MTG: The Chupacabra Discourse

There’s this old joke in Magic: The Gathering, and I know it’s old because it was old when I first told it, which was about ten years ago and I put it in an article. The joke runs, more or less thus:

How many Magic players does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to do it, then one to tell them how they could have done it better.

This joke inevitably gets a followup from someone pointing out a better punchline, which is the most meta damn thing about the joke.

In a recent StarcityGames event coverage, Patrick Sullivan, the Lesser Pat and the Lesser Sullivan (aw, now I feel bad), went in hard on the topic of the Rivals of Ixalan card [mtg_card]Ravenous Chupacabra[/mtg_card].

Patrick Sullivan on Game Design at SCGCOL

The argument – sort of summarised – is that the Chupacabra is a good piece of removal, too ubiquitous, and will push the game towards a particular type of play. It’s overpowered, and too flexible, because the best kind of Magic play is the kind that relies on cards with a high variability on their investment. The example given is [mtg_card]Baneslayer Angel[/mtg_card], a card that can run away with the game if unanswered, but is pretty easy to answer. You know, if it runs away with the game, it’s fun, yay, and that’s the most exciting type of Magic you can play.

Now, I don’t actually like this position, but since this is my blog and nobody who cares is reading this, I’ll still get some cheap shots in.

  • The counter-play to one-for-one creature removal is having more than one threat in your deck
  • I’m glad pros are finally against the idea of four mana removal spells that get you card advantage and look forward to them destroying their Damnations in protest
  • [mtg_card]Nekrataal[/mtg_card]’s time in Visions, Tenth, Ninth, and Eighth editions were not kept down because its removal wasn’t flexible enough, but because it cost four mana
  • If you’re looking at four mana removal spells in a world with three mana threats, you’re playing greedy control, and greedy control whining about formats having hard-to-counter threats is a thing I couldn’t care less about
  • Seriously, you don’t get to play Psychatog any more
  • People are not going to splash for Chupacabra, since it’s a BB spell, so telling people to run a 2-for-1 removal spell as if it runs the day in limited is kinda a jerk move
  • [mtg_card]Hostage Taker[/mtg_card]
  • Every single one of the cards he cites as having value when removed have that value contingent on other cards

None of this bothers me, though.

What bothers me, what really bothers me, is that Sullivan gave us what amounted to a cut-down, for-time version of a Pat Chapin article. I think Pat is pretty smart, and I’d love to read the article (but not ‘spend $15 on a subscription for one article’ love, which is okay, time will turn), but without that, I have Sullivan’s version of it. What’s more, I’m not going to ever address Sullivan’s version of it (which was, amongst other things, phrased and presented as commentary for entertainment purposes, which means things like emphasis and examples were non-comprehensive and some things might have been overstated for comedy purposes or to make a point rhetorically), I’m going to be addressing some penny-ante Reddit dingus repeating the exact same point but not as well. I’m going to be listening to photocopies of the argument, when the argument itself isn’t a slam-dunk in the first place? Even my presentation of this argument isn’t necessarily right, I’m just filtering how I understand his position, which is, again, filtering a position from Pat Chapin!

Still, where would we Magic players be without the work of other people to claim as our own?

You could have gotten that win faster if you’d pinged the face, by the way.