Why not seperate mana from other cards?

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Can someone please explain why it is better to have to sit and watch your opponent win while you cant do anything cause the game screwed you AGAIN than seperating the mana from the other cards? Or generating mana automatically each turn?

   

 
I cannot, but many can, and many have, quite frequently on these boards.

Sufficed to say, it has to do with math. 

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Much as I hate to post in a soon to be locked thread, the reason is that almost any new mana system would be instantly broken due to all the other cards already available.
The current system is fine and the shuffler is random.

On a conciliatory note I got my first 7 card no land hand of the year during one of my release events.

I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?

Many have posted this idea before and I will admit that I posted this same thing when I was a newer player.  Two libraries!  One for land, one for spells!  Pick which you want to draw from!  Never get landscrewed again!  But as soon as I thought about it I realized how it would break the game.  Maybe not in some casual games or in some draft games, but Magic over all could not handle this. 

How would Brainstorm work?  How would fetch lands work?  How would tutors work, especially complicated ones like Gifts Ungiven or Fact or Fiction?  What happens with "top of library tutors" like Vampiric Tutor?  What about when you "reveal x cards from the top of your opponent's library"?  What would you do with older lands that don't produce mana?  How would dredge decks not always win on turn 1?  Same thing with Belcher decks?  What about 43 Lands.dek?  What would you do about milling?  What about Dark Confidant?  You'd always draw a land so you'd never take damage - super broken.  What about cards like Battle of Wits that care about your library size?  What happens when you "shuffle your graveyard into your library"?  There could also be cheating issues in paper - what stops someone from putting a non-land card from their hand to the top of their land library off of something like Brainstorm?  Both of those zones are concealed from the opponent.  And there are a million other scenarios that would need entirely new rules to deal with two libraries.  Fifteen years in, it is too late for those rules changes to happen.   

Landscrew happens.  It can be mitigated by careful deckbuilding and mulligans.  Even with those things, you will sometimes lose to it.  Accepting this is the only way to move forward and become a better Magic player.
I think it was MARO who once said that it's great that some random scrub could play a game against a vintage champ running a tuned deck and randomly win.

But I kinda disagree, why should the corner cases dominate what most would expect? 
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
Much as I hate to post in a soon to be locked thread...


As long as the topic stays on other possible resource paradigms, it will remain open.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
Can someone please explain why it is better to have to sit and watch your opponent win while you cant do anything cause the game screwed you AGAIN than seperating the mana from the other cards? Or generating mana automatically each turn?

   

 



Why stop there? Some games, I've been waiting for the right spell for many turns. It's so frustrating. why do we have to draw randomly from a deck?
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Can someone please explain why it is better to have to sit and watch your opponent win while you cant do anything cause the game screwed you AGAIN than seperating the mana from the other cards? Or generating mana automatically each turn?

   

 



Why stop there? Some games, I've been waiting for the right spell for many turns. It's so frustrating. why do we have to draw randomly from a deck?



Why even stop there? Some games, I have to wait many turns to get my epic combo of 13 cards. It's so frustrating, why can't we just have our whole deck in our hand the entire game?
Can someone please explain why it is better to have to sit and watch your opponent win while you cant do anything cause the game screwed you AGAIN than seperating the mana from the other cards? Or generating mana automatically each turn?

   

 



Why stop there? Some games, I've been waiting for the right spell for many turns. It's so frustrating. why do we have to draw randomly from a deck?



Why even stop there? Some games, I have to wait many turns to get my epic combo of 13 cards. It's so frustrating, why can't we just have our whole deck in our hand the entire game?



My hands aren't big enough to hold and view 60 cards. And i'd hate to think what size they would be if you did it online.
But I'm sure I could hold and win with 20 cards.
Why not have 20 card decks which we start with all in hand.


I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?

Changing the rules to eliminate mana issues only exposes other issues inherent to a game utilizing randomness. I suppose that the problems related to coin-flip cards not flipping your way could always be resolved by a coin with head's on both sides. Then, you'd only have yourself to blame for losing those flips.
I've done two library systems where you can draw either cards or land, and even systems where you can choose how many of each in your starting hand.

Aggressive single color decks could use a very small land count and a lot of business spells making those decks a lot more effective.  The number of cards in the library is a resource.

What if you played mill. Do I get to choose which pile to mill. Target your Land Pile with Glimpse the Unthinkable or Archive Trap. gg

What about non basics. There are a ton of non basic lands that are just busted.

Vintage Dredge would LOVE to play a land pile of 4 Bazzar and dredge the main deck. Life from the Loam would be super busted.

If you don't like mana as a resource try Momir Basic. I've never been mana screwed in Momir
Under a two-library system, one could play 54 lands and the exact 6 non-land cards that you need to win on turn one or two.

Under a two-library system, one could play 54 lands and the exact 6 non-land cards that you need to win on turn one or two.




And promptly follow it up by complaining about getting colour screwed.
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
Mark Rosewater:

"...
There’s one last thing I wanted to talk about before I called this column a wrap. I believe that there is a common misconception that mulligans are some sort of fix for an inherent flaw in the game. I’ve read many bulletin board threads where players talk about how Magic would be perfect if only there wasn’t the mana screw. (For those out of the Magic slang loop, “mana screw” refers to the condition in the game where a player gets trapped at little or no land and thus cannot do anything.) While I agree that mana screw is annoying, it is the result of one of the most important aspects of the game.
It is my belief that Richard Garfield had three great innovations when he created Magic. First was the creation of the trading card game genre. It’s what I call a “seamless” invention in that it seems so natural and obvious, yet no one had thought to do it. Second was the invention of the color wheel. As my regular readers know, I believe the color wheel is fundamental to how the game functions. But there was a third equally important discovery.

That final discovery was the mana-resource system. This invention includes such concepts as land, mana, mana costs, the mana pool, and mana burn. The whole system works so smoothly that few people stop to admire all it does for the game.


Trading card games present some real problems for a game designer. The biggest issue is this: the game exceeds the box. That is, most card games are balanced in the fact that the game designer gives the player all the pieces up front. Sure, some cards are better than others, but the game forces you to play with them all so it doesn’t matter. But trading card games allow players to pick and choose what cards they want to play with. Thus, cards of a different power level pose a real problem. Why will players ever use the weak cards?

Richard came up with a very elegant answer: What if cards’ power scaled conversely with a second attribute? Or in English, what if the more powerful cards had some handicap that made them not necessarily better than the weaker cards. The handicap was a resource (land) that was monitored by time (you can only play one land a turn). This system made it so that an individual card’s power varies over time. A big, powerful effect, for example, is useless until a certain point in the game, the point at which you have enough mana to play it.


In addition, the land resource solved a second problem. It allowed the power level of the cards to notch up over the length of the game. This is important for two very different reasons. One, it guaranteed the game would end more quickly. If the effects keep scaling up in power, it’s only a matter of time until one player defeats the other. Second, the power shift makes the game more flavorful and exciting. Just as in any dramatic fight (and by this I mean a fight one would see in an entertainment vehicle) the fight snowballs in intensity.


Finally, and this one’s more important than you might think at first blush, it adds randomness to the game. Why is this good? One, it guarantees that every game is different. Two, it allows for dynamic situations. (“So, I was stuck at two land and three life.” “So you lost?” “No.”) Three, it ensures that no match-up is a foregone conclusion. To take the extreme, the best player in the world playing the strongest deck in the most powerful format could conceivably lose to a novice playing a pre-constructed deck. The fact that such a thing is possible, even if highly unlikely, speaks volumes.


..."


 


 


Full article located HERE:


www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...

Guess what? Chicken butt.

Mark Rosewater:
...But there was a third equally important  discovery.

That final discovery was the mana-resource system. This invention includes such concepts as land, mana, mana costs, the mana pool, and mana burn...

They certainly tweaked with one of these concepts! I'm not sure if we're better of with or without it. I always liked interrupts, so my opinion is probably in the minority.
I am/was a fan of mana burn. I think it one of those things which, while being somewhat irrelevant most of the time, can be a real skill tester at higher levels of play.
However, I understand why they got rid of it, even if I disagree with the decision.

Guess what? Chicken butt.

I believe that since the inception of magic, other games have been created that mimic magic in many ways but try to "fix" the issues it has (mana screw, rarity problems, etc.). Those people who don't like the way magic plays should certainly look into these games first and get a feel of how the game feels and see if there are any "hidden" issues that crop up from making changes like that.

Magic itself has definitely changed and evolved from the original game it was, and every time there is a slightly more than subtle change, the fan base goes crazy and everybody predicts the game will die. Even if the team at wizards figured out a way to make the game work with something as radical as having 2 decks, imagine how the rabid fan base would react and what that would do to the business itself.

I think that the best Wizards can do is to work on developing a newly branded game that tries to get the same feel that magic has but removing many of these issues that everyone agrees are annoying and slowly build it up (sort of how Apple made the iphone that is now making the iPod be a thing of the past). In the meantime, good design is the best way they can reduce mana screws/floods, by making dynamic cards that can be used cheaply early in the game but can be mana sinks later on for powerful effects and mana sources that can also be functional when you don't need mana anymore (like man lands or spell lands).
For a great source of information on the Pauper format check out Pauper's Cage!
Can someone please explain why it is better to have to sit and watch your opponent win while you cant do anything cause the game screwed you AGAIN than seperating the mana from the other cards? Or generating mana automatically each turn? 



I agree that mana screw/flood is one of the biggest problem with this game. IMHO it is kinda silly to see top players randomly just lose because they only drew 2-3 lands for the entire game.

But to be fair to them, they probably printed too many cards that relies on the way the current mana system work to be able to do anything much about it.

I believe there were some attempts to fix this in the past? For example, cycling and land cycling allow you to get rid of uncastable cards for lands or for a chance to get a land or a castable card. 
Under a two-library system, one could play 54 lands and the exact 6 non-land cards that you need to win on turn one or two.



Woah, this is a good catch!

I guess they would have to additionally restrict the spell library to be at least 40 cards. Do you see any further problems? I will be using the two-library system (and a custom card pool to eliminate the problematic cards like Treasure Hunt and Dark Confidant etc) for a competitive league among my playgroup.
I think you've spelled out the reason why two libraries wouldn't work in your post: you've got to have a restricted cardpool and rules about how many of each type of card can go in your deck (decks with 6 spells wouldn't be allowed).  It can never be more than a casual variation if it involves work-arounds like that.

Now, I think among a small group of like-minded people, it could be a fun variant.  Especially if that group is into straightforward creature-based decks where all the action happens on the battlefield.

I would be interested in how it works out for you and your playgroup though.  What format are you starting with?  Which cards will you leave out?  What are the rules you've come up with for which library to draw / mill / tutor / reveal from?  How will mulligans work?  After you've played a few rounds, did you come across any cards or interactions you didn't anticipate that the rules couldn't handle?  How did you solve those problems?

I'd especially like to know how you handle any time a card goes from your hand (a hidden zone) to your library (another hidden zone) without being revealed first, how you deal with which library to put it on, and how to keep players from cheating in those instances.        

Report back after your league gets up and running!
I believe that since the inception of magic, other games have been created that mimic magic in many ways but try to "fix" the issues it has (mana screw, rarity problems, etc.). Those people who don't like the way magic plays should certainly look into these games first and get a feel of how the game feels and see if there are any "hidden" issues that crop up from making changes like that. Magic itself has definitely changed and evolved from the original game it was, and every time there is a slightly more than subtle change, the fan base goes crazy and everybody predicts the game will die. Even if the team at wizards figured out a way to make the game work with something as radical as having 2 decks, imagine how the rabid fan base would react and what that would do to the business itself. I think that the best Wizards can do is to work on developing a newly branded game that tries to get the same feel that magic has but removing many of these issues that everyone agrees are annoying and slowly build it up (sort of how Apple made the iphone that is now making the iPod be a thing of the past). In the meantime, good design is the best way they can reduce mana screws/floods, by making dynamic cards that can be used cheaply early in the game but can be mana sinks later on for powerful effects and mana sources that can also be functional when you don't need mana anymore (like man lands or spell lands).



100% of those games have failed/will fail.
4. Don't speak dumb, or you'll be struck dumb. Remember, the name of the game is heads I win, tails you lose.
I think you've spelled out the reason why two libraries wouldn't work in your post: you've got to have a restricted cardpool and rules about how many of each type of card can go in your deck (decks with 6 spells wouldn't be allowed).  It can never be more than a casual variation if it involves work-arounds like that.



I think all we need is the restriction that the spell deck has minimum 40 cards, and a restricted cardpool.

It is meant to be a competitive variant. Do you have any specific reasons in mind regarding why this will "never be more than a casual variation"? There are Pauper, Sealed, Peasant and even EDH tournaments even with cardpool and deckbuilding restrictions.


Now, I think among a small group of like-minded people, it could be a fun variant.  Especially if that group is into straightforward creature-based decks where all the action happens on the battlefield.



What do you mean by "straightforward creature-based decks where all the action happens on the battlefield"?

We can still have control, combo, spell heavy decks etc under our variation. Or am I missing something?

Thanks for your input!  
I meant it won't become the norm in competitive Magic as we know it today, going back to the original poster.  I guess you're right, people will compete over anything. 

As for the control, combo, other decks - I would think those would be easier to abuse or be abused with two libraries, and thus unbalancing.  But that's where your banned list comes in.  Anyway, interested to see hear how it works out.
I've thought about this two libraries thing and tried to think about it from the attitude of "how would you make this work?" rather than just trashing the idea.  After perusing some of the 1000 or so cards on Gatherer that care about the library, this is what I think you'd have to do:

(btw I don't think this should replace the current system at all as the original poster wanted, just thinking about it as a thought experiment.  I'm also interested to see how my theories play out compared to Subspace_Topology's real-world play.)

- You'd have to have rules that target one library or the other anytime a card says "your library" or "opponent's library."  I don't think mixing and matching from libraries would work. 

- You're decked when both libraries are empty. 

Those two would cover a lot of it, with some cards getting better and some getting worse.  But here's what I think the big point for two library play should be:

There shouldn't be a "land" library and a "spell" library. 
There should just be two libraries which can each have any number of any type of card you want in them. 

This cleans up my Brainstorm cheating question. 
This means you don't have to reveal your hand when you mulligan to prove you're shuffling the right cards back into the right libraries.  It also adds strategies to the mulligan as far as which cards go back into which library 
It also cleans up power level issues with cards like Archive Trap or Clear the Land or Goblin Guide.
It also adds new strategies into the mix.  Maybe having one land library and one spell library is a good strategy.  Maybe having a few key spells mixed in with the lands is a good strategy.  Maybe even splits is a good strategy. 
Cards that "put a creature on top of opponent's library" now have an extra strategy to them: if you noticed your opponent pulled lands from one library, you can put a creature on top of that one to make them miss a land drop.
Still not sure how to deal with the "54 in one, 6 in the other, turn-1 kill" issue or "dredge always draws Bazaar in their opening 7", but perhaps minimum library sizes are the way to do that.
Tutors unfortunately get worse, and bring up the feel bad situation where you have to remember which cards are in which library. 

As with any rules change, some cards get better, some get worse.  But I think this way would reduce the need for as many bannings. 

(Ironically, this could lead to the situation where having a land-only library is too dangerous and the best strategy is an even split, thus bringing us back to where we started with the original poster.)

Purely speculation though.
Why do ppl always try to 'fix' magic when they don't do that with other games? I mean, it's just as frustrating to keep landing on all the bad streets in monopoly but no-one's ever suggested to me to fix Monopoly by letting you just jump to the street you REALLY want.

It's part of any game that some things may challenge you. The entire point of a game is to deliberately make you jump through hoops, otherwise, where's the achievement in winning?
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Why do ppl always try to 'fix' magic when they don't do that with other games? I mean, it's just as frustrating to keep landing on all the bad streets in monopoly but no-one's ever suggested to me to fix Monopoly by letting you just jump to the street you REALLY want.

It's part of any game that some things may challenge you. The entire point of a game is to deliberately make you jump through hoops, otherwise, where's the achievement in winning?


MaRo just made this last point last week, but I think you picked a poor example. People are *always* tweaking games to see if they can be more fun. I know of two widely played house-rules for the game you use as an example. How many people actually hold an auction for properties when the person who land on them can't/won't purchase them? How many people put the tax money in the middle of the board and award it the player that lands on Free Parking?

And all that is besides the fact that Magic already has lots of house rules that are now "formats". There is nothing wrong considering ways to improve the games we play. Now, I think most of the alternatives to the current system are inelegant, unnecessary, and a case of the cure being worse than the disease. The only alternative I think holds any promise is adoption of the Mental Magic rule where you can play and card face-down as a basic land (alternative: basic land that produces a color of mana in the card's mana cost). But looking to improve a game isn't in and of itself a bad thing.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert

Why do ppl always try to 'fix' magic when they don't do that with other games? I mean, it's just as frustrating to keep landing on all the bad streets in monopoly but no-one's ever suggested to me to fix Monopoly by letting you just jump to the street you REALLY want.

It's part of any game that some things may challenge you. The entire point of a game is to deliberately make you jump through hoops, otherwise, where's the achievement in winning?



People try to "fix" other games all the time. Chess underwent changes and spawned many variants. Soccer/football have been modified a few things: e.g. the back-pass rule.


Successful videogames like Half-Life, Starcraft and Warcraft have been customed greatly by gamers. In Starcraft, the "fix" of increasing starting resources (Big Game Hunters) has been very popular among the casual crowd. In the case of Half-Life, the "fix" of making the deathmatch slower and more cut throat via a modification call "Counter-strike" became a lot more popular among the competitive crowd than the original Half-Life deathmatch.


Sure, you could claim that the entire point of soccer/football is to deliberately make players jump through hoops and feel that they have achieved the win. But many, including major competitive soccer/football tournament organisers, would say Fifa's attempt to "fix" soccer/football by introducing the backpass and offside rules in 1990 made the game so much better.

Sure, you could claim that the entire point of soccer/football is to deliberately make players jump through hoops and feel that they have achieved the win. But many, including major competitive soccer/football tournament organisers, would say Fifa's attempt to "fix" soccer/football by introducing the backpass and offside rules in 1990 made the game so much better.



But soccer would be so much less of a hassle and frustration if the goal were bigger and had no keeper in it. Right? Why do we have to kick the ball, why can't we just pick it up and carry it?

Why, because it would no longer be soccer. It might be a cool game too, but it might be called, say, americal football, or rugby.

There is a difference between addressing a minor flaw but leaving the essence of the game untouched, and turning a game into something else because you happen to dislike an integral quality of it.

Magic is a game where you randomly draw from a deck. You don't pick and choose your cards, but you randomly draw. You don't have a separate pile of lightning bolts or counterspells, nor do you have a stash of lands, you have one deck from which you draw everything. Coupled with that, you may only play one land each turn; the combination of which balances how quickly you can play the expensive cards: you are NOT guaranteed to have 7 mana in turn 7, so playing the expensive stuff is a risk you have to take in exchange for the bigger power.

Doing it that way, and not differently, is part of what makes magic what it is. Changing it is not like introducing offside, it's like eliminating the keeper; removing an essential "hoop" you should jump through.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.

But soccer would be so much less of a hassle and frustration if the goal were bigger and had no keeper in it. Right? Why do we have to kick the ball, why can't we just pick it up and carry it?

Why, because it would no longer be soccer. It might be a cool game too, but it might be called, say, americal football, or rugby.

There is a difference between addressing a minor flaw but leaving the essence of the game untouched, and turning a game into something else because you happen to dislike an integral quality of it.



I see your point now. Thanks for elaborating!

I see fixing mana flood/screw as addressing a minor flaw, leaving the essence of the game untouched. I don't see mana flood/screw as an integral quality of M:tG.

Often, when a player gets mana flooded/screwed, he simply loses. There is no hoops to jump through and no chance to "use his skills and wits to get through a tough situation". There is nothing he can do. This is unlike a soccer/football game where the game post is small and blocked by a keeper. A good player can try to beat a bad keeper using his superior skill. During mana flood/screw, the good player is powerless.

After considering this point, would you still say mana flood/screw is an integral quality of the game? I'm interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.


you are NOT guaranteed to have 7 mana in turn 7, so playing the expensive stuff is a risk you have to take in exchange for the bigger power.



This is a terrific point!

In a two-library system, players are not guaranteed to have 7 mana by turn 7 either. He can choose to do so by drawing mostly from his land deck. But a smart opponent could capitalize on the fact that he is drawing lands.

This creates more interactions and gives a skillful player more chances to beat a less skilled one. By drawing just lands and hoping to play more expensive stuff, the player is taking a risk like before.

I don't think the two-library system makes the game easier. In fact, it becomes a lot harder and more skill intensive because it gives skillful players an additional way to improve their play, and an additional way to punish less skillful opponents.

What do you think about this line of thought?
Just a small nitpick concerning the rules of magic. They are as they are until a card says otherwise. IE: If a card says search your library (and pick) for the card you want (the blue ascension) that's what you do (if it's conditions are met.) So the game has ways to repair things you dislike within it's structure. Years ago I ran into a bunch of people playing a chaos ffa game at PT NY.

The game consisted of using normal standard decks + a deck in the middle of the table with customized cards. The deck in the middle was used at the beginning of each new round (after the last player's turn of the prior turn.) The top card would be flipped over and whatever it said was playable by each player (sometimes immediately sometimes on their own turn depending on whether it was a world enchantment, sorcery or instant.)

This was a lot of fun, and each of 3 of the players who brought this idea to PT NY had their own customized card in the pile (it was about 40 cards total). They were going to send me the list for the middle card when they got back home but didn't (and I got caught up in the aftermath of 911 after that and neglected to email them.)

The nitpick I am making is that within the game exists the solution you want, for kitchen table magic. In more formal settings it is harder to modify the game without introducing cards that do it for us. (Momir Vig Avatar for example.) Archnemesis which has been rumored to come  online eventually may give us some more options. The basic game works for most people and it is not likely to be changed because people are having a hard time adjusting to the online shuffler.

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

The basic game works for most people and it is not likely to be changed because people are having a hard time adjusting to the online shuffler.



I'm trying to use the two-library system in offline games by the way.

Also, it doesn't matter if we're using manual hand shuffler or the online shuffler. Mana screw/flood will always happen.

Well, Mana Burn and Stacked Combat Damage was changed just because people are having a hard time adjusting to the rule complexity. So who knows what else the "basic game" might be changed in the future? ( i say "basic game" because the original M:tG created by Richard Garfield has been greatly changed to accommodate people over the years)
One aspect of Magic that I like is that the more colors you play, the more likely you are to run into a situation where you have the wrong type of mana for the other cards in your hand. So it's a tradeoff of power vs consistancy. I don't think this balance would be maintained in a system where you had separate decks for lands and spells.

However, I do agree that matches that are impossible to win because you draw 14 lands and 8 spells the first game, and 2 lands and 13 spells the second are a bug rather than a feature. No one should ever be able to draw exactly what they want, but everyone should be able to draw a playable set of mana and spells (provided the deck they are playing generates playable draws on average)

So I think a much easier solution is either the free-muligan rule, which is already discussed on here, or some system that keeps a single deck but directly addresses extreme luck-based mana issues.


There is a difference between addressing a minor flaw but leaving the essence of the game untouched, and turning a game into something else because you happen to dislike an integral quality of it.



My hypothesis is that Magic was flawed from the beginning but that that flaw was masked by the fact that only paper Magic was played for the first N years. Paper magic and its "non-random" shuffling obscured what the game was like with true random shuffling. By the time that people began to see what real randomness does to the hand distributions, it was too late because people said (are saying) that Magic has been like this for years and we can't change such a fundamental part of the game.

I think if WotC had seen what truly random shuffling produced at the very beginning of Magic's life, there may indeed have been some "tweaks" to the core game to address this fact.
One aspect of Magic that I like is that the more colors you play, the more likely you are to run into a situation where you have the wrong type of mana for the other cards in your hand. So it's a tradeoff of power vs consistancy. I don't think this balance would be maintained in a system where you had separate decks for lands and spells.



Sorry, I am probably missing something here but I don't see why having a seperate deck for lands would allow more colour splashing.

It makes it easier to draw or not draw lands but it shouldn't affect the specific land drawn. Players can keep drawing land hoping to draw into the correct colours but they are giving up drawing spells to do so.

My hypothesis is that Magic was flawed from the beginning but that that flaw was masked by the fact that only paper Magic was played for the first N years. Paper magic and its "non-random" shuffling obscured what the game was like with true random shuffling. By the time that people began to see what real randomness does to the hand distributions, it was too late because people said (are saying) that Magic has been like this for years and we can't change such a fundamental part of the game.

I think if WotC had seen what truly random shuffling produced at the very beginning of Magic's life, there may indeed have been some "tweaks" to the core game to address this fact.



Given their willingness to fix Mana Burn, Stacked Combat Damage and introduce new Mulligan rules, I think you're right! They would have tweaked the core game to fix the mana system. 
By far the simplest solution is to create a casual Magic Online format where each player starts the game with a permanent Abundance in play that can't be removed. That way each player can decide whether they want to draw a land or nonland each turn, can't search for specific cards, and still only have one library. I can't imagine such a format would be difficult to program either.

Sure you'd probably want a ban list (no Belcher for example), but otherwise that would give the complainers a format they can play where they'll never be mana screwed or mana flooded.

Not happy with the look of the new forums? Check out the Skin Your Forums thread for a solution.

By far the simplest solution is to create a casual Magic Online format where each player starts the game with a permanent Abundance in play that can't be removed. That way each player can decide whether they want to draw a land or nonland each turn, can't search for specific cards, and still only have one library. I can't imagine such a format would be difficult to program either.

Sure you'd probably want a ban list (no Belcher for example), but otherwise that would give the complainers a format they can play where they'll never be mana screwed or mana flooded.



Yet another casual game format that would be possible if the mentor format was not limited to standard.

I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?

but otherwise that would give the complainers a format they can play where they'll never be mana screwed or mana flooded.



can't imagine why anyone would prefer to have mana screw/flood.

i just watched a video of SCG Baltimore Standard Round 5 where AJ Sacher lost because he drew nothing but lands in the first 6 turns. there was nothing he could have done except scooping.

don't really understand why people would like to lose a game of Magic this way.
His opponent won a game because AJ only drew lands for 6 turns. 

Perhaps not a satisfying win, but you can't just look at losses from mana screw.  The idea is that there's randomness in the game and it happens to everybody.
can't imagine why anyone would prefer to have mana screw/flood.


Because the cures are worse than the disease.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
can't imagine why anyone would prefer to have mana screw/flood.


Because the cures are worse than the disease.



Sure, we might disagree on what is the best cure, but I'm glad we both agree that mana screw/flood is a disease!  
Sign In to post comments