|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 1:05PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
I opened this thread because I was interested in talking about things which Magic players (of all skill levels) refer to all the time, but which--strictly speaking--don't actually exist in the rules. In my mind, the two best known (and, possibly, only) examples are "land drops" and "instant speed". Specifically, I want to discuss the merits of changing the rules to incorporate these concepts--probably not by name, but at least in such a way so that a player who is less familiar with the Comp. Rules than we are can go "Oh! This is the 'land drop' rule."
I do already know that working "instant speed" in is basically a non-starter: the timing rules can get pretty wonky without a whole lot going on in the game, so this would either require rewriting the rules from the ground up or breaking/functionally changing several thousand cards. Probably both.
As for "land drops", I already know that concept can support both the "dollar model" (effects that grant additional drops add a "dollar" to your wallet; you can spend your dollars in whatever order you choose; loosing access to an effect only causes that specific dollar to disappear from your wallet), which is how I believe the rules currently work and the "aggregate model" (effects that grant additional drops add to the total number of drops you are allowed that turn; you are allowed to play a land if and only if the total number of lands you have played this turn is less than your running total of land drops).
Also, are there other examples of this kind of thing? I am kind of hoping that the "land drop" isn't the only one which might actually be amenable to incorporation into the rules.
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 1:23PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
THere are alot of other misconceptions that people think are rules, Summoing sickness is one alot of people think is a "thing" when it isn't. Sorcery speed/instant speed is a non-starter. It would be confusing to have spells and abilities have different amount of time before ressolving. Also there would probably be situations where two spells and/or abiliities would ressolve at the same time. Land drops are one of those things that come up from time to time, and I agree. The current rules are a bit wonky when it comes to land drops, and i think most players think of land drops as a thing. Unfortuantely there are a few cards that don't work well with land drops as a thing. ( Gaea's Touch  for example) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Generally, i think the rules should conform with player's expectations. Some are unworkable (Speeds in magic don't really make sense), but others like land drops would probably help players alot.
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 1:39PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2006
|
I'm not really sure if Gea's Touch is a good Argument - Jandor's Ring  does not work really within the Rules as well, and I bet it used way more often. "Land Drops" are a good idea - we could finally figure out how it really works (how does it work? I have actually no idea). "Summoning Sickness" already more or less exists: 302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 1:53PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
DocDoom raises a good point: the way the rules are currently worded makes multiple additional land drops more difficult for players to understand than necessary. At minimum, I'd like to see 305.2 (which governs the number of lands a player is allowed to play) expanded into three parts: a sentence which specifies that normally only a single land drop is allowed, a sentence which acknowledges the existence of effects that add land drops and specifies that players are required to associate each played land explicitly with an effect or rule which allows them to play that land and finally a third sentence that states that using any particular land drop has no effect on your ability to use other land drops you may still have. Also I hate how that rule is currently worded.
EDIT: Also, I'd like to mention that my motivation here is expanding available design and templating technology. It's hard to make cards which refer to things which the rule don't recognize.
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 1:54PM
#5
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
I really don't understand what you're suggesting for "instant speed". Do you just mean that, instead of the lengthy "any time you could cast an instant", it should say "at instant speed"? If so, the term "speed" is misleading, though something like "with instant timing" could work. If you actually do mean having different "speeds" of abilities and such, I can't even imagine what that could mean. As for "land drops", that's been brought up before. It's true that the current system is odd. However, I'm not sure if keeping a total land drops variable would actually make it less odd. If someone controls a Oracle of Mul Daya  , plays two lands, somehow loses the Oracle, then casts Explore  , should they be able to play an additional land? I don't think there is an obvious "intuitive" answer to that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 1:59PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
I wasn't necessarily suggesting anything. I was simpling referencing players who talk about casting things "at instant speed" despite there being no such thing. I am fully aware that incorporating that terminology is a practical impossibility.
As for land drops, I'm less concerned with making the rule more intuitive than I am with trying to incorporating the idea of a "land drop" as an actual thing in the rules. I feel that by incorporating the concept into the rules, the wording of the rule and how it applies to game states will be clearer and also easier to change if way down the road we alter how "additional land drop" effects actually work.
EDIT: In other words, I feel that the rule is hard to parse, not unintuitive.
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 2:07PM
#7
|
|
|
As for "land drops", that's been brought up before. It's true that the current system is odd. However, I'm not sure if keeping a total land drops variable would actually make it less odd. If someone controls a Oracle of Mul Daya , plays two lands, somehow loses the Oracle, then casts Explore , should they be able to play an additional land? I don't think there is an obvious "intuitive" answer to that.
Players always want to get the most value out of their cards. I think most players would say that they get to play a third land. In that situation, I think the rules line up with expectation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 2:33PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
"Summoning Sickness" already more or less exists:
302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.
Alot of lpayers think summoning sickness is something a creature has, i.e. some akin to Trample. Whereas the rules are actually what tells a creature if it can or can't attack.
This is a major difference between how the rules actually wrok and how players think the rules work. IN the end it isn't important since 99% of the time you'll get the same result. But Summoning sickness is a part of the game that players think works one way, but doesn't.
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 2:51PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
Alot of lpayers [sic] think summoning sickness is something a creature has, i.e. some akin to Trample.
Interesting. I've never encountered that before.
Which isn't to say that I disbelieve you, of course. Magic players sometimes believe all sorts of crazy things.
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 5:44PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
Alot of lpayers [sic] think summoning sickness is something a creature has, i.e. some akin to Trample.
Interesting. I've never encountered that before.
Which isn't to say that I disbelieve you, of course. Magic players sometimes believe all sorts of crazy things.
I started out thinking that, and everyone in my playgroup as well. We often have that question in the rules Q&A forum.
It doesn't come up very often because if you treat "summoning sickness" as an ability like Trample or Reach that lasts for a short duration you pretty much end up with the exact same conclusion then if you understand how Summoning sickness actually works.
But because the common termonology is "That creature has summoning sickness" people tend to treat it in the same manner as "That creature has trample".
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
