Community

Nov 24, 2011 -- 4:06AM, Splattercat wrote:

Rob:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Damage= toughness reduction in DotP, does that not mean you could do 10 damage to a Darksteel Colossus and then give it -1/-1 and kill it? I tried offing Ulamog in that manner once, but it was long ago and I can't remember if it worked or not.

if it does, that's a pretty hefty departure from regular Magic. 

I tried that. In my case the answer was no. Damaged Darksteel until he had 3 Toughness left, then gave him +1/-1 with Overseer using SoS until his toughness was 0. To my surprise, it did not remove him from the battlefield. Of course, I lost that game.

Nov 26, 2011 -- 9:30AM, g0mbl3rr wrote:

I am currently studying to become a rules advisor 

Someone please wake me up from my nightmare. The guy who will probably be gasping for breath when he realizes Baneslayer Angel and Garruk's Companion could be in the same deck.

Magic is much more than DOTP and open ended. You can never get the big picture as long as you keep spamming Kraken's Eye and Demon's Horn combos which are brilliant *rolls eyes*

I am playing Duels since the launch of Duels 2010, dabbled with some MTG Online and *real* deck building there, spent an awful lot of time in Gatherer and forums and even I am a novice Magic player in comparison to some guys here. Keep in mind my local doesn't have any MTG hot-spots or players (that much) therefore I never played the card version.

And I wasn't kidding when I said "New-comers won't believe the worlds of difference whether a card has the word target on it or not". Your actions, however, indicate that you are beyond comprehending anything.

Nov 26, 2011 -- 10:58AM, robvalue wrote:

To make any kind of counter argument, you need to provide rules quotations from the comprehensive rules which can be downloaded here.

I appreciate the link and will check it out, but I disagree with your reasoning. If you must download and read a comprehensive list of rules in order to effectively play a video game, it is discouraging. It is especially discouraging to new players. If that new player is intelligent, then it is just insulting as well as discouraging. Insulting and discouraging new players is not condusive to expanding the amount of existing players. If the rules of the video game were properly designed using the english language as it is most commonly implemented in the vernacular, a list of comprehensive rules would be superfluous anyhow. The rules should be clear enough so as a manual is not needed. Every rule should be clearly deducable from the text printed on each card. Ambiguous rules and rule books that are not included in the game just indicate inefficiency. If you look at all successful video games with high sales, they all have rules that are clear enough so that a manual is not needed, or if it is, they provide that manual in the structure of the game.

Nov 26, 2011 -- 10:58AM, robvalue wrote:

Quoting anything else, or just applying your own reasoning, isn't relevant. If it was were, the rules would change depending on whomever is playing the game.

If my suggestions make the game more user friendly for new players and increase the sales of the game...thereby boosting the amount of paper magic players and duels players...then my suggestions are not only relevant, but beneficial for both video game players and paper magic players.

Nov 26, 2011 -- 10:58AM, robvalue wrote:

I agree the rules are not always 100% clear...A target is only a target when you see the word target, with only two exceptions: (a) An Aura targets while being cast and while it's on the stack; (b) Equip abilities target.The text in a spell/ability is what will happen when it resolves, and doesn't do anything until it gets to that stage. Picking targets is a way of determining what will be affected, and if it isn't explicitly labelled as such then making the choice is part of it resolving.

Here are my suggestions to make the rules more clear:

1. add the word "target" to auras and equip abilities.

2. spells that include "targeting" (as the word is used in the english language) should have the word "target" on the card.

3. All spells should have selecting or "picking targets" a part of the the initial casting of the spell, not the resolution. OR all spells should have selecting or "picking targets" a part of the resolution and not the initial casting.

4. All spells of a particular type (eg. sorcery or instant) should function in a consistent mannor.

Nov 27, 2011 -- 1:48AM, jpoplive wrote:

Nov 26, 2011 -- 11:56AM, g0mbl3rr wrote:

Here are my suggestions to make the rules more clear:

1. add the word "target" to auras and equip abilities.

2. spells that include "targeting" (as the word is used in the english language) should have the word "target" on the card.

3. All spells should have selecting or "picking targets" a part of the the initial casting of the spell, not the resolution. OR all spells should have selecting or "picking targets" a part of the resolution and not the initial casting.

4. All spells of a particular type (eg. sorcery or instant) should function in a consistent mannor.

So what you are saying is you want to change the rules of the game and basicly break the game. Good luck on getting your changes, lol.

This isn't directed at Jpop, but since I can't see gombs posts, this is the first I saw it.


One of the best parts about M:tG is how spells can be so diverse.  If all spells worked the way you described above, then the game would be stale and predictable. 

And your #4 is already a truth about M:tG.  HOWEVER; you have to break it down further than just Instant or Sorcery.  All spells of a particular type do fuction in a consistent mannor.  All spells that are counter spells work in a consistent mannor.  All sacrifice spells work the same.  All direct damage spells work similarly.  All creature spells are cast in the same manner.