|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 5:11PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2012
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Serious Fun, which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 3:37AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2011
|
Interesting idea. Should be able to work from this towards something that wont award the player who is already ahead.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 4:37AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2009
|
It is a cool idea, and I think there are some easy ways to adapt it to your own playgroups desire. For instance you could:
- do something similar to how commanders are played: add 2 to the cost of a new mercenary for each mercenary you already control. That way the more mercenaries you own the harder it will be to cast another one.
- add a cost that depends on the number of "resources" a player has, so that players that are behind can use it more easily then those that are ahead. You could make a table so everyone can see the costs: 0-20 resources; add 2, 20-30 resources; add 4 etc. (just an example) What you consider a resource can depend on your groups preferences: number of cards in hand, number of lands/creatures/permanents on the battlefield, number of cards in the graveyard, life total, or any combination thereof. Keep in mind that the more things you consider a resource the harder it will be to keep track.
- use a dealer button that you pas on to another player of your choice at end of turn and only the person controlling it can purchase mercenaries. How this will work out will depend on your playgroups political inclinations I guess, but chances are it won't get passed to the person that is winning at the moment. This one might get weird once the "two players are left" stage is reached. On the other hand at that point ending the game so the rest can join in again might be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 10:17AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2003
|
do something similar to how commanders are played: add 2 to the cost of a new mercenary for each mercenary you already control. That way the more mercenaries you own the harder it will be to cast another one.
I'd do this and also add an extra cost of exiling a card from your hand every time you want to cast a mercenary. Especially with the mercs you lined up, if I were building a deck, I wouldn't play a single creature. Why bother if I can just hire bomb mercenaries? Overall, this idea seems to not have been thought out very thoroughly.
Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 5:34PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
|
For Guildhouse, I would have a the following rule to fix the "rich get richer" issue:
"The player who controls the greatest number of creatures on the battefield may not hire a hireling. If two or more players tie for the greatest number of creatures, none of those players may hire a hireling."
This is easy to calculate, simple to understand, and will self-regulate because every time you hire a hireling, you placing yourself closer to the "can't hire any more" threshold.
In the boundary case that no players control any creatures, the rule disallows the use of the guildhouse, which is good because it makes sure that players are also using the creature cards in their hands rather than relying on the guidhouse alone.
|
|
|
