Community

I guess hypothetically we could make a creature that triggered     off of  not attacking but my designer instinct feels it's probably     design space  best left unexplored.

This is a typically depressing example of MaRo's aversion to    intelligent  design.  A creature that can either do the trick for which    you selected  it for your deck OR progress you toward winning the  match  -  that's  interesting, as it gives you choices and tension.   Instead,   modern Magic  consists mostly of cards that are utterly  useless in one   situation and  stupidly overpowered in another.   Metalcraft creatures   are a typical  example - huge if you turn  metalcraft on and worthless   otherwise.  This  kind of no-brainer  design is bad for making a game in   which every card  is relevant - not  that Wizards actually wants that,  of  course.

Also, the rules  could easily handle last strike - either add another   step in between  "normal damage" and "end of combat", or just use the   beginning of "end  of combat".  Honestly, you need to stop listening to   rules managers  when they say something can't work; they're just being   excessively  linear in their thinking as usual.  Any rules problem can be   solved by  adding some loopholes; that little nebbish Melvin may think  the result  looks inelegant, but if it leads to a more fun game then who  cares  about the person who would rather read the rulebook than actually  play.

Lastly, game design is NOT about putting obstacles in the way of the  player's ability to play and enjoy the game.  And claiming that sorcery  status is an obstacle to overcome is not very valid because there are  very few ways of overcoming it.

Feb 13, 2011 -- 9:56PM, willpell wrote:

I guess hypothetically we could make a creature that triggered     off of  not attacking but my designer instinct feels it's probably     design space  best left unexplored.

This is a typically depressing example of MaRo's aversion to    intelligent  design.  A creature that can either do the trick for which    you selected  it for your deck OR progress you toward winning the  match  -  that's  interesting, as it gives you choices and tension.   Instead,   modern Magic  consists mostly of cards that are utterly  useless in one   situation and  stupidly overpowered in another.   Metalcraft creatures   are a typical  example - huge if you turn  metalcraft on and worthless   otherwise.  This  kind of no-brainer  design is bad for making a game in   which every card  is relevant - not  that Wizards actually wants that,  of  course.

I think you're reading too much into his statement.  A simpler reason not to go there is that Magic already has a major mechanic that does basically this, in a much cleaner way: Activated abilities with in the cost.  Creatures (without vigilance) can only activate such an ability if they don't attack.

Feb 14, 2011 -- 12:02AM, fractal wrote:

A simpler reason not to go there is that Magic already has a major mechanic that does basically this, in a much cleaner way: Activated abilities with in the cost.  Creatures (without vigilance) can only activate such an ability if they don't attack.

Also Johan if you want a more literal example. While there are a couple of things that can't be done with tap abilities, it probably isn't worth it.