Mana Drain has arguably always been better than Counterspell. Do players that use this card actually take much burn from it? I've never played it myself, so I'll be curious to hear.
Again, I suggest players playtest the rules once we see them in a complete form.
Yes at times they can. I play nothing but vintage, and right now the format has shifted to a heavy control/drain based deck with the Tezz/Vault combo as the win. With Mana Drain so big in the format now, dumping mana burn will probably tip the scale and force the DCI's hand into a restriction.
An example of taking mana burn from drain would be a game I was playing. I dropped a bomb, he plays FoW, I Force back, he drains. He gets 5 mana next turn and cant do anything with it, takes 5 damage which sealed the game for me a turn or two later. With out mana burn you can drop Drains like no tomorrow and think nothing of it.
Taking away the "clear mana end op every phase" would make those matters worse. Much worse. And while it would simplify the rules a bit, I don't think the problems it would cause are worth it. The really complicated thing are the phases themself, not the cleaning or burning of mana in the pool.
Not saying you are wrong, but could you cite some examples of what you think would be problems in this case.
I never said anything about proof.
The first post is fairly accurate after I edited it the other day.
People have posted on this thread about some of these changes, and someone else has let me know about some of the changes as well.
Nothing definitive, that is why this is in the rumor mill.
Can't argue with that. Wish there wasn't anything pointing to these changes, but can't actually argue with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Flamebuster" »
Tarmogoyf has no evasion, yet it sees tonnes of play. What makes this any different?
The complexity of EoT cleanup really comes from the bookkeeping issues. The times when you want to float mana within the same phase are rare, and when you do, the mana is typically spent very soon. That's because you can't go passing priority a whole lot without risking the phase ending. When you start tapping all your lands during your upkeep to evade Mistbind, by the end of your second main you'll be "uh gee, how much mana was spent already?" The very action of tapping lands itself is a bookkeeping activity in 98% of cases, even serving as reminders for what else you've done during that turn. (E.G., you know the Frozen Shade is still 3/4 because you have 3 swamps tapped and no fresh spells in your graveyard.) So while this is very complicated under-the-hood, simply changing to EoT creates more glaring issues than it actually solves.
I could see a crazy change in the other direction (mana pools empty when you pass priority) if it weren't for all these silly non-manasource sources. (Oh alpha Dark Ritual, where art thou?)
Being comparable to the 6th edition rules changes would be about the strongest conceivable argument for removing mana burn, IMO. There is no good argument for preferring the older rules. They were full of persnickety exceptions and nonsensical gotchas; they were basically impossible for a player to accurately adjudicate without a well-trained judge present; they added almost no usefully strategic complication to the game, and eliminating them allowed Wizards to print individual cards with much more complicated mechanics that directly contributed to making Magic play more strategically.
In actuality, despite being basically across the board in favor of eliminating it, I don't think it's either nearly as major or nearly as valuable a change as the timing streamlining; I think Magic could survive just fine without ever eliminating mana burn, but it would probably not be nearly as popular (or even alive) today if they'd tried to hold on to the arcane timing systems they were trying to maintain in the 4th Ed. era.
That's not the case at all.
They were fairly easy to argue with a player and forced people to more in tune with the rules of the game. We played it just fine at our games.
The "nonsensical gotchas" were where true skill with spell timings came into play. This is exactly what added a wonderful strategic element to the game.
This IS just another move to dumb down the game by removing yet another fundamental principle from it.
Wizards will eliminate mana burn between phases, but not mana burn at EoT.
Mana won't empty between phases!!, just between turns!!
To burn at the end of the upkeep was confusing and quite stupid, IMO. So Braid of Fire will become more usable, and we will keep the traditional idea of mana burn.
I never understood why you had mana burn between phases.
Eliminating the emptying of mana pools at the end of phases would directly impact several cards and make them completely terrible. See Mistbind Clique, Gigadrowse, Tangle Wire. If you can just float mana in response to their land tapping effects and use it to play cards in your main phase, those cards do effectively nothing.
And that is why that discussion does not belong on this thread.
The information we are going on only concerns the removal of mana burn, not a complete upheaval of how mana pools empty. Lets discuss the information at hand, rather than complicating and confusing people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
If the first post is accurate, they are only removing the damage not the emptying of mana pool. If that's the case, it shouldn't make any card strictly worse unless there is a card that damages players for each untap land at the end of that player's turn that I don't know of.
(Sidenote: If we are going to flavourize the game, shouldn't "card" be changed too?)
Anyway, they should keep mana burn around. It's one of those things you seldom interact with until it is used as a theme for a set. There's your unexplored design space.
I prefer "Arena" instead of "Battlefield". It's not perfect but so is saying, "Whenever an opponent casts a land, you may put a land card from your hand into the battlefield."
I'd like Magic's RFG to be more RFG no matter what it's called. Back on topic, how would the Wishes work if RFG is no longer really RFG? Is the RFG-ed card still considered in the game if it's no longer called the RFG zone? Will there be a new zone for cards to go instead of RFG?
Out of what I've seen, I am not the biggest fan of battlefield, just because in play can work while being somewhat flavorful. However, Void/Exile really seems cool. Also, I am probably restating what people have said, but the no damage mana burn is kind of dumb. It seems to remove an aspect from the game that is a little underrated. I played ANT at the GP, and I know that mana burn changed some decisions that changed the course of a game.
I don't know, I am a little worried now, but I have been the same whenever there is a change. And so far, Wizard's hasn't messed up too bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Avatar courtesy of a_passer_bye, and signature courtesy of R&Doom, both at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe. Awesome job!
If the first post is accurate, they are only removing the damage not the emptying of mana pool. If that's the case, it shouldn't make any card strictly worse unless there is a card that damages players for each untap land at the end of that player's turn that I don't know of.
If we eliminate mana burn between phases, it should be even simpler. It is not going to be a bigger waste of headspace than it already is.
Srsly?
Eliminating the emptying of mana pools between phases will lead to bigger confusion, as many players will tap their lands too early, and forget how much of it they actually spent. It will lead to many players either constantly having to recalculate what they spent this turn, or lead to more bookkeeping as they write down all of their mana so they don't forget.
Sure, stuff like Snapping Drake and Goblin Piker are for limited. But Null isn't even playable against a 5 year old whose hand consists of a 6 of Clubs, Blue-Eyes White Dragon, Chimney Imp, and a very large cumquat.
Eliminating the emptying of mana pools between phases will lead to bigger confusion, as many players will tap their lands too early, and forget how much of it they actually spent. It will lead to many players either constantly having to recalculate what they spent this turn, or lead to more bookkeeping as they write down all of their mana so they don't forget.
The post you are quoting stated mana BURN, not mana pools emptying. I am genuinely surprised at just how many people are conflating the mana pool emptying with mana burn in this thread. Mana burn is ONLY the damage you take for unspent mana emptying from your pool. I have seen nothing to indicate that there will be any change to when the mana pool empties.
Thanks. While these make sense, I think that going the route of pointing out any effect that can generate 2+ mana through usage is a bit much, but the point remains that there are many cards that will be affected by the removal of manaburn.
The rat maze is all I really need to make my point on this, I think. Very few people understood these rules well (I was on GURU-L circa 1997 and even the best judges would fall down on these in places), and pretty much nobody could describe the totality of this timing system from memory. Sure, this didn't stop people from playing, but it did mean that most people didn't play by the correct timing rules. And the "strategic" options a system like this produced were almost entirely in the form of "gotcha!" moments that exploited a less-thorough knowledge of these arcane rules on the opponent's part to trick them into suboptimal play -- hardly a true test of strategy or an enjoyable way to progress the game.
Again, mana burn isn't really that comparable because it's one comprehensible rule instead of an entire rules system that most players never interact correctly with, but I think the "strategic" benefits of mana burn are largely comparable -- i.e. they're persnickety, don't really make MtG as a whole more strategic, and they don't really justify the added complexity.
I was all set to comment on "battlefield", but the discussion on mana burn also needs some comments.
First: If indeed the game goes to "Battlefield" it will be a great loss. Will untapped creatures on the ""Battlefield"" become benched? (Pokemon reference there)
In my opinion "Battlefield" gains nothing, and loses a LOT.
At best, it is a band-aid for a bigger problem. If we should address words with double meanings, let us also include, as mentioned "Counter" and even "Draw". And it's not like "Play" and "in play" are the same exact word.
Re-wording things is not a new task for WOTC. (""Target player loses next turn"" anyone?) We have even had great cards go through Horrific changes. (I'm looking at you, Beatdown Fireball!) http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?id=26621
Is this time any different? Yes.
I do not see the need for "Battlefield" at all. The other times, the reasons were there, if not past due.
On Mana Burn:
I thought I knew what Mana burn did. Perhaps, I am still using an out dated set of rules when I personally consider "Mana Burn".
I look to posts that talk about how a given list of cards would be worse off or useless if there was no Mana Burn. I only have one thing to say to that:
"Wait. You mean that if I tap your land, you automatically get mana?!"
Never in my many years of Magic has it occured to me, that the rules work THAT WAY. I can understand that if YOU tap YOUR LAND, you get mana, sure. But, if I tap it, then you just get a land you can't use until your next untap. No Mana added anywhere. [Do I really have this wrong?]
In the games I have played, "Mana Burn" has probably come up about .5% of the time. I think we can all agree it is a minor aspect to PLAYING the game. That is not to say that it isn't needed, just the opposite. I believe we lose a big aspect of THINKING ABOUT the game. The flavor mana burn has can not be denied. It is a major blow to Johnny, and Timmy and Spike come away unharmed. It is an imbalance that I don't think will work.
This post is running long. My final thought is this:
Mana Burn and "In play" has much more history in the game than Ante, Banding, Interrupts, and Mono and Poly Artifacts ever had. You can only change a game so many times before it becomes a Change with a game or two added to it.
I was looking forward to buying 11th. More and more it becomes clear that WOTC doesn't want me to have 11th. Then so be it.
I don't think mana burn adds any extra unnecessary complexity, I'd rather call it more depth to the game.
If they removed the burn but kept mana pools emptying at the end of every phase, new players would have exactly the same amount of rules to remember and they'd still keep making the mistake of taking too much mana in Upkeep or Combat step and wanting to use it on Main.
I think the added pain from mana burn makes the whole thing even easier to remember, it's very logical and easy to imagine, and is a stronger psychological effect that players are more likely to remember if it happens to them.
The post you are quoting stated mana BURN, not mana pools emptying. I am genuinely surprised at just how many people are conflating the mana pool emptying with mana burn in this thread. Mana burn is ONLY the damage you take for unspent mana emptying from your pool. I have seen nothing to indicate that there will be any change to when the mana pool empties.
Actually, in the rules, mana burn is identified with the emptying and the life loss. There is no distinction in the rules between them.
"Mana burn" at present properly refers to the whole draining business.
But your point is still right; I don't know why people think having mana persist through phases is a good thing, or where that idea came from. This is certainly something that doesn't affect newbies to leave in - people almost never float mana other than just before they spend it, right?
AND besides, not having pools drain during phases would completely kill cards like Early Frost. You could never succeed in using them for ... anything. Early Frost too janky for your eyes? Gigadrowse. No more tapping lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The post you are quoting stated mana BURN, not mana pools emptying. I am genuinely surprised at just how many people are conflating the mana pool emptying with mana burn in this thread. Mana burn is ONLY the damage you take for unspent mana emptying from your pool. I have seen nothing to indicate that there will be any change to when the mana pool empties.
I feel stupid. I read his post multiple times to make sure my response was correct. Guess I didn't read it enough.
Sure, stuff like Snapping Drake and Goblin Piker are for limited. But Null isn't even playable against a 5 year old whose hand consists of a 6 of Clubs, Blue-Eyes White Dragon, Chimney Imp, and a very large cumquat.
Yes at times they can. I play nothing but vintage, and right now the format has shifted to a heavy control/drain based deck with the Tezz/Vault combo as the win. With Mana Drain so big in the format now, dumping mana burn will probably tip the scale and force the DCI's hand into a restriction.
An example of taking mana burn from drain would be a game I was playing. I dropped a bomb, he plays FoW, I Force back, he drains. He gets 5 mana next turn and cant do anything with it, takes 5 damage which sealed the game for me a turn or two later. With out mana burn you can drop Drains like no tomorrow and think nothing of it.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Not saying you are wrong, but could you cite some examples of what you think would be problems in this case.
Some cards I think of are Cathodian, Black Market, Braid of Fire (which seems like an erratta-worthy card), Carnival of Souls, Ashnod's Altar...
Can't argue with that. Wish there wasn't anything pointing to these changes, but can't actually argue with it.
I could see a crazy change in the other direction (mana pools empty when you pass priority) if it weren't for all these silly non-manasource sources. (Oh alpha Dark Ritual, where art thou?)
That's not the case at all.
They were fairly easy to argue with a player and forced people to more in tune with the rules of the game. We played it just fine at our games.
The "nonsensical gotchas" were where true skill with spell timings came into play. This is exactly what added a wonderful strategic element to the game.
This IS just another move to dumb down the game by removing yet another fundamental principle from it.
This would complicate rather than simplify the rules, which would go against one of the reasons for removing the mana burn in the first place.
It would also create book-keeping issues as blue mana from a basic island would now be fundamentally different than blue mana from, say, a Tundra.
Where did you get all that? Was there some announcement made that I missed?
ET
And that is why that discussion does not belong on this thread.
The information we are going on only concerns the removal of mana burn, not a complete upheaval of how mana pools empty. Lets discuss the information at hand, rather than complicating and confusing people.
Twitter
(Sidenote: If we are going to flavourize the game, shouldn't "card" be changed too?)
Anyway, they should keep mana burn around. It's one of those things you seldom interact with until it is used as a theme for a set. There's your unexplored design space.
I prefer "Arena" instead of "Battlefield". It's not perfect but so is saying, "Whenever an opponent casts a land, you may put a land card from your hand into the battlefield."
I'd like Magic's RFG to be more RFG no matter what it's called. Back on topic, how would the Wishes work if RFG is no longer really RFG? Is the RFG-ed card still considered in the game if it's no longer called the RFG zone? Will there be a new zone for cards to go instead of RFG?
Now I'll be able to put Cloudpost in my MUC deck without fear of burning myself all the time with it.
I don't know, I am a little worried now, but I have been the same whenever there is a change. And so far, Wizard's hasn't messed up too bad.
Avatar courtesy of a_passer_bye, and signature courtesy of R&Doom, both at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe. Awesome job!
Back in the game, ready to rock some M:tG again.
Citadel of Pain
And, in an effort to compile a list of cards that would be rendered worse or changed by the removal of mana burn:
Citadel of Pain
Mana Cache
Branded Brawlers
Hazy Homunculus
Power Surge
Veteran Brawlers
Mana Flare & similar cards
Eladamri's Vineyard
Magus of the Vineyard
Spectral Searchlight
Tangleroot
Valleymaker
Upwelling
Cloudpost & similar cards
Srsly?
Eliminating the emptying of mana pools between phases will lead to bigger confusion, as many players will tap their lands too early, and forget how much of it they actually spent. It will lead to many players either constantly having to recalculate what they spent this turn, or lead to more bookkeeping as they write down all of their mana so they don't forget.
You're missing Su-Chi, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors, Metalworker, Priest of Titania, Tolarian Academy, Gaea's Cradle, Serra's Sanctum, Cathodion, Cabal Coffers, and Magus of the Coffers.
The post you are quoting stated mana BURN, not mana pools emptying. I am genuinely surprised at just how many people are conflating the mana pool emptying with mana burn in this thread.
Thanks. While these make sense, I think that going the route of pointing out any effect that can generate 2+ mana through usage is a bit much, but the point remains that there are many cards that will be affected by the removal of manaburn.
The rat maze is all I really need to make my point on this, I think. Very few people understood these rules well (I was on GURU-L circa 1997 and even the best judges would fall down on these in places), and pretty much nobody could describe the totality of this timing system from memory. Sure, this didn't stop people from playing, but it did mean that most people didn't play by the correct timing rules. And the "strategic" options a system like this produced were almost entirely in the form of "gotcha!" moments that exploited a less-thorough knowledge of these arcane rules on the opponent's part to trick them into suboptimal play -- hardly a true test of strategy or an enjoyable way to progress the game.
Again, mana burn isn't really that comparable because it's one comprehensible rule instead of an entire rules system that most players never interact correctly with, but I think the "strategic" benefits of mana burn are largely comparable -- i.e. they're persnickety, don't really make MtG as a whole more strategic, and they don't really justify the added complexity.
First: If indeed the game goes to "Battlefield" it will be a great loss. Will untapped creatures on the ""Battlefield"" become benched? (Pokemon reference there)
In my opinion "Battlefield" gains nothing, and loses a LOT.
At best, it is a band-aid for a bigger problem. If we should address words with double meanings, let us also include, as mentioned "Counter" and even "Draw". And it's not like "Play" and "in play" are the same exact word.
Re-wording things is not a new task for WOTC. (""Target player loses next turn"" anyone?) We have even had great cards go through Horrific changes. (I'm looking at you, Beatdown Fireball!) http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?id=26621
Is this time any different? Yes.
I do not see the need for "Battlefield" at all. The other times, the reasons were there, if not past due.
On Mana Burn:
I thought I knew what Mana burn did. Perhaps, I am still using an out dated set of rules when I personally consider "Mana Burn".
I look to posts that talk about how a given list of cards would be worse off or useless if there was no Mana Burn. I only have one thing to say to that:
"Wait. You mean that if I tap your land, you automatically get mana?!"
Never in my many years of Magic has it occured to me, that the rules work THAT WAY. I can understand that if YOU tap YOUR LAND, you get mana, sure. But, if I tap it, then you just get a land you can't use until your next untap. No Mana added anywhere. [Do I really have this wrong?]
In the games I have played, "Mana Burn" has probably come up about .5% of the time. I think we can all agree it is a minor aspect to PLAYING the game. That is not to say that it isn't needed, just the opposite. I believe we lose a big aspect of THINKING ABOUT the game. The flavor mana burn has can not be denied. It is a major blow to Johnny, and Timmy and Spike come away unharmed. It is an imbalance that I don't think will work.
This post is running long. My final thought is this:
Mana Burn and "In play" has much more history in the game than Ante, Banding, Interrupts, and Mono and Poly Artifacts ever had. You can only change a game so many times before it becomes a Change with a game or two added to it.
I was looking forward to buying 11th. More and more it becomes clear that WOTC doesn't want me to have 11th. Then so be it.
Meeko will now refer to the time when MAGIC entered the "beginning of the end step".
Magic 2010.
If they removed the burn but kept mana pools emptying at the end of every phase, new players would have exactly the same amount of rules to remember and they'd still keep making the mistake of taking too much mana in Upkeep or Combat step and wanting to use it on Main.
I think the added pain from mana burn makes the whole thing even easier to remember, it's very logical and easy to imagine, and is a stronger psychological effect that players are more likely to remember if it happens to them.
Actually, in the rules, mana burn is identified with the emptying and the life loss. There is no distinction in the rules between them.
"Mana burn" at present properly refers to the whole draining business.
But your point is still right; I don't know why people think having mana persist through phases is a good thing, or where that idea came from. This is certainly something that doesn't affect newbies to leave in - people almost never float mana other than just before they spend it, right?
AND besides, not having pools drain during phases would completely kill cards like Early Frost. You could never succeed in using them for ... anything. Early Frost too janky for your eyes? Gigadrowse. No more tapping lands.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I feel stupid. I read his post multiple times to make sure my response was correct. Guess I didn't read it enough.