|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 9:03AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
Has anyone considered introducing a variant of the Protection ability, to wit, using Protection from Opponents/Players as shorthand for "Protection from Spells and Abilities controlled by Opponents/Players"--which is way too unwieldy to be viable as a replacement for either Hexproof or Shroud. This would introduce the functional change that it now protects against Pyroclasm  and its ilk; but I haven't been able to envision any other functional differences, and it would allow R&D to actively support both versions, using each where it is most appropriate. I don't foresee it being too badly misunderstood, since most players probably aren't aware of the distinction between those two abilities, and we'd add reminder text anyway. The only serious disadvantage seems to be that some Protection abilities now fail to completely define their criterion in the card text. Is this cost to high?
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 9:29AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2005
|
You refer to a "hexproof/shroud" problem. What is that problem?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 10:39AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2010
|
You refer to a "hexproof/shroud" problem. What is that problem?
I think he's just suggesting to do the same thing for protection that hexproof did for shroud.
It is conceivable, but I think it would require a new keyword.
'Shield from red' (there are prolly better names, but bear with me) would mean
- it can't be targeted by red sources an opponent controls
- it can't be enchanted, equipped, fortified by red permanents an opponent controls
- it can't be blocked by red creatures an opponent controls
- it can't be damaged by red sources an opponent controls
Edit : After rereading his post, I am wrong, he's suggesting to use protection as a replacement for hexproof, which is a horrible idea since protection does much more.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 5:17PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 5:19PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
1) Shroud is no longer evergreen
that being said I'd like them both to be evergreen, in green and blue as you said
I guess R&D will find that too confusing for new players
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 5:33PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
I do know that Shroud isn't evergreen anymore, but I would like it to be as well. I think the issue is actually that supporting both as evergreen keywords occupies too much mindspace, because the words used to name the abilities don't suggest any link between them (unlike, for example, "Shroud" and "Troll Shroud"). Borrowing "Protection" wouldn't have that issue.
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 1:02AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2010
|
I do wish there were a good way to make Hexproof and Shroud coexist (and I'm not certain they can't, to be honest, although I realize I'm not the kind of player they're worried about). I don't think borrowing the "Protection" name is the way to do it, since Protection means a fundamentally different thing than Shroud. Even if you make it something different like "Protection from opponents", it has some connotations it really shouldn't have.
Rules Nut Advisor
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 4:11AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
I agree the hexproof/shroud problem as Astarael7 articulates it is indeed a problem. Hexproof is incredibly irritating the way Wizards are doing it at the moment. It'd be much less irritating if they were free to use shroud most of the time and occasional hexproof where it was justified. But for as long as they consider the two concepts too close to support simultaneously, that can't happen.In the reimagining of the rules of Magic that Devon Rule did on his blog, reimagining what MtG rules could look like if the game was being designed now with the benefit of 19 years' hindsight, he came up with an elegant solution to the hexproof/shroud problem, which created two new keywords to occupy the space previously occupied by all of protection, hexproof, shroud, regeneration and indestructible. (Jay Treat came up with something very similar on his own blog.) The two new made-up keywords are "Hidden from X" and "Protected from X". (Remember this is in an alternate universe so there's no clash with our world's "protection from". If Wizards were to adopt this approach they'd need a different word for "protected" that was more distinct from "protection".) "Hidden from X" means it can't be targeted by sources that are X or are controlled by X. "Protected from X" means it can't be damaged or destroyed by sources that are X or are controlled by X. So the new system works out as: "Hidden from everything" = Shroud "Hidden from opponents" = Hexproof "Protected from everything" = Indestructible "Hidden from white, protected from white" ≈ protection from white (minus confusing bits about Auras that arrive without targeting, and plus the protection from Wrath of God  that there used to be endless debates about) "{B}: ~ is protected from everything UEOT" ≈ regeneration (minus the most confusing bits: tapping, removing from combat, two verbs with the same name, and sounding like it brings things back from the graveyard)
"Hidden from nongreen" = Gaea's Revenge 
"Hidden from you" = a new drawback mechanic
"Protected from opponents" ≈ Energy Field 
etc etc... As you can see, there's lots of design space in these two keywords.
If Magic were being redesigned from the ground up, I think this would be a great approach to take. But it's not, so we have to take into account the existing cards and existing understanding of players.
I think the lesson from the successful thought experiments by Jay and Devon is that shroud and hexproof could coexist if they were deliberately named to be compared and contrasted.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 9:35AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2011
|
MaRo recently stated that Wither is not going away even though infect exists.
To me there is no difference between Wither and Infect in terms of functionailty comparison to shroud and hexproof.
What I mean is, both have advantages and disadvantages and one is not necesserly strickly better than the other.
You could argue that shroud is less valuable than hexproof but theoretically creatures with shroud should be cheaper to cast than hexproof.
You could say that infect is better because you get wither + poison counters. There are few times where you might not be able to win by infect and regular damage might be better? Probably n ot but I'm sure mana cost fits here too.
Anyways I am positive there is arguements for pros and cons but my point is I think hexproof is a little strong to be on cheap creatures. I think WotC learned this lesson thus we saw 3/3 hexproof in core set for 4cmc and it being the only one.
My vote is keep shroud, use it more generous at low CMC and keep hexproof and use it @ higher cost. Give the players some credit that we are smart enough to grokk two concepts not linked by a name.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 9:44AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
Wither is easy to bring back in a core set
Infect, not so much
the problem is you can't really run a mixed infect/non-infect deck, but if just some of your creatures have wither you are not compromising your plan
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
