|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 11:00PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2006
|
I think we should do a review of trample. The whole having to do lethal damage to each creature in the congo line thing is just like trample. Basically, the way I see this, every creature can trample over creatures to the next creature. Why can't they also trample over the last creature to the defending planeswalker? I think all creatures should be given trample's effect, and trample should be removed from the game. Or, creatures without trample can only deal damage to the creature in front of the congo line. The way it is right now isn't very intuitive....
See what I did there?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 11:41PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
I agree about the layers, but I'd rather that Wizards thinks about the best way to handle them before changing anything. One day I don't doubt it will be a good, intuitive system. Just not yet...
About today's topic:
Thank you Mark, I understand.
While my heart still weeps for mana burn (and I really don't know how to tell my friends than I'm not cheating) I have counted the number of times I have encountered it on magic online. And that was twice. (in at least five years)
Once because I was stupid (something reducing cost and tapping too much mana) and once because of Trace of Abundance and some Outlander.
I think it's a good change. Can't wait for the combat article. I hope it will convince me about that too...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 11:41PM
#53
|
|
|
Yeah, it's all fine in principle, except that in high level play it's going to lead to people saying "any mana floating?" every time they play a spell in a blue mirror... Reason being that if the blue deck doesn't care about mana burn, it can tap excess, doesn't have to declare that it's doing so, and potentially catch people out who thought they didn't have counterspell mana handy. This will get very old very quickly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 11:55PM
#54
|
|
|
I DO hope some of the cards that depended on mana burn ( Citadel of Pain  and such) get some errata, though.
Citadel of Pain actually gets better without mana burn because it encourages control players to tell you their hand.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:11AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2005
|
Good job, Rosewater. Way to take head-on the most contested and consequential rule change of M10, the new unintuitive Conga Line of Doom combat system. It takes real courage and conviction to reveal in detail the process that led you guys to decide on this change. I'm glad you didn't chicken out by instead writing a whole article about accepting change using one of the more trivial M10 changes, e.g. mana burn.
Oh, wait.
Exactly my thoughts. I skimmed the article thinking 'so, there is a reason to the combat changes, right?'.
Apparently not.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:14AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
Yeah, the first time I saw the movie Predator I never liked the ending where the Predator sets off that explosion. I mean, how could someone set off a bomb after they were already mortally wounded? I consider myself a reasonable person so it didnt make any sense.
Yeah, I particularly liked the part where the dying predator got up and moved to another location to destroy a different target. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Nevermind.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:24AM
#57
|
|
|
Unlike most, I was 100% fine with the combat damage rule change but was kind of upset about losing mana burn. I guess I didn't really have a good reason to not like it though, and this article did a good job at convincing me it's no big deal.
But at the same time, I think mana burn is such an insignificant part of the game that removing it doesn't make a big enough difference to make it worth it.
My proposed change: Merge non-creature artifacts and non-aura enchantments into one card type. It's kind of a big change, and it causes a few flavor problems, but I think it's the perfect change because it will make things a lot simpler for new players, and will make very little difference to experienced players. The lines between what artifacts can and can't do and what enchantments can and can't do can easily be blurred and no one would really care.
Of course we all would rather them change nothing at all, but a Wizard's gotta do what a Wizard's gotta do. My REAL proposed cut is planeswalkers.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:27AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Overall, this was a really good article. But what I don't get is this part: The entry to the game is always the same. The beginner knows nothing. They have to make the jump from knowing nothing to knowing enough to play. But that line, "knowing enough to play," is a moving target. As the game gains in complexity, the line goes up. At some point the differential is too high and not enough new players can make the jump.
.
To be honest, I don't think the game has gotten much more complex since kamigawa.
Has it?
I joined at Time Spiral/ Future Sight.. I could argue this was one of the more confusing sets. Timeshifted? What? Suspend..Morph.. the weird cards from Future Sight..
The "jump" wasn't hard- at all.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:33AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2004
|
I didnt like the article. Especially the part about the so-called experiment. So what about all the other cards in magic history - including lands like Cloudpost  or Urza's Tower  and others? Its nice to hear it wont make problems in one set, but magic is a bit more complex, eh?
You want to reduce complexity? Figure out how to get rid of/streamline the layers system. It comes up even less often than mana burn for new players, and it is much harder to explain why my mutavault is still a 2/2 after he played zealous persecution other than, "See here in this 150 page document? The rules say so." I know no quicker way to turn someone off from a new game than to utter those 4 words.
Or how about you remove the rule that "blocked is blocked"? I STILL don't get why it is part of the game. Is STEve's frail, sacrificed corpse an impassable blockade for my double-striking rafiq?
Exactly. For most casual players I know layers are a mystery. The blocked rule is probably most counter-intuitive thing in the game I know of while it comes up so often (it would be a very radical change though).
So people are now too dumb to learn the game, we have to cut out pieces of the game's history (and lore - every book since 1995 has used mana burn to some effect) that are very flavorful? We cut out flavor in one place so we can add it to others. Great.[/quote]
That annoys me too. I enjoy magic not just for the mechanics, but mostly for the flavor, and this damages it a lot.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:34AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2005
|
But the thing I would change is removing the ordered blocking system from the M10 rules. -- Damage prevention cards could just be worded "prevent 3 of the next damage that would be dealt by target creature or spell (you decide which of the damage is never dealt)". Regeneration spells like death ward could become "the next time target creature or spell destroys one or more creatures you control, regenerate one of those creatures". This gets rid of the undesirable play experiences mentioned in the rules change article.
No thanks, I'll rather take the ordered blocking system.
The truth is that the new combat system isn't hard to learn or unintuitive. It makes sense and in most cases it works the same way things used to work.
|
|
|
