It's not hard to figure out where the top and bottom is.

IIRC, BFM was the top of the Unglued Godbook survey.

I didn't play unglued so I wouldn't know, BFM had reason fr both sides to exist since both parts had relevant text and it was in a joke set.
The endbringer design part A doesn't add anything besides the name, where top and bottom are doesn't matter when bottom is all you need.

Why is it that guilds make Ravnica special and not being MtG's Coruscant?

 

[Hero]

I was extremely upset that Boros didn't get a sick R/W hybrid one drop. Really needed a 2 power 1 drop for Cube.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I didn't play unglued so I wouldn't know, BFM had reason fr both sides to exist since both parts had relevant text and it was in a joke set.
The endbringer design part A doesn't add anything besides the name, where top and bottom are doesn't matter when bottom is all you need.

It isn't BFM anyways. BFM required you to have both cards for the card to do anything or even play the card.

 

[kirblar]

Yeah, if someone doesn't like your pet mechanic they must be stupid so you should definitely complain about their all their previous posts you don't like.

I'm simply questioning whether this mechanic as described is as clean as you're imagining. The concept of 2 cards flipping into 1 card isn't bad, in and of itself. But flipping 2 cards into one actual card has both rules baggage and actual physical baggage.

It has little to no physical baggage.

The rules baggage was addressed by the Origins solution.

This is just as bad an argument as the "They won't print X because of Commander".

The answer is not "They won do X" it's that either a) the rules get changed or b) Commander is given the metaphorical DX crotch chop.

Intriguing

It's the failed Mirrodin design.

 

[The Technomancer]

I was extremely upset that Boros didn't get a sick R/W hybrid one drop. Really needed a 2 power 1 drop for Cube.

What you're telling me Boros Recruit doesn't fit into your curve?

 

[charlequin]

Intriguing

We already know (well, "know") that Kaladesh includes the long-delayed "Mechanic E."

I'm simply questioning whether this mechanic as described is as clean as you're imagining.

I mean, put everything else about it aside: we know WotC already makes a card game where they did this, so there's not that much question whether R&D think this mechanic could work well.

Earlier, it was pointed out that Duel Masters already had a similar mechanic with combining cards, and part of its implementation was that when the creature was destroyed, you'd only get rid of one of the cards and the other would flip back over. I expect the same thing will happen here.

This is a good point: if this is true here it solves the 2-for-1 issue and simultaneously makes it clear why you need to keep both cards in play.

Why is it that guilds make Ravnica special and not being MtG's Coruscant?

Because 100% of the pitch, and 98% of what people responded to after the set's release, was the guilds.

 

[Hero]

What you're telling me Boros Recruit doesn't fit into your curve?

If it had Double Strike we might have a stew going.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It has little to no physical baggage.

The rules baggage was addressed by the Origins solution.

This is just as bad an argument as the "They won't print X because of Commander".

The answer is not "They won do X" it's that either a) the rules get changed or b) Commander is given the metaphorical DX crotch chop.

I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Commander. What is "X?" What are you talking about crotch chops for? What rules?

What?

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I'd honestly hate the mechanic more if I had to keep both out.

Because 100% of the pitch, and 98% of what people responded to after the set's release, was the guilds.

we've been there and done that twice before at this point that's just redundancy. I liked the pitch of someone in the last OT saying to focus only on 3 or so guilds though.

 

[SigmasonicX]

It's the failed Mirrodin design.

IIRC, the "E mechanic" wasn't removed because it was a failure, but because they thought there was enough design space that it didn't deserve to be a secondary mechanic, similar to how suspend was originally in Kamigawa.

 

[The Technomancer]

Not saying that the eventual reception is going to end up the same, but I find it funny that right now a lot of this sounds like the original reaction to DFCs

 

[kirblar]

I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Commander. What is "X?" What are you talking about crotch chops for? What rules?

What?

Someone in the prior thread was arguing they wouldn't do a Meld Bruna/Gisela because it wouldn't work in Commander.

Commander existing is not ever going to stop them from doing a legend that doesn't play well in Commander (Hi, Kologhan!)

The "metaphorical crotch chop" = "We're printing Kologhan. Commander players will cry about that. We will drink their tears"

 

[Angry Grimace]

IIRC, the "E mechanic" wasn't removed because it was a failure, but because they thought there was enough design space that it didn't deserve to be a secondary mechanic, similar to how suspend was originally in Kamigawa.

My recollection is that there was supposedly something else wrong with it which would explain why it went away for like a decade plus. It's hard to say since we still don't know what it is.

Someone in the prior thread was arguing they wouldn't do a Meld Bruna/Gisela because it wouldn't work in Commander.

Commander existing is not ever going to stop them from doing a legend that doesn't play well in Commander (Hi, Kologhan!)

The "metaphorical crotch chop" = "We're printing Kologhan. Commander players will cry about that. We will drink their tears"

I still have no idea what this has to do with the conversation, or why you're so upset about the idea that someone might deign to be skeptical about the specific implementation you're proposing of a mechanical idea I don't disagree with to begin with. Like, what is the matter with you?

 

[Toxi]

Someone in the prior thread was arguing they wouldn't do a Meld Bruna/Gisela because it wouldn't work in Commander.

Commander existing is not ever going to stop them from doing a legend that doesn't play well in Commander (Hi, Kologhan!)

The "metaphorical crotch chop" = "We're printing Kologhan. Commander players will cry about that. We will drink their tears"

And then Kologhan turned out about as memorable as the rest of Dragons of Tarkir.

At least a melded Bruna/Gisela would be cool and interesting.

 

[kirblar]

And then Kologhan turned out about as memorable as the rest of Dragons of Tarkir.

At least a melded Bruna/Gisela would be cool and interesting.

Kologhan actually ended up way worse- the other 4 have all seen a lot of play in Standard.

 

["God's Beard!"]

Ever After is really good with Meld.

 

[Imperfected]

Yes, it's definitely a few throw-away quotes on Counter cards that makes people hate Jace, and not because most people don't read the novels in the first place and find him to be a weird Mary Sue that just gets awkwardly inserted into everything.

A brilliant deduction, I'm sure he'll be super popular by this time next year. (Though, if this means less of Jace appearing on cards in general, that would almost certainly help. The reason people hate him is because you're trying so goddamn hard to make Jace happen, Wiz.)

 

[charlequin]

we've been there and done that twice before at this point that's just redundancy.

This is an argument not to do a Rav3, not to do one that doesn't do what the setting does.

I liked the pitch of someone in the last OT saying to focus only on 3 or so guilds though.

This is way way way less likely than one that just doesn't focus on the guilds, people would revolt in the streets.

Not saying that the eventual reception is going to end up the same, but I find it funny that right now a lot of this sounds like the original reaction to DFCs

I mean they both probably have the exact same backstory up to and including being taken from Duel Masters.

IIRC, the "E mechanic" wasn't removed because it was a failure, but because they thought there was enough design space that it didn't deserve to be a secondary mechanic, similar to how suspend was originally in Kamigawa.

Not exactly: it consumed a lot of space in the set and Bill Rose thought it was too much, so they replaced it with Entwine.

Interestingly, we know it's been in at least one other design, and also that it's only really suited to artifact sets, which based on the timing of the original article that revealed it means it was probably considered as the Esper mechanic in Shards of Alara.

Yes, it's definitely a few throw-away quotes on Counter cards that makes people hate Jace, and not because most people don't read the novels in the first place and find him to be a weird Mary Sue that just gets awkwardly inserted into everything.

I'm all for people hating Jace, but when people make these bizarre non-factual claims (like that he's in "everything" or that he's any more Marty Sue-ish than any other nerd protagonist) it really gives a lot of credence to the "people subconsciously hate him for superficial reasons" claims.

 

[SigmasonicX]

Yes, it's definitely a few throw-away quotes on Counter cards that makes people hate Jace, and not because most people don't read the novels in the first place and find him to be a weird Mary Sue that just gets awkwardly inserted into everything.

A brilliant deduction, I'm sure he'll be super popular by this time next year. (Though, if this means less of Jace appearing on cards in general, that would almost certainly help. The reason people hate him is because you're trying so goddamn hard to make Jace happen, Wiz.)

But Jace is the most popular Magic character, apparently. MaRo claims that he was even the most popular of the Lorwyn 5 when that set came out, and he wasn't the most powerful card in that group.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I suspect you'd basically have to do Large Set - Large Set for Ravnica to even work in the new system unless you spent 2 blocks on it.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

This is an argument not to do a Rav3, not to do one that doesn't do what the setting does.
This is way way way less likely than one that just doesn't focus on the guilds, people would revolt in the streets.

I'd be all for that, before getting Ravnica 1.0 for a 3rd time

I'm all for people hating Jace, but when people make these bizarre non-factual claims (like that he's in "everything" or that he's any more Marty Sue-ish than any other nerd protagonist) it really gives a lot of credence to the "people subconsciously hate him for superficial reasons" claims.

That doesn't make sense, being as Marty Suesh as other nerd protagonists is reason enough to hate him. Having the protag be a power fantasy is running rampant in horrible belletristic.

 

[charlequin]

I suspect you'd basically have to do Large Set - Large Set for Ravnica to even work in the new system unless you spent 2 blocks on it.

Yeah, I think their only options are a) Extra-Large - Extra-Large or b) taking a year where they do one three-set block and one standalone large set.

But Jace is the most popular Magic character, apparently. MaRo claims that he was even the most popular of the Lorwyn 5 when that set came out, and he wasn't the most powerful card in that group.

This is really obvious if you look at what regular people do and like instead of what people complain about on the internet. It'd be easy to look at NeoGAF threads and come to the conclusion that Cloud Strife was a hated character and not a ludicrously, immensely popular character that was a huge success across the board.

That doesn't make sense, being as Marty Suesh as other nerd protagonists is reason enough to hate him. Having your protag be a power fantasy is running rampant in horrible belletristic. It's also not necessarily that he is in everything but that he's being shoved in.

What does Jace do that reads as self-insertion above and beyond what, say, Gideon does? What places has Jace been "shoved in" that didn't make sense? Be specific and concrete in your answers.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

What does Jace do that reads as self-insertion above and beyond what, say, Gideon does? What places has Jace been "shoved in" that didn't make sense? Be specific and concrete in your answers.

Jace was bullied, Gideon was a jock. Most recently SOI

 

[Angry Grimace]

Yeah, I think their only options are a) Extra-Large - Extra-Large or b) taking a year where they do one three-set block and one standalone large set.



This is really obvious if you look at what regular people do and like instead of what people complain about on the internet. It'd be easy to look at NeoGAF threads and come to the conclusion that Cloud Strife was a hated character and not a ludicrously, immensely popular character that was a huge success across the board.

I mean, I suspect you could get away with doing it like RTR and GTC (which were both regular large sets, I think) without having DGM ever added in (which added very little imo).

I don't even understand why people dislike Jace other than as a meme. It's not like the other characters aren't basically walking tropes.

IDK its just weird to say Jace is a self-insert power fantasy on a board where people think Geralt of Rivia is the fucking coolest badass ever when he's literally worse as a male power fantasy than James Bond.

 

[Imperfected]

I'm all for people hating Jace, but when people make these bizarre non-factual claims (like that he's in "everything" or that he's any more Marty Sue-ish than any other nerd protagonist) it really gives a lot of credence to the "people subconsciously hate him for superficial reasons" claims.

Okay, so, answer me this: why is Jace in Shadows Over Innistrad?

Not as a card, from a narrative perspective, as an author's character. Why is Jace here? There's already a character with a personal stake in the events that's more interesting and thematically appropriate. There's already another character that's clearly capable of filling the role of protagonist-cipher/outsider investigator. There are other Gatewatch members you could certainly use, if you felt it was explicitly necessary to tie those threads together.

Is the answer "because Jace has ties with Lilianna and we want to do something with her"? Okay. Why does Jace have ties with Lilianna, when they already explicitly had her character tied to Garruk? What was the actual reason for linking Lilianna and Jace in the sort of slapshod, uninteresting way they are to begin with?

I don't want to belabor the point, but Jace has been overused in their meta-narrative for years, and he almost never adds anything over just using another character entirely. He's like a professional wrestling face that the company wants to push no matter how much the fans groan and refuse to cheer whenever he appears in the main event.

 

[SigmasonicX]

That doesn't make sense, being as Marty Suesh as other nerd protagonists is reason enough to hate him. Having the protag be a power fantasy is running rampant in horrible belletristic.

In the Battle for Zendikar story and Shadows over Innistrad so far, Jace has mostly just gotten his ass kicked, though. Even when it came to sealing Ulamog initially, Nissa had to come to his rescue, and channeling the leylines to defeat Ulamog and Kozilek was pretty much just Nissa.