|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 7:33PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
I hate being mana screwed. By mana screw I mean missing a land/mana drop during the first 2-4 turns of the game. I feel this is poor mechanic and here are two reasons why.
It punishes bad/new players more then it punishes good players. Given the same deck, a new player is going to have a harder time playing a low land hand than a good player. This disadvantage is exaggerated further when you consider a deck a new/bad player builds compared to a good player. All in all it means that new/bad player loses more games due to mana screw compared to good players.
It adds harmful variance to the game. Essentially the mana screw mechanic is roughly equivalent to rolling a 20-sided die before a game begins, if you get 20 or 19 you lose, otherwise you can actually play the game. The reason the mana screw is such a bad mechanic, is that it prevents the player from taking any action and also removes interaction between players.
It's just not fun. Not being able to take any action in the early game simple because of random chance, is not an enjoyable experience. Losing because you had to mulligan down to 4 because you didn't get any lands in your draws is an incredibly frustrating.
The Solution
At the start of a game you select up to 4 basic lands from your deck and reveal them to your opponent. These lands are considered your "Starting Territory" and make up the beginning of your hand.
After you pick your Starting Territory you then draw the rest of your hand from your deck. If you should mulligan, you still draw one less card, but the first few cards would always be your "Starting Territory."
Example: I pick 2 Swamps and a Plains as my Starting Territory. I then draw 4 more cards to create my first hand of 7 cards (the 3 cards that make up my starting territory count towards the hand size). If I decide to mulligan, then I keep the 3 lands reshuffle the rest of my hand and draw 3 cards.
Essentially your starting territory places a lower limit on the mulligan. For tournaments, the starting territory would be set at signup and could not vary between matches.
Possible problems with this solutions: 4 might be too high. It might need to be changed to 3. Also it might be ok to vary which lands you want between matches.
What does everyone think about this?
I posted this orginally in the general forum, but it probably should have went here.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 8:38PM
#2
|
|
|
That solution (or something like it) has been proposed many times before. The problem is that then someone builds an aggro deck with three or four lands, and only three or four lands, and go to town because every single card they ever draw is gas.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real. --Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 5:40PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
Aside from that, your solution makes color-intensive cards not mean anything. An almost mono-blue deck can splash Kitchen Finks easily if I can just make sure I draw the two Plains beforehand. More importantly, your solution is also frustating. Imagine I have a white-black deck. I'm afraid that my mana is bad so I get two Plains and two Swamps. I see those plus Glorius Anthem and other two lands in my opening hand, so I decide to mulligan, but now I'm stuck with four set cards. That means that I only see two new cards. And I better hope they are going to be nonland cards that I can cast relatively fast. Having one hand affect your next ones when you don't choose is awful. Also, I don't like my opponent knowing that I really have this many lands in hand, so he can kill my only creature and I stay doing nothing. Or him or her knowing my colors.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:51PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2012
|
Still, something should be done to reduce the occurences of mana deaths.
A thought I had was to try to allow players to cram more lands in their decks by adding some cycling ability to BASIC lands. Once on your turn, you'd be able to cycle such a land for 2 of the color it can produce. Players would then put more lands in their decks, since they can reduce the dangers of mana full.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 6:31AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
Heh. I do quite like the idea of errataing cycling {C}{C} onto basic lands. It would rather fail new players though: suddenly these things they've been trained to ignore have a complex strategic choice built-in.
And of course this doesn't do much to alleviate mana screw (too few lands).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 6:34AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2012
|
And of course this doesn't do much to alleviate mana screw (too few lands).
I believe that players would use this to increase the number of lands in their decks, thus strongly reducing the probability of being mana screwed.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 3:43PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
That solution (or something like it) has been proposed many times before. The problem is that then someone builds an aggro deck with three or four lands, and only three or four lands, and go to town because every single card they ever draw is gas.
What does this deck do if it encounters a deck with land destruction/mana denial?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 4:29PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
First I think “up to 3 lands” is healthier and will base my arguments on that number. Aside from that, your solution makes color-intensive cards not mean anything. An almost mono-blue deck can splash Kitchen Finks easily if I can just make sure I draw the two Plains beforehand.
I agree it does make color-intensive cards easier to play. So you could pick 2 plains and 1 island. However if one of your lands is destroyed what are you going to do? Do you still take that risk? I feel that decision is interesting and would add to the game.
More importantly, your solution is also frustating. Imagine I have a white-black deck. I'm afraid that my mana is bad so I get two Plains and two Swamps. I see those plus Glorius Anthem and other two lands in my opening hand, so I decide to mulligan, but now I'm stuck with four set cards. That means that I only see two new cards. And I better hope they are going to be nonland cards that I can cast relatively fast. Having one hand affect your next ones when you don't choose is awful.
As stated in previously, I think it should be changed to up to 3 instead of 4. However to respond to you point, this can be frustrating for sure, but in this instance you can do something (I really hate not being able to do anything). Furthermore this can be mitigated by only picking 2 lands or even 1 for starting territory.
Also, I don't like my opponent knowing that I really have this many lands in hand, so he can kill my only creature and I stay doing nothing. Or him or her knowing my colors.
This is a fair argument. Your opponent would have a lower bound on how many lands are in your hand. Of course you would also have the same information. This might impact game 1, but otherwise I think this would only have minor impact.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 6:19PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2012
|
What about being allowed to remove two cards from one's hand from the game to be able to fetch a basic land of the corresponding color? It doesn't help multicolor decks as much as monochrome ones, since you'll be removing the cards of the color you're fetching.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 6:09PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
The game has taken land destruction to unplayable levels. That means this solution is too easy. And if they did make this solution, pushing land destruction so that there is a risk would make games even worse. Be aware that many solutions listed here, such as those that add random abilities to cards in your hand are horribly inelegant and create a million more complications, including interacting with Psychogenic Probe or shuffling away the two bad cards you left up with Ponder .
|
|
|