|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 9:59PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2009
|
I also wanted to say that your suggestion sounded terrible... but I couldnt force myself past the first paragraph.
Yupp!
STEP 1: Find your cousin
STEP 2: Get your cousin in the cannon
STEP: 3 Find another cousin
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 12:23AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
There is no obvious upside to this suggestion at all. It doesn't remove any of the existing complexity, all it does is describe the same rules a different way that is harder to remember and harder for cards and rules to reference (the latter point is especially true of stuff like Eon Hub, as rmsgrey points out). It would be helpful if you could clearly articulate what the advantage is supposed to be, because I simply am not seeing it.
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 5:44AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2004
|
If you want to change the turn structure, one change I could support would be to make Combat a special action on the part of the Active Player - you potentially lose the opportunity for Non-Active Players to play instants while the stack is empty during the pre-combat main phase, but opportunities still exist during the Draw Step and Beginning of Combat Step, so the functional difference is minimal - there would have to be an "only during combat" effect that a NAP still wanted to play even with no combat happening for there to be a significant difference there. Granting additional Combats is as simple as "you may declare an additional Combat this turn" without worrying about adding another Main Phase, land drops become "once during your Main Phase", and, in a "draw-go" situation, it saves 4 priority passes per player (all of which would be swallowed by the shortcut anyway). There is a complication with "must attack" effects - there would have to be a rule that you must declare Combat if possible if you have any creatures that must attack, and Fatespinner  's wording would get clunkier. Overall, I think letting the main phase revert to Alpha's single main phase with Combat as an interruption is cleaner than having two Main Phases, which pretend to be different.
M:tG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 7:22AM
#14
|
|
|
Having combat as part of the main phase requires redefining sorceries or they could be played in combat steps. Then you need the ability to handle cards like Savage Beating  that create a second combat without a main in between, and like Relentless Assault  that do have a main in between combats.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 7:50AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2004
|
Having combat as part of the main phase requires redefining sorceries or they could be played in combat steps. Then you need the ability to handle cards like Savage Beating that create a second combat without a main in between, and like Relentless Assault that do have a main in between combats.
The combat steps would not be part of the Main Phase - instead the Main Phase would be suspended or interrupted while Combat played out .
Savage Beating would create an additional Combat Phase following the current, without returning to the interrupted Main Phase; Relentless Assault effects would reword to "you may declare an additional Combat this turn".
M:tG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
