Soltari Guerrillas could "attack" other creatures, provided the opponent has no shadow creatures to block it.
However, every creature attacking other creatures becoming the norm would totally wreck the established combat sytem of the game. This would turn into another game entirely.
I don't think this is actually attacking, but redirecting damage as it doesn't give a chance for the defending player to block in order to protect his creature.
Of course it would wreck the game if defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creatures, that is why we suggested for this format to have unblockables banned and mitigating the evasion in general.
banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
Even with a change to being able to target Creatures it wouldn't turn MtG into "quasi Yugioh". There are far too many radical differences for a change, even one as broad as target Creatures, to make it Yugioh. You're vastly diminishing the differences between the two card games to make a poor comparison, and it doesn't make your rhetoric look good.
i feel one of the things that sets magic apart is not being able to target creatures with attacking creatures directly, that inability to say my dude attacks your dude adds more complexity to the game
death touch would pretty much be the gold standard for every creature if you could pick and choose what you swing in to
griping about having to run removal for walkers is also a little silly because welcome to magic, where you should be running removal.
Totally disagree here. huge part of the games strategy happens not on your turn with ho9w you block or use instant speed removal which would completely warp the game. You wouldn't be able to play utility creatures that may not be as big cause they die. Couldn't block with expendable creatures. Messing with token decks or any green deck with mana dorks. An more decks but those are some obvious ones. Also death touch blockers and walls would be useless. Would really crush a lot of decks.
Also even if you view removal as a "tax" cause it snot part of the strategy. maybe that's a good thing that rewards interactive games of magic instead of linear decks that go all in on there strategy. Which already can be a problem. And would make creature decks imbalanced cause there wincon would also be there answers.
To put it this way i think it build around g/x creature or enchantment maybe that let creatures fight on etb or some other condition like ayula. But changing the mechanics to allow it would be a bad idea.
And I know mechanically what you want to implement, I feel like it isn't a great idea nor is it the only way to solve the original problem, which as I said seems more like it's about Creatures being able to have a strong impact on the board without attacking, making removal of them difficult.
First of all removal of them is already difficult as it is since the only practical way to get rid of them in a standard game would be, well, removals, making them able to attack one another would add even more options as you won't be limited to only one choice.
Again it's more about making the game intuitive than nothing else, it won't necessarily make them neither more "impactful" nor less.
The thing is that when you have more choices then the game becomes more about strategy and skill, rather than luck.
If you have a bunch of smaller creatures and the opponent has a big one, you simply either wait for him to attack (Which he probably won't unless it benefits his or has some combat shenanigan.) so as it currently stands, whoever has the bigger creature pretty much has the upper hand.
So, you can't pretty much do anything until you draw the removal.
And that's the difference, if it was actually implemented then you could still advance even if you had smaller creatures so you wouldn't have to rely only on removals or getting an even bigger creature as it currently stands.
In short, you need to see it for yourself, just make sure to not play with unblockables and add reach to certain creature types and you will realize that the game will become more like strategy and skill rather than luck as it stands right now.
banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
First of all, every format has a ban list, this is to keep sure that the game won't break due to specific format rules.
Secondly if you still think that we are talking about yugioh then you clearly still haven't comprehended the basic concept.
In yugioh defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature by putting another in the way of attacker.
If you detach your mindset from that yugioh mentality then you would realize that your point is really far off the mark.
Furthermore, there really wouldn't be any changes in the combat since this would only apply to summons, not creatures, so if don't wish to transition then you won't.
This would only be for people who want to try this, not those who don't.
Even with a change to being able to target Creatures it wouldn't turn MtG into "quasi Yugioh". There are far too many radical differences for a change, even one as broad as target Creatures, to make it Yugioh. You're vastly diminishing the differences between the two card games to make a poor comparison, and it doesn't make your rhetoric look good.
In yugioh, however has the biggest creature, pretty much has the upper hand, when you have to think of ways to protect your troops as well, then it becomes even less from a yugioh than even now, in yugioh there is no reason not to attack once you have the bigger creature, in this there would be plenty as you would leave your creatures unprotected in future attack.
The fact that in magic you can block, makes the whole difference and you will realize that if you attempt attacking other creatures once you have the biggest creature under this, you will probably lose most of your games, as this you will soon realize that it would require even more deep strategical thinking than yugioh, not even close in the slightest.
i feel one of the things that sets magic apart is not being able to target creatures with attacking creatures directly, that inability to say my dude attacks your dude adds more complexity to the game
death touch would pretty much be the gold standard for every creature if you could pick and choose what you swing in to
griping about having to run removal for walkers is also a little silly because welcome to magic, where you should be running removal.
You will need more strategical thinking than simply putting deathtouch, what if your opponent has first strike? Your whole point about deathtouch would be completely ruined, there are more and there would be even more ways of playing magic than you assume there are.
Secondly, you wouldn't still be able to attack creatures that you can't block, so a creature with deathtouch would still not be able to attack a spirit for example.
It really is not as simple as you might think.
Besides a different format would require a different strategy in order to attain it.
But even still you will run into surprise when your opponent blocks with another creature and you end up trading your deathtouch with something else than what you wanted, so it's really not as simple as you think.
Totally disagree here. huge part of the games strategy happens not on your turn with ho9w you block or use instant speed removal which would completely warp the game. You wouldn't be able to play utility creatures that may not be as big cause they die. Couldn't block with expendable creatures. Messing with token decks or any green deck with mana dorks. An more decks but those are some obvious ones. Also death touch blockers and walls would be useless. Would really crush a lot of decks.
Well, different formats require different strategies and thus different decks, you can't expect a regular tier 1 deck that would work on a standard game to work here and you shouldn't expect it to.
Furthermore combat tricks play even bigger role here since you will find that you can't just simply leave your creature unattended and expect it to survive, you will have to look after your utility creatures if you don't want them to die and still give that +1/+1 bonus, this is what makes the game requiring more deep strategic thinking, since you have to also look after your creatures if you want them to survive, you can't just simply call them and then forget about them by simply not attacking with them, the enemy will of course try to go after them as he should be, and so you could as well if the roles were to be reversed.
Of course it wouldn't be as easy to get rid of them since your player could also block to protect them so it really won't be that easy, but at least you would have still the option to if you want to instead of waiting to draw the removal.
Of course that doesn't mean that you wouldn't still have the option of removal which would be the easy way to get rid of them, but you will also have this as well.
Also even if you view removal as a "tax" cause it snot part of the strategy. maybe that's a good thing that rewards interactive games of magic instead of linear decks that go all in on there strategy. Which already can be a problem. And would make creature decks imbalanced cause there wincon would also be there answers.
What part of "waiting to draw the removal because I have no other way to get rid of that utility" speaks about strategy?
If nothing else, that seems even less of interactivity than also having the option to engage in combat which of course would involve more strategic thinking from your part since you would also have to think who you should keep back so they can protect your utility creatures from retaliation.
Lastly it's too early to talk about balance since the game wasn't designed for it to begin with, so until it does (if it ever.) we have to think about making it more balanced ourselves for now.
To put it this way i think it build around g/x creature or enchantment maybe that let creatures fight on etb or some other condition like ayula. But changing the mechanics to allow it would be a bad idea.
The fact that you talk about 'fight' means that you haven't completely comprehended the concept as in magic you could also block in order to protect your creratures, which is not the case with fight mechanic where defending player doesn't have a chance whatsoever.
What we are talking here, falls more in like with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
And I know mechanically what you want to implement, I feel like it isn't a great idea nor is it the only way to solve the original problem, which as I said seems more like it's about Creatures being able to have a strong impact on the board without attacking, making removal of them difficult.
First of all removal of them is already difficult as it is since the only practical way to get rid of them in a standard game would be, well, removals, making them able to attack one another would add even more options as you won't be limited to only one choice.
Again it's more about making the game intuitive than nothing else, it won't necessarily make them neither more "impactful" nor less.
The thing is that when you have more choices then the game becomes more about strategy and skill, rather than luck.
If you have a bunch of smaller creatures and the opponent has a big one, you simply either wait for him to attack (Which he probably won't unless it benefits his or has some combat shenanigan.) so as it currently stands, whoever has the bigger creature pretty much has the upper hand.
So, you can't pretty much do anything until you draw the removal.
And that's the difference, if it was actually implemented then you could still advance even if you had smaller creatures so you wouldn't have to rely only on removals or getting an even bigger creature as it currently stands.
In short, you need to see it for yourself, just make sure to not play with unblockables and add reach to certain creature types and you will realize that the game will become more like strategy and skill rather than luck as it stands right now.
I have no idea why you're repeating the main point I was making, that Creatures with Enchantment like effects are pretty strong. As I said, that's the big thing that I feel is the issue. Trying to argue intuition or lore as the reason isn't terribly great.
I... also have no idea what you're talking about as far as Deathtouch and Spirits go. If I do understand what you're suggesting it's that Spirits, being non-living/generally dead can't be impacted by Deathtouch, which is really, really bad mechanically speaking. It isn't remotely an intuitive thing either, because Deathtouch is not always the exact same across the board. Scrolling up looks like it was too a different person with X in their name, but this still is something that seems extremely wonky so I'll leave it.
As far as the bit on attacking with creatures when you have one big or many small it ultimately becomes a stalemate for both sides, not just one, where the trick to breaking through is dependent on other cards. That doesn't mean it's not tactical, nor do I think your claim that being able to attack creatures directly would make it more tactical. I've played Kaijudo, which works somewhat like you suggest, and it didn't really result in more tactical gameplay.
With regards to your comment on Yugioh, that isn't at all how it works. Having the bigger creature alone is not the only thing that matters, and the presence of Trap cards means that it's very possible to run into issues if you attack recklessly. Yugioh also has a lot tighter synergy with how decks are built due to archetypes, which means that you're not always just looking for the biggest monsters you can stuff into a deck.
Cards like Moat, camouflage, reverance, brainwash, false orders, raging river basically anything that alters combat in any way harm this system. heck even just protection mskes this system a mess. Basically mother of runes is the best creature for combat ever. There would need to be a banning of thousands of cards due to the unintended consequences of this system.
I have no idea why you're repeating the main point I was making, that Creatures with Enchantment like effects are pretty strong. As I said, that's the big thing that I feel is the issue.
Creatures with enchantment effects are pretty strong anyway, besides being able to have your smaller creatures being able to down that creature actually diminished that effect instead of the opposite, which means that it's pretty much the opposite than what you think because you would still have the chance to advance without the need to rely only on removals.
So this will do the complete opposite than making the issue even worse if that's your issue.
I... also have no idea what you're talking about as far as Deathtouch and Spirits go.
It was just a mere example, you suggested that deathtouch will totally break the game, and an counter argument was presented about many other abilities which could counter it, evasion being one of them, another is first strike.
Say one attacks one of your creatures with a deathtouch, if you block with a first striker he would be in trouble of course cause he would only lose it, so attacking will not always be an option.
If I do understand what you're suggesting it's that Spirits, being non-living/generally dead can't be impacted by Deathtouch
No, what has been said in that particular example was that a creature could only attack what it can block, many spirits have the ability to be able to only be able to block other spirits, so the creature with deathtouch wouldn't be able to attack it in that particular situation.
Again this was just an example from many many others, I don't know why you are focusing on that one so much.
As far as the bit on attacking with creatures when you have one big or many small it ultimately becomes a stalemate for both sides, not just one, where the trick to breaking through is dependent on other cards. That doesn't mean it's not tactical, nor do I think your claim that being able to attack creatures directly would make it more tactical. I've played Kaijudo, which works somewhat like you suggest, and it didn't really result in more tactical gameplay.
That's why it's a strategy game, if you could attack any time you had a big creature, since defending player would have no options whatsoever, this wouldn't be as interactive.
Many people accused the concept of being more like yugioh, but totally overlooking the fact that when defending player has the option to block as well, attacking won't always be an option as it would require more strategic skill than that.
I don't know about Kaijudo, but many people have claimed that this was similar to many games they played but have fallen of the mark because of that assumption.
Again, what is being said here, falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than nothing else, defending player would still have a chance to block in order to protect his creatures even by himself (being a creature as well as the player.)
I'd let you figure out whether that falls in line with that game you suggested.
With regards to your comment on Yugioh, that isn't at all how it works. Having the bigger creature alone is not the only thing that matters, and the presence of Trap cards means that it's very possible to run into issues if you attack recklessly.
Same could be said about magic since there are combat tricks such as instants for example.
But when there aren't any involved or any effects as well, there is no reason not to attack, which pretty much makes it so whoever has the bigger creature wins the battle, which not only is not interactive but there is no strategic thinking involved.
Yugioh also has a lot tighter synergy with how decks are built due to archetypes, which means that you're not always just looking for the biggest monsters you can stuff into a deck.
I really never liked the combat of yugioh to be honest, cause if there aren't any combat shenanigans involved it simply ends up to who has the biggest creature wins, especially since defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature against a bigger one.
Again this applies assuming there are no other combat tricks involved.
I'm really sorry if it kind of offended you but, me and most people here can agree that yugioh has really poor combat mechanics.
Cards like Moat, camouflage, reverance, brainwash, false orders, raging river basically anything that alters combat in any way harm this system. heck even just protection mskes this system a mess. Basically mother of runes is the best creature for combat ever. There would need to be a banning of thousands of cards due to the unintended consequences of this system.
Well, in my group we pretty much play with the cards we own for now so, our pool is kinda limited, so there is no reason for us to start digging the whole mtg history to find card.
If someone shows up with such a card, then there would probably be a playtest to determine that.
Since the game wasn't designed for it, it's pretty safe to assume that there would be a lot of cards which would break this format.
For now, the general rule is to stay cautious mainly to things that involve evasion, it's not that we have the luxury of having so much free time that we can't think of anything else, our jobs for one for example.
All that was suggested was the presentation of this idea.
Admittedly at first I too thought that changing the rulings for all creature cards would be the way, but people here presented valid arguments which explained why that would be a bad idea since it would totally break the balance of the game, which made me change my mind as well.
Still I was hopping that the idea wouldn't be faced with so much negativity, but the unfortunate association with combat mechanics such as yugioh, made the concept even harder to be communicated since understandable people due to their experience tend to mistakenly associate that with yugioh, which makes it even harder to properly express the exact situation as the conversation becomes diverted.
Because of that it seems that the only thing one can do for now is repeat himself over and over until the association with games such as yugioh isn't so prevalent.
So that eventually we could go to the next step of actually talk about it after people (Or at least people who have interest in it.) have kind of comprehend the basic concept instead of immediately associating it with combat mechanics from other games.
I wish there was some way of showing what it's actually being said clearer so people won't immediately just to make the wrong assumptions.
Until it's kind of understood, there is not much that can be done for now either way.
I feel I'll have less of a headache if I number things, so that may help me gather my thoughts better.
1. I'll try to be even more explicit so that I can make sure it's understood, as you seem to go on kind of random paths from my intent. What I said was that reading the opening post the primary issue/problem is that Creatures with Enchantments create a strong presence in the game. The rest of the reasons for this suggestion, to me, are ultimately unimportant, because intuition/lore/whatever other justifications used are unimportant, but the one that Creatures that are basically fancy Enchantments to boot does have merit. That being said though I don't think that the proposed solution is a very good one for that particular issue.
4. I'm clarifying this point before I continue, to make sure that it is obvious. You replied to a person named Xcric. I scrolled back and forth between my reply and your post, and at one point mixed up your reply to Xcric with me, Xeruh. So I started replying to that as well, and stopped when I realized what happened, though I left my original comments intact.
2. I don't think Deathtouch would break this perceived format especially badly, though I do think that it gives a lot more options than it currently has. Being able to chump block a Deathtouch Creature is an important part of how it currently works, and while you can still do that in the new rules you're suggesting you can't go with the option of simply taking the damage, which is an important way to deal with Deathtouch I feel.
3. I misunderstood the point you were making, but given that you made a similar kind of point I'll address it. Trying to mess with the mechanics as far as how you can attack and block only makes the combat math more complex, and it isn't for much of a benefit. This game already has a lot going on, and adding even more things to keep track of would likely cause people to get frustrated with it.
5a. Given you made multiple points here I'll split them up a bit to make it easier to address. Let's actually go with a scenario, as it's a bit easier to illustrate my point. Side A has a 2/2 Creature. Side B has two 1/1 Creatures. This is a stalemate for both sides, as you're not going to be able to attack or block really without trading. This doesn't change in your proposed ruleset. Both sides are still at a stalemate. Adding the option to attack Creatures this way would still result in a trade, and you need something new to break it. At best all you're doing is giving Side B the option to trade instead of only Side A, and in so doing adding a lot of complexity.
5b. The proposed rule does not remotely mean this game plays like Magic. Anyone who is suggesting that has a very limited understanding of Magic and Yugioh, plain and simple. There are a ton of differences between the games, as well as others like it. It feels more like an insult as Yugioh is seen as shallow/bad mechanically, so by calling an idea like Yugioh you paint it in a negative light.
Even the suggested game, Kaijudo, still has noteworthy differences with regards to how attacks and blocks work, but attacking Creatures is in it. That's why I brought it up, as it has a decent number of similarities to Magic, being designed by WotC after all. It's probably the closest to what you're suggesting but I think the fact they didn't let Creatures freely block and attack is probably suggestive of the fact that it's not a great design.
6a. Agreeing with something being bad does not inherently make it so. I'm not offended, but I am making points to show that Yugioh is not the same as Magic even with the change you're discussing. This isn't a good or a bad thing, both games have value and merit, and you can't approach them the same way. And biggest Creature wins absent all other factors is true in Magic as well. If you have to reduce all factors to try and justify something as being simple then you're innately acknowledging it's more complex than you want for your comparison but you don't want to try and compare the two things properly. This isn't even getting into the fact that even minus combat tricks the functions between Creatures and Monsters, while similar on the surface, still don't play out as a solid 1:1 comparison for a variety of reasons. The mechanics of the two games, and card games in general, are a bit more robust than that.
6b. I study game design, and while it's not remotely a formal study it is something I've spent a decent amount of time on. Card games in general have a lot of overlap but a lot of differences as well, and even seemingly small differences can have a pretty huge impact. That's why if it reads as "offended" you should reevaluate your perspective on what I'm saying. Proper analysis requires length discussions, and honestly this is kind of short for all there is that could be covered.
Provoke is an ability everyone claims to want at one point or another in their MtG experience, but everyone hates it when it's on the other side of the table.
Provoke is an ability everyone claims to want at one point or another in their MtG experience, but everyone hates it when it's on the other side of the table.
Provoke isn't the same thing, nor is Fight. Both of them are different than what TC wants the rules to turn in to.
banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
First of all, every format has a ban list, this is to keep sure that the game won't break due to specific format rules.
Secondly if you still think that we are talking about yugioh then you clearly still haven't comprehended the basic concept.
In yugioh defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature by putting another in the way of attacker.
If you detach your mindset from that yugioh mentality then you would realize that your point is really far off the mark.
Furthermore, there really wouldn't be any changes in the combat since this would only apply to summons, not creatures, so if don't wish to transition then you won't.
This would only be for people who want to try this, not those who don't.
would repeat what I said. Changing the combat system would turn this entirely into a different game -- a lot of people would not be pleased.
well, then goodluck convincing wizards to implement the changes you're planning. And I'm out of this thread.
Secondly, adding more choices leading to "diminishing" choices is kind of an oximoron don't you think?
No adding more choices is a thing that can lead to diminishing choices, If Choice A is best in any situation why ywould you chose another thing if every creature acts as removal the likelyhood of running removal is lessened because why would you run that when you can run a creature that does that and more?
The very fact that you think that in heartstone you can protect your creatures, means that you haven't completely comprehend the concept.
Hearthstone wasn't the only thing i've mentioned and i comprehend the concept, hearthstone made taunts to get rid of the downsides of the concept of creatures being attackable (Bigger creatures = almost always better) by introducing taunt, Kaijudo by introducing blockers (which comes closer to your implementation as blockers are the only ones that can block attacks), and you want to use magics blocker system to combat the downsides but as i stated before that leads to more downsides and rules changes needed confusing boards. There is a reason not many games use that kind of system, and changing a game to fit a system is usually the wrong approach.
There will be a lot of situations where attacking won't be an answer as there would be a blockers in your way, just like regular magic, not at best a couple of creatures with taunt.So having to think of ways to protect your underlings also adds a strategic value, because simply holding back will not only be enough, but you would also have to hold back in order have blockers to protect your other troops.
The simple fact that the first player who plays a creature is in that much more of a powerful situation than before the change is the reason why that will rarely be the case.
If Player A plays the first creature player B can't play a smaller creature since Player A will just kill it, so he either needs to A play the bigger creature while Player A can play more creatures and just kill the bigger creature woth more creatures once it's out or player B needs removal. So the only thing a change like this does is limit what people can do during their turns, and making going first into even more of an advantage at worst and being the same that you need removal anyways at best. Thus not solving the removal issue, and having less choice in the process.
Attacking is not an answer to everything in magic games, especially when faced with even more options, if nothing else, you would see players holding of creatures in order to protect others, so pretty much the exact opposite actually happens from what you predicted.
How will the scenario I described be resolved?
Quote from Kamino_Taka »
Also I have some questions about how you resolve certain scenarios. Like Player 1 Attacks Player 2'a Creature A with his Creature X and 2's B with his Z. Now can Player 2 Just block X with B and Z with A? Or does a creature being attacked count as blocking creature even though it's not blocking it's just beeing attacked.
No it isn't considered blocking, and yes they can, block each other, to swap combat situations, and this is why you would more often that not players holding back since they will soon realize that attacking is not the answer to everything as they though it is.
So it basically leads to stalemates as well if the player with the first creature somehow looses his advantage big time, stalemates where nothing happens is usually a thing you try to avoid in games, since it leads to sloggy games with slow pace and more luck, thing of games where both players are in top deck mode, usually not the most exiting games of magic you've played right?
from Kamino_Taka »
P.s. If thats flavor/intuitive wise the logical thing wouldn't it also be logical that the player can block creatures as well? As every commander has the ability to take a hit if its for the greater good?
Exactly, and that's why it was stated that players could block as well in order to take the damage instead.
So you basically want the same game as it is right now but with rules added for what reason?
If you can block with your face anyway what makes it different from the current situation? If you don't want your creature to die you block with your face having the same result of just not blocking it in the first place. Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?
1. I'll try to be even more explicit so that I can make sure it's understood, as you seem to go on kind of random paths from my intent.
I'm really sorry if it seems that way to you, I can assure you that it is not my intent, all I'm trying to do is kind of make a clear picture of the concept.
What I said was that reading the opening post the primary issue/problem is that Creatures with Enchantments create a strong presence in the game.
Of course they do, just like in a regular game, as a creature gets more and more strong, it becomes more and more of a threat.
In a regular game your main two options are either removal or an equally big creature.
The rest of the reasons for this suggestion, to me, are ultimately unimportant, because intuition/lore/whatever other justifications used are unimportant,
Understandable, you should know though that this concept is not directed towards you specifically but only those who wish to explore this new concept.
but the one that Creatures that are basically fancy Enchantments to boot does have merit.
I'm afraid that you kind of misunderstood the concept as it's not about replacing the horde with a creature that has the sum of the power equal to the number of creatures that are attacking, but rather having all the creatures being able to attack individual units.
That being said, if combat shennanigans were to come into play such as Giant Growth for example, it doesn't mean that your attacking horde would completely leave intact as your opponent's creature might still have a chance to kill some of the creatures that are attacking it.
4. I'm clarifying this point before I continue, to make sure that it is obvious. You replied to a person named Xcric. I scrolled back and forth between my reply and your post, and at one point mixed up your reply to Xcric with me, Xeruh. So I started replying to that as well, and stopped when I realized what happened, though I left my original comments intact.
I can't speak about others in my group, but I can only speak for myself.
I simply try to answer questions so that the picture of the concept could be clearer.
That being said it doesn't specifically mean that I pay that much attention to nicknames, so if you found something offensive it doesn't mean that I specifically target you, so I'm sorry if it seemed that way, it was not my intention.
2. I don't think Deathtouch would break this perceived format especially badly, though I do think that it gives a lot more options than it currently has. Being able to chump block a Deathtouch Creature is an important part of how it currently works, and while you can still do that in the new rules
First of all they are not "new rules" and they will probably never will, it's really not that good for the concept to be perceived as "chainging the rules" as magic has a huge history behind it which can't simply change, especially since the game wasn't designed this way as it would creature a huge balancing problem.
you're suggesting you can't go with the option of simply taking the damage, which is an important way to deal with Deathtouch I feel.
There must be some misunderstanding, no one ever said that you "can't simply take the damage" as your player would be able to block himself so he there would still be that option.
Let me know what made you think any different so we could clear this up.
3. I misunderstood the point you were making, but given that you made a similar kind of point I'll address it. Trying to mess with the mechanics as far as how you can attack and block only makes the combat math more complex, and it isn't for much of a benefit. This game already has a lot going on, and adding even more things to keep track of would likely cause people to get frustrated with it.
I understand and you actually have a point, it really makes it much more complex as there would be the additional strategic layer of having to think how you can protect your creatures as well.
This would require more strategical thinking and would make the game a bit less about luck and more about skill if that's what you mean.
Many people don't wish that and it's understandable, after all not all formats are for everyone.
Side A has a 2/2 Creature. Side B has two 1/1 Creatures. This is a stalemate for both sides, as you're not going to be able to attack or block really without trading. This doesn't change in your proposed ruleset. Both sides are still at a stalemate. Adding the option to attack Creatures this way would still result in a trade, and you need something new to break it.
Let me explain what would happen in this particular scenario under this format:
We are with side A having a 2/2 creature and side B having two 1/1 creatures as you suggested.
If side B were to attack side A's 2/2 creature with the two 1/1 creature then side A's player would probably block one 1/1 creature himself and the other one could either be blocked by the 2/2 or simply go unblocked, doesn't really make a difference if there are no other effects involved.
What would happen is that the player A would take 1 damage from the first 1/1 and the other 1/1 would die from the 2/2.
So assuming we are talking about this particular case it still doesn't benefit player B to attack the 2/2 with his two 1/1s.
Again all we are talking about here is this particular situation and nothing else.
If he wanted to actually get rid of the 2/2 he would need one more 1/1.
At best all you're doing is giving Side B the option to trade instead of only Side A, and in so doing adding a lot of complexity.
Let's make an example again but this time side B has three 1/1 creatures while side A still having the 2/2.
In this situation yes, you are indeed correct, this would probably result in a trade (again assuming no other effects are involved.)
So what happens is pretty much side B's horde is attacking side A's creature which would indeed result in a trade since side A will probably not block as it wouldn't make a difference.
What pretty much happened was that side A's 2/2 creature got ganged by the three 1/1 creatures, so after the combat only one 1/1 creature would still be left on board.
Now if you want to argue about complexity then you are free to do so.
Personally I've seen far more complex situations in this format to even consider this as "complex".
5b. The proposed rule does not remotely mean this game plays like Magic. Anyone who is suggesting that has a very limited understanding of Magic and Yugioh, plain and simple.
The very fact that yugioh is even suggested here, pretty much goes to show the misunderstanding that revolves around the concept.
Furthermore people have different opinions as to what one considers as "playing like magic", if you made a suggestion about a card that could be attacked 15 years ago before Lorwyn you would pretty much have everyone tell you the same things you are telling me today.
Yet 15 years later planeswalker cards pretty much have been implemented to regular magic.
Of course there are as one requires far more strategical thinking than that.
That's why if it even were to be a thing, it would probably be a entirely different format.
It feels more like an insult as Yugioh is seen as shallow/bad mechanically,
Maybe to others might seem like a good idea, I just personally didn't liked the combat system of yugioh, as I found it extremely unappealing, this is a personal opinion, not everyone likes the same things obviously.
so by calling an idea like Yugioh you paint it in a negative light.
I would just skip that as even comparing that with yugioh means that you haven't completely got grasp of the concept.
So, even though it's being stated so many times, I'd have to say once more that what it's being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
Let me know if you want me to repeat that again since there is no telling on how many times this has to be stated.
Even the suggested game, Kaijudo, still has noteworthy differences with regards to how attacks and blocks work, but attacking Creatures is in it. That's why I brought it up,
I don't happen to have knowledge of it as I haven't played that game so I'll leave it up to you to decide what's being said here is even remotely close to that combat system.
as it has a decent number of similarities to Magic, being designed by WotC after all. It's probably the closest to what you're suggesting but I think the fact they didn't let Creatures freely block and attack is probably suggestive of the fact that it's not a great design.
Well, blocking makes all the difference here, so if there is no free block is not even remotely close to magic since there is no "freely" to block in order to protect your creatures.
If you have to reduce all factors to try and justify something as being simple then you're innately acknowledging it's more complex than you want for your comparison
The only thing that has ever been stated is that the concept is simple, not it's appliance.
but you don't want to try and compare the two things properly.
That's because there is nothing to compare it to at the moment since there is nothing even remotely close to it yet.
The closest thing that even remotely resembles it is, attacking planeswalkers, that's all.
This isn't even getting into the fact that even minus combat tricks the functions between Creatures and Monsters,
Well, if there are still misunderstandings you are always free to present examples that involve combat tricks, I'd be happy to explain what might happen in that situation.
Proper analysis requires length discussions, and honestly this is kind of short for all there is that could be covered.
I agree and this is why I'm currently doing, trying to explain the situation as best I can.
Also I want to thank you for spending your time reading and replying to these as it means a lot to me and the progress of this concept.
Hopefully lengthy discussion might make the picture clearer but we are still far away from it, so the only thing we can do for now is try to explain the situation in hopes that it becomes understood and isn't faced with so much negativity as it is faced now.
Provoke is an ability everyone claims to want at one point or another in their MtG experience, but everyone hates it when it's on the other side of the table.
It's still far away from what is being suggested here still, as it simply forced a creature to block, thus there is no way to protect that creatures through other blockers.
Provoke makes the combat system resembles more like yugioh, than this concept.
What is being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else. If you are able to still block to protect your planeswalker, the same should apply to summons as well.
Provoke is an ability everyone claims to want at one point or another in their MtG experience, but everyone hates it when it's on the other side of the table.
Provoke isn't the same thing, nor is Fight. Both of them are different than what TC wants the rules to turn in to.
This is the first comment that isn't addressed at me and yes you are correct, it's totally different.
would repeat what I said. Changing the combat system would turn this entirely into a different game -- a lot of people would not be pleased.
First of all it's not about changing as older cards will not be affected, since the rullings will apply only on the new card type, not creatures.
But yes the combat would probably kind of different as it would require more strategic skill than that since you would also have to think of how to protect your summons as well.
well, then goodluck convincing wizards to implement the changes you're planning. And I'm out of this thread.
Well as long as people have this negative view of it we are far from even being able to even come in contact with them, so the only thing we can do for now is explain the situation and detach the false association this has with other games.
We can't simply go and "convince" them when the moment we leave the very first thought they would have would be "They want to make it more like yugioh", as it falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else.
I want to thank you though for spending your time reading and replying to this thread.
Every bit of interaction helps to make the picture of it more clear, no matter how small it is.
No adding more choices is a thing that can lead to diminishing choices, If Choice A is best in any situation why ywould you chose another thing if every creature acts as removal the likelyhood of running removal is lessened because why would you run that when you can run a creature that does that and more?[quote]
Because in magic there is something that is called blocking, you can't just simply attack and expect your attack to always land of the creature you aimed at.
Many times you will find a wall of blockers that you have to deal before you even come near your destination.
If you think that you can simply attack on any given situation in order to take out an opponent's utility creature, you will lose most of your games in this format, it would require more strategical thinking than that, so it's not as simple as you might think.
The concept might be simple, but not it's appliance.
[quote from="Kamino_Taka »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=95"]Hearthstone wasn't the only thing i've mentioned and i comprehend the concept, hearthstone made taunts to get rid of the downsides of the concept of creatures being attackable
Except not every creature has taunt by default your creatures would be left defenseless in most situations unless you happen to have a creature with taunt.
(Bigger creatures = almost always better) by introducing taunt, Kaijudo by introducing blockers (which comes closer to your implementation as blockers are the only ones that can block attacks)
I haven't played Kaijudo in order to be able to make the comparison, but from what I've heard you can freely block by default so I don't think how close is that concept to what's being presented here.
and you want to use magics blocker system to combat the downsides but as i stated before that leads to more downsides and rules changes needed confusing boards.
Well it's not a game for everyone as it would require a deeper strategical thinking than that since there would be the additional layer of having to think how to protect your troops as well.
There is a reason not many games use that kind of system, and changing a game to fit a system is usually the wrong approach.
This is kind of misleading as this isn't what's being suggested but the addition of a new card type, so the game won't change to fit the system, so it would be exactly the same for older cards.
The simple fact that the first player who plays a creature is in that much more of a powerful situation than before the change is the reason why that will rarely be the case.
If Player A plays the first creature player B can't play a smaller creature since Player A will just kill it,
No it wouldn't work like that since the player would probably block himself thus taking the damage.
so he either needs to A play the bigger creature while Player A can play more creatures and just kill the bigger creature woth more creatures once it's out or player B needs removal.
Now you are just calculating the result based on a false assumption.
But even if we were talking about late game where player B dropped a big delayed big creature and player A attacked it with smaller ones, what makes you think that the smaller ones would all be left unscathed?
What makes you think that the big creature wouldn't kill some of them as well before it died, unless you assume that player A only has creature with first strike or something.
So it basically leads to stalemates as well if the player with the first creature somehow looses his advantage big time, stalemates where nothing happens is usually a thing you try to avoid in games, since it leads to sloggy games with slow pace and more luck, thing of games where both players are in top deck mode, usually not the most exiting games of magic you've played right?
First of all, that's what a strategy game is, eventually there would be a statemate as attacking won't always be an answer, you can't just simply attack and expect to win, you will need to think better than that.
Secondly, you suggested that this is why you wouldn't need removal to which is your answer to why you would still need removal as you will soon realize that your creatures wouldn't always be able to be used as the removals you thought they would be.
And besides that you would also have to hold blockers back in order to protect your creatures so attacking won't always be the answer you suggested.
I like the game would be diminished of choices since one would simply could attack his way to victory but then started whinning about how this wouldn't be the option.
So, I would suggest you make up your mind about what you want before start pointlessly whinning about the supposed "diminishing" strategy but when start whinning about "stalemates" due to you not having removals in your deck to deal with this situation.
So you basically want the same game as it is right now but with rules added for what reason?
If you can block with your face anyway what makes it different from the current situation?
Seriously? Maybe the fact that you would have more options does it say something to you, instead of waiting to either draw the removal or a bigger creature to deal with this situation?
First you started talking about the diminishing strategy, then you started the opposite since you realized that it would be as easy as simply attacking your way to victory and then you were wondering what would be the difference between that and a regular game of magic?
Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?
First of all consistency, secondly intuition, third you are able to get out of situations even if you don't necessarily have the biggest creature, it wouldn't be as easy, but at least you would still have the option that it lacks in the game right now.
Finally, that is why you would still need removal, because you will soon realize that attacking all the way will lose you most of your games in this format. You would have to got more strategical thinking than that if you want to survive.
To Make it easier for myself so that we can discuss one "solution" at a time let me try to summarize the thing you like to see implemented. If it's incomplete or wrong please correct me.
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack creatures, the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face.
Is this correct?
Also for now lets just discuss the gameplay consequences (for now) , as the intuivenes and flavor are a different non gameplay related discussion.
1. It could only attack other objects of the same card type, meaning that if it were to be a summon, it would be able to only attack other summons.
2. Yes that is correct.
3. That is too correct.
One other thing that was also discussed was the implementation of different "areas" to where summons could be send, which means that the player could also command them as a turn based action to "leave" the area in order to escape potential combat.
That being said the effects that this summon is providing, would no longer be available for that 'area' as well as it won't be able to target other permanents that belong to that area, it also wouldn't be able to be affected by effects that were applied to that specific area. (All of these things provided that they are not overridden by each specific card's text.)
For instance if a Ajani's Pridemade lookalike summon were to be in a different 'area' than the player, then it wouldn't get the bonus of +1/+1 counters if the player gained life.
Although for now we haven't yet discussed whether the opponent could simply send his troops to that unit's area or there would be a 'tracking' ability required to do so.
So for now in my play group we assume that all summons have the ability to do so, since again in regular magic there is no concept of 'areas' so there is no tracking ability as of yet.
Again these would apply to the new card type and only the new card type, so pretty much everything else would stay exactly the same as it should be to prevent any imbalances, what we are doing with my play group is only for testing purposes only which would not apply in a regular game.
Just to make it clear.
Also for now lets just discuss the gameplay consequences (for now) , as the intuivenes and flavor are a different non gameplay related discussion.
Of course, but just to let you know that these also play a big role as to why it is though why this should be implemented.
But agreed, for now let's only take into account the gameplay implications of that aspect as you suggested.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
death touch would pretty much be the gold standard for every creature if you could pick and choose what you swing in to
griping about having to run removal for walkers is also a little silly because welcome to magic, where you should be running removal.
Also even if you view removal as a "tax" cause it snot part of the strategy. maybe that's a good thing that rewards interactive games of magic instead of linear decks that go all in on there strategy. Which already can be a problem. And would make creature decks imbalanced cause there wincon would also be there answers.
To put it this way i think it build around g/x creature or enchantment maybe that let creatures fight on etb or some other condition like ayula. But changing the mechanics to allow it would be a bad idea.
First of all removal of them is already difficult as it is since the only practical way to get rid of them in a standard game would be, well, removals, making them able to attack one another would add even more options as you won't be limited to only one choice.
Again it's more about making the game intuitive than nothing else, it won't necessarily make them neither more "impactful" nor less.
The thing is that when you have more choices then the game becomes more about strategy and skill, rather than luck.
If you have a bunch of smaller creatures and the opponent has a big one, you simply either wait for him to attack (Which he probably won't unless it benefits his or has some combat shenanigan.) so as it currently stands, whoever has the bigger creature pretty much has the upper hand.
So, you can't pretty much do anything until you draw the removal.
And that's the difference, if it was actually implemented then you could still advance even if you had smaller creatures so you wouldn't have to rely only on removals or getting an even bigger creature as it currently stands.
In short, you need to see it for yourself, just make sure to not play with unblockables and add reach to certain creature types and you will realize that the game will become more like strategy and skill rather than luck as it stands right now.
First of all, every format has a ban list, this is to keep sure that the game won't break due to specific format rules.
Secondly if you still think that we are talking about yugioh then you clearly still haven't comprehended the basic concept.
In yugioh defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature by putting another in the way of attacker.
If you detach your mindset from that yugioh mentality then you would realize that your point is really far off the mark.
Furthermore, there really wouldn't be any changes in the combat since this would only apply to summons, not creatures, so if don't wish to transition then you won't.
This would only be for people who want to try this, not those who don't.
In yugioh, however has the biggest creature, pretty much has the upper hand, when you have to think of ways to protect your troops as well, then it becomes even less from a yugioh than even now, in yugioh there is no reason not to attack once you have the bigger creature, in this there would be plenty as you would leave your creatures unprotected in future attack.
The fact that in magic you can block, makes the whole difference and you will realize that if you attempt attacking other creatures once you have the biggest creature under this, you will probably lose most of your games, as this you will soon realize that it would require even more deep strategical thinking than yugioh, not even close in the slightest.
You will need more strategical thinking than simply putting deathtouch, what if your opponent has first strike? Your whole point about deathtouch would be completely ruined, there are more and there would be even more ways of playing magic than you assume there are.
Secondly, you wouldn't still be able to attack creatures that you can't block, so a creature with deathtouch would still not be able to attack a spirit for example.
It really is not as simple as you might think.
Besides a different format would require a different strategy in order to attain it.
But even still you will run into surprise when your opponent blocks with another creature and you end up trading your deathtouch with something else than what you wanted, so it's really not as simple as you think.
Well, different formats require different strategies and thus different decks, you can't expect a regular tier 1 deck that would work on a standard game to work here and you shouldn't expect it to.
Furthermore combat tricks play even bigger role here since you will find that you can't just simply leave your creature unattended and expect it to survive, you will have to look after your utility creatures if you don't want them to die and still give that +1/+1 bonus, this is what makes the game requiring more deep strategic thinking, since you have to also look after your creatures if you want them to survive, you can't just simply call them and then forget about them by simply not attacking with them, the enemy will of course try to go after them as he should be, and so you could as well if the roles were to be reversed.
Of course it wouldn't be as easy to get rid of them since your player could also block to protect them so it really won't be that easy, but at least you would have still the option to if you want to instead of waiting to draw the removal.
Of course that doesn't mean that you wouldn't still have the option of removal which would be the easy way to get rid of them, but you will also have this as well.
What part of "waiting to draw the removal because I have no other way to get rid of that utility" speaks about strategy?
If nothing else, that seems even less of interactivity than also having the option to engage in combat which of course would involve more strategic thinking from your part since you would also have to think who you should keep back so they can protect your utility creatures from retaliation.
Lastly it's too early to talk about balance since the game wasn't designed for it to begin with, so until it does (if it ever.) we have to think about making it more balanced ourselves for now.
The fact that you talk about 'fight' means that you haven't completely comprehended the concept as in magic you could also block in order to protect your creratures, which is not the case with fight mechanic where defending player doesn't have a chance whatsoever.
What we are talking here, falls more in like with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
I have no idea why you're repeating the main point I was making, that Creatures with Enchantment like effects are pretty strong. As I said, that's the big thing that I feel is the issue. Trying to argue intuition or lore as the reason isn't terribly great.
I... also have no idea what you're talking about as far as Deathtouch and Spirits go. If I do understand what you're suggesting it's that Spirits, being non-living/generally dead can't be impacted by Deathtouch, which is really, really bad mechanically speaking. It isn't remotely an intuitive thing either, because Deathtouch is not always the exact same across the board. Scrolling up looks like it was too a different person with X in their name, but this still is something that seems extremely wonky so I'll leave it.
As far as the bit on attacking with creatures when you have one big or many small it ultimately becomes a stalemate for both sides, not just one, where the trick to breaking through is dependent on other cards. That doesn't mean it's not tactical, nor do I think your claim that being able to attack creatures directly would make it more tactical. I've played Kaijudo, which works somewhat like you suggest, and it didn't really result in more tactical gameplay.
With regards to your comment on Yugioh, that isn't at all how it works. Having the bigger creature alone is not the only thing that matters, and the presence of Trap cards means that it's very possible to run into issues if you attack recklessly. Yugioh also has a lot tighter synergy with how decks are built due to archetypes, which means that you're not always just looking for the biggest monsters you can stuff into a deck.
Creatures with enchantment effects are pretty strong anyway, besides being able to have your smaller creatures being able to down that creature actually diminished that effect instead of the opposite, which means that it's pretty much the opposite than what you think because you would still have the chance to advance without the need to rely only on removals.
So this will do the complete opposite than making the issue even worse if that's your issue.
It was just a mere example, you suggested that deathtouch will totally break the game, and an counter argument was presented about many other abilities which could counter it, evasion being one of them, another is first strike.
Say one attacks one of your creatures with a deathtouch, if you block with a first striker he would be in trouble of course cause he would only lose it, so attacking will not always be an option.
No, what has been said in that particular example was that a creature could only attack what it can block, many spirits have the ability to be able to only be able to block other spirits, so the creature with deathtouch wouldn't be able to attack it in that particular situation.
Again this was just an example from many many others, I don't know why you are focusing on that one so much.
Could you elaborate on that?
That's why it's a strategy game, if you could attack any time you had a big creature, since defending player would have no options whatsoever, this wouldn't be as interactive.
Many people accused the concept of being more like yugioh, but totally overlooking the fact that when defending player has the option to block as well, attacking won't always be an option as it would require more strategic skill than that.
I don't know about Kaijudo, but many people have claimed that this was similar to many games they played but have fallen of the mark because of that assumption.
Again, what is being said here, falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than nothing else, defending player would still have a chance to block in order to protect his creatures even by himself (being a creature as well as the player.)
I'd let you figure out whether that falls in line with that game you suggested.
Same could be said about magic since there are combat tricks such as instants for example.
But when there aren't any involved or any effects as well, there is no reason not to attack, which pretty much makes it so whoever has the bigger creature wins the battle, which not only is not interactive but there is no strategic thinking involved.
I really never liked the combat of yugioh to be honest, cause if there aren't any combat shenanigans involved it simply ends up to who has the biggest creature wins, especially since defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature against a bigger one.
Again this applies assuming there are no other combat tricks involved.
I'm really sorry if it kind of offended you but, me and most people here can agree that yugioh has really poor combat mechanics.
Well, in my group we pretty much play with the cards we own for now so, our pool is kinda limited, so there is no reason for us to start digging the whole mtg history to find card.
If someone shows up with such a card, then there would probably be a playtest to determine that.
Since the game wasn't designed for it, it's pretty safe to assume that there would be a lot of cards which would break this format.
For now, the general rule is to stay cautious mainly to things that involve evasion, it's not that we have the luxury of having so much free time that we can't think of anything else, our jobs for one for example.
All that was suggested was the presentation of this idea.
Admittedly at first I too thought that changing the rulings for all creature cards would be the way, but people here presented valid arguments which explained why that would be a bad idea since it would totally break the balance of the game, which made me change my mind as well.
Still I was hopping that the idea wouldn't be faced with so much negativity, but the unfortunate association with combat mechanics such as yugioh, made the concept even harder to be communicated since understandable people due to their experience tend to mistakenly associate that with yugioh, which makes it even harder to properly express the exact situation as the conversation becomes diverted.
Because of that it seems that the only thing one can do for now is repeat himself over and over until the association with games such as yugioh isn't so prevalent.
So that eventually we could go to the next step of actually talk about it after people (Or at least people who have interest in it.) have kind of comprehend the basic concept instead of immediately associating it with combat mechanics from other games.
I wish there was some way of showing what it's actually being said clearer so people won't immediately just to make the wrong assumptions.
Until it's kind of understood, there is not much that can be done for now either way.
1. I'll try to be even more explicit so that I can make sure it's understood, as you seem to go on kind of random paths from my intent. What I said was that reading the opening post the primary issue/problem is that Creatures with Enchantments create a strong presence in the game. The rest of the reasons for this suggestion, to me, are ultimately unimportant, because intuition/lore/whatever other justifications used are unimportant, but the one that Creatures that are basically fancy Enchantments to boot does have merit. That being said though I don't think that the proposed solution is a very good one for that particular issue.
4. I'm clarifying this point before I continue, to make sure that it is obvious. You replied to a person named Xcric. I scrolled back and forth between my reply and your post, and at one point mixed up your reply to Xcric with me, Xeruh. So I started replying to that as well, and stopped when I realized what happened, though I left my original comments intact.
2. I don't think Deathtouch would break this perceived format especially badly, though I do think that it gives a lot more options than it currently has. Being able to chump block a Deathtouch Creature is an important part of how it currently works, and while you can still do that in the new rules you're suggesting you can't go with the option of simply taking the damage, which is an important way to deal with Deathtouch I feel.
3. I misunderstood the point you were making, but given that you made a similar kind of point I'll address it. Trying to mess with the mechanics as far as how you can attack and block only makes the combat math more complex, and it isn't for much of a benefit. This game already has a lot going on, and adding even more things to keep track of would likely cause people to get frustrated with it.
5a. Given you made multiple points here I'll split them up a bit to make it easier to address. Let's actually go with a scenario, as it's a bit easier to illustrate my point. Side A has a 2/2 Creature. Side B has two 1/1 Creatures. This is a stalemate for both sides, as you're not going to be able to attack or block really without trading. This doesn't change in your proposed ruleset. Both sides are still at a stalemate. Adding the option to attack Creatures this way would still result in a trade, and you need something new to break it. At best all you're doing is giving Side B the option to trade instead of only Side A, and in so doing adding a lot of complexity.
5b. The proposed rule does not remotely mean this game plays like Magic. Anyone who is suggesting that has a very limited understanding of Magic and Yugioh, plain and simple. There are a ton of differences between the games, as well as others like it. It feels more like an insult as Yugioh is seen as shallow/bad mechanically, so by calling an idea like Yugioh you paint it in a negative light.
Even the suggested game, Kaijudo, still has noteworthy differences with regards to how attacks and blocks work, but attacking Creatures is in it. That's why I brought it up, as it has a decent number of similarities to Magic, being designed by WotC after all. It's probably the closest to what you're suggesting but I think the fact they didn't let Creatures freely block and attack is probably suggestive of the fact that it's not a great design.
6a. Agreeing with something being bad does not inherently make it so. I'm not offended, but I am making points to show that Yugioh is not the same as Magic even with the change you're discussing. This isn't a good or a bad thing, both games have value and merit, and you can't approach them the same way. And biggest Creature wins absent all other factors is true in Magic as well. If you have to reduce all factors to try and justify something as being simple then you're innately acknowledging it's more complex than you want for your comparison but you don't want to try and compare the two things properly. This isn't even getting into the fact that even minus combat tricks the functions between Creatures and Monsters, while similar on the surface, still don't play out as a solid 1:1 comparison for a variety of reasons. The mechanics of the two games, and card games in general, are a bit more robust than that.
6b. I study game design, and while it's not remotely a formal study it is something I've spent a decent amount of time on. Card games in general have a lot of overlap but a lot of differences as well, and even seemingly small differences can have a pretty huge impact. That's why if it reads as "offended" you should reevaluate your perspective on what I'm saying. Proper analysis requires length discussions, and honestly this is kind of short for all there is that could be covered.
Provoke isn't the same thing, nor is Fight. Both of them are different than what TC wants the rules to turn in to.
would repeat what I said. Changing the combat system would turn this entirely into a different game -- a lot of people would not be pleased.
well, then goodluck convincing wizards to implement the changes you're planning. And I'm out of this thread.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
No adding more choices is a thing that can lead to diminishing choices, If Choice A is best in any situation why ywould you chose another thing if every creature acts as removal the likelyhood of running removal is lessened because why would you run that when you can run a creature that does that and more?
Hearthstone wasn't the only thing i've mentioned and i comprehend the concept, hearthstone made taunts to get rid of the downsides of the concept of creatures being attackable (Bigger creatures = almost always better) by introducing taunt, Kaijudo by introducing blockers (which comes closer to your implementation as blockers are the only ones that can block attacks), and you want to use magics blocker system to combat the downsides but as i stated before that leads to more downsides and rules changes needed confusing boards. There is a reason not many games use that kind of system, and changing a game to fit a system is usually the wrong approach.
The simple fact that the first player who plays a creature is in that much more of a powerful situation than before the change is the reason why that will rarely be the case.
If Player A plays the first creature player B can't play a smaller creature since Player A will just kill it, so he either needs to A play the bigger creature while Player A can play more creatures and just kill the bigger creature woth more creatures once it's out or player B needs removal. So the only thing a change like this does is limit what people can do during their turns, and making going first into even more of an advantage at worst and being the same that you need removal anyways at best. Thus not solving the removal issue, and having less choice in the process.
How will the scenario I described be resolved?
So it basically leads to stalemates as well if the player with the first creature somehow looses his advantage big time, stalemates where nothing happens is usually a thing you try to avoid in games, since it leads to sloggy games with slow pace and more luck, thing of games where both players are in top deck mode, usually not the most exiting games of magic you've played right?
So you basically want the same game as it is right now but with rules added for what reason?
If you can block with your face anyway what makes it different from the current situation? If you don't want your creature to die you block with your face having the same result of just not blocking it in the first place. Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?
Alright, I'll keep things in quotes as well so you won't have to keep scrolling all the time to keep track of what has been said.
I'm really sorry if it seems that way to you, I can assure you that it is not my intent, all I'm trying to do is kind of make a clear picture of the concept.
Of course they do, just like in a regular game, as a creature gets more and more strong, it becomes more and more of a threat.
In a regular game your main two options are either removal or an equally big creature.
Understandable, you should know though that this concept is not directed towards you specifically but only those who wish to explore this new concept.
I'm afraid that you kind of misunderstood the concept as it's not about replacing the horde with a creature that has the sum of the power equal to the number of creatures that are attacking, but rather having all the creatures being able to attack individual units.
That being said, if combat shennanigans were to come into play such as Giant Growth for example, it doesn't mean that your attacking horde would completely leave intact as your opponent's creature might still have a chance to kill some of the creatures that are attacking it.
That being said, I don't think you have quite still got grasp of the picture in order to jump onto conclusions.
I can't speak about others in my group, but I can only speak for myself.
I simply try to answer questions so that the picture of the concept could be clearer.
That being said it doesn't specifically mean that I pay that much attention to nicknames, so if you found something offensive it doesn't mean that I specifically target you, so I'm sorry if it seemed that way, it was not my intention.
First of all they are not "new rules" and they will probably never will, it's really not that good for the concept to be perceived as "chainging the rules" as magic has a huge history behind it which can't simply change, especially since the game wasn't designed this way as it would creature a huge balancing problem.
There must be some misunderstanding, no one ever said that you "can't simply take the damage" as your player would be able to block himself so he there would still be that option.
Let me know what made you think any different so we could clear this up.
I understand and you actually have a point, it really makes it much more complex as there would be the additional strategic layer of having to think how you can protect your creatures as well.
This would require more strategical thinking and would make the game a bit less about luck and more about skill if that's what you mean.
Many people don't wish that and it's understandable, after all not all formats are for everyone.
That's a good way of thinking as it spiting big tasks into smaller ones makes it easier to organize.
Yes this is a really good way to go as providing examples is a good way to understand a concept.
Let me explain what would happen in this particular scenario under this format:
We are with side A having a 2/2 creature and side B having two 1/1 creatures as you suggested.
If side B were to attack side A's 2/2 creature with the two 1/1 creature then side A's player would probably block one 1/1 creature himself and the other one could either be blocked by the 2/2 or simply go unblocked, doesn't really make a difference if there are no other effects involved.
What would happen is that the player A would take 1 damage from the first 1/1 and the other 1/1 would die from the 2/2.
So assuming we are talking about this particular case it still doesn't benefit player B to attack the 2/2 with his two 1/1s.
Again all we are talking about here is this particular situation and nothing else.
If he wanted to actually get rid of the 2/2 he would need one more 1/1.
Let's make an example again but this time side B has three 1/1 creatures while side A still having the 2/2.
In this situation yes, you are indeed correct, this would probably result in a trade (again assuming no other effects are involved.)
So what happens is pretty much side B's horde is attacking side A's creature which would indeed result in a trade since side A will probably not block as it wouldn't make a difference.
What pretty much happened was that side A's 2/2 creature got ganged by the three 1/1 creatures, so after the combat only one 1/1 creature would still be left on board.
Now if you want to argue about complexity then you are free to do so.
Personally I've seen far more complex situations in this format to even consider this as "complex".
The very fact that yugioh is even suggested here, pretty much goes to show the misunderstanding that revolves around the concept.
Furthermore people have different opinions as to what one considers as "playing like magic", if you made a suggestion about a card that could be attacked 15 years ago before Lorwyn you would pretty much have everyone tell you the same things you are telling me today.
Yet 15 years later planeswalker cards pretty much have been implemented to regular magic.
Of course there are as one requires far more strategical thinking than that.
That's why if it even were to be a thing, it would probably be a entirely different format.
Maybe to others might seem like a good idea, I just personally didn't liked the combat system of yugioh, as I found it extremely unappealing, this is a personal opinion, not everyone likes the same things obviously.
I would just skip that as even comparing that with yugioh means that you haven't completely got grasp of the concept.
So, even though it's being stated so many times, I'd have to say once more that what it's being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
Let me know if you want me to repeat that again since there is no telling on how many times this has to be stated.
I don't happen to have knowledge of it as I haven't played that game so I'll leave it up to you to decide what's being said here is even remotely close to that combat system.
Well, blocking makes all the difference here, so if there is no free block is not even remotely close to magic since there is no "freely" to block in order to protect your creatures.
The only thing that has ever been stated is that the concept is simple, not it's appliance.
That's because there is nothing to compare it to at the moment since there is nothing even remotely close to it yet.
The closest thing that even remotely resembles it is, attacking planeswalkers, that's all.
Well, if there are still misunderstandings you are always free to present examples that involve combat tricks, I'd be happy to explain what might happen in that situation.
I agree and this is why I'm currently doing, trying to explain the situation as best I can.
Also I want to thank you for spending your time reading and replying to these as it means a lot to me and the progress of this concept.
Hopefully lengthy discussion might make the picture clearer but we are still far away from it, so the only thing we can do for now is try to explain the situation in hopes that it becomes understood and isn't faced with so much negativity as it is faced now.
Thank you again.
It's still far away from what is being suggested here still, as it simply forced a creature to block, thus there is no way to protect that creatures through other blockers.
Provoke makes the combat system resembles more like yugioh, than this concept.
What is being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else. If you are able to still block to protect your planeswalker, the same should apply to summons as well.
This is the first comment that isn't addressed at me and yes you are correct, it's totally different.
First of all it's not about changing as older cards will not be affected, since the rullings will apply only on the new card type, not creatures.
But yes the combat would probably kind of different as it would require more strategic skill than that since you would also have to think of how to protect your summons as well.
Well as long as people have this negative view of it we are far from even being able to even come in contact with them, so the only thing we can do for now is explain the situation and detach the false association this has with other games.
We can't simply go and "convince" them when the moment we leave the very first thought they would have would be "They want to make it more like yugioh", as it falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else.
I want to thank you though for spending your time reading and replying to this thread.
Every bit of interaction helps to make the picture of it more clear, no matter how small it is.
Except not every creature has taunt by default your creatures would be left defenseless in most situations unless you happen to have a creature with taunt.
I haven't played Kaijudo in order to be able to make the comparison, but from what I've heard you can freely block by default so I don't think how close is that concept to what's being presented here.
Well it's not a game for everyone as it would require a deeper strategical thinking than that since there would be the additional layer of having to think how to protect your troops as well.
This is kind of misleading as this isn't what's being suggested but the addition of a new card type, so the game won't change to fit the system, so it would be exactly the same for older cards.
No it wouldn't work like that since the player would probably block himself thus taking the damage.
Now you are just calculating the result based on a false assumption.
But even if we were talking about late game where player B dropped a big delayed big creature and player A attacked it with smaller ones, what makes you think that the smaller ones would all be left unscathed?
What makes you think that the big creature wouldn't kill some of them as well before it died, unless you assume that player A only has creature with first strike or something.
First of all, that's what a strategy game is, eventually there would be a statemate as attacking won't always be an answer, you can't just simply attack and expect to win, you will need to think better than that.
Secondly, you suggested that this is why you wouldn't need removal to which is your answer to why you would still need removal as you will soon realize that your creatures wouldn't always be able to be used as the removals you thought they would be.
And besides that you would also have to hold blockers back in order to protect your creatures so attacking won't always be the answer you suggested.
I like the game would be diminished of choices since one would simply could attack his way to victory but then started whinning about how this wouldn't be the option.
So, I would suggest you make up your mind about what you want before start pointlessly whinning about the supposed "diminishing" strategy but when start whinning about "stalemates" due to you not having removals in your deck to deal with this situation.
Seriously? Maybe the fact that you would have more options does it say something to you, instead of waiting to either draw the removal or a bigger creature to deal with this situation?
First you started talking about the diminishing strategy, then you started the opposite since you realized that it would be as easy as simply attacking your way to victory and then you were wondering what would be the difference between that and a regular game of magic?
No it doesn't because if he attacks you with a horde it wouldn't had the same result as it wouldn't in an actual war.
First of all consistency, secondly intuition, third you are able to get out of situations even if you don't necessarily have the biggest creature, it wouldn't be as easy, but at least you would still have the option that it lacks in the game right now.
Finally, that is why you would still need removal, because you will soon realize that attacking all the way will lose you most of your games in this format. You would have to got more strategical thinking than that if you want to survive.
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack creatures, the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face.
Is this correct?
Also for now lets just discuss the gameplay consequences (for now) , as the intuivenes and flavor are a different non gameplay related discussion.
2. Yes that is correct.
3. That is too correct.
One other thing that was also discussed was the implementation of different "areas" to where summons could be send, which means that the player could also command them as a turn based action to "leave" the area in order to escape potential combat.
That being said the effects that this summon is providing, would no longer be available for that 'area' as well as it won't be able to target other permanents that belong to that area, it also wouldn't be able to be affected by effects that were applied to that specific area. (All of these things provided that they are not overridden by each specific card's text.)
For instance if a Ajani's Pridemade lookalike summon were to be in a different 'area' than the player, then it wouldn't get the bonus of +1/+1 counters if the player gained life.
Although for now we haven't yet discussed whether the opponent could simply send his troops to that unit's area or there would be a 'tracking' ability required to do so.
So for now in my play group we assume that all summons have the ability to do so, since again in regular magic there is no concept of 'areas' so there is no tracking ability as of yet.
Again these would apply to the new card type and only the new card type, so pretty much everything else would stay exactly the same as it should be to prevent any imbalances, what we are doing with my play group is only for testing purposes only which would not apply in a regular game.
Just to make it clear.
Of course, but just to let you know that these also play a big role as to why it is though why this should be implemented.
But agreed, for now let's only take into account the gameplay implications of that aspect as you suggested.