All of you folks complaining about Regeneration not being used: They can template something new that avoids some of the rules confusion easily. For example: "Recover X (If this creature takes lethal damage and would die, you can spend X instead. If you do, erase all damage on this creature. If you do not, destroy this creature."
But they have already specified that they are going to be simply expanding the use of granting temporary indestructible. There won't be such a keyword.
They will probably do individual one-off cards that use some other kinds of regeneration-esque protection effects, but that's about it of what we can expect.
If there's one thing we can count on Magic to do, it's break rules and overturn precedents. Let's wait and see.
This disgusts me that an evergreen ability that's been with us since Alpha is no longer going to be used. I find regenerate to be more flavorful than indestructible, despite indestructible does everything regenerate can do.
Going with Hexproof over Shroud is understandable, but there was still flavorful design space with regeneration. What's next, dropping first strike because double strike obsoletes first strike? Where do they stop?
I really fail to see Wizards' logic when it comes to dropping or adding evergreen keywords. Prowess makes no sense flavorfulwise. A +1/+1 bonus for casting a non-creature spell, wait, what? It's like they're throwing darts at a board making these decisions.
This disgusts me that an evergreen ability that's been with us since Alpha is no longer going to be used. I find regenerate to be more flavorful than indestructible, despite indestructible does everything regenerate can do.
Going with Hexproof over Shroud is understandable, but there was still flavorful design space with regeneration. What's next, dropping first strike because double strike obsoletes first strike? Where do they stop?
I really fail to see Wizards' logic when it comes to dropping or adding evergreen keywords. Prowess makes no sense flavorfulwise. A +1/+1 bonus for casting a non-creature spell, wait, what? It's like they're throwing darts at a board making these decisions.
Most of the original Evergreen mechanics sucked. Regeneration is the first good one to be replaced next to an under use of protection now. They want to "design a better game" and right now it's going to be Color Pie and simplifying Magic. The one major thing that makes me think a major rules change in Magic is coming is that Rosewater wants to solve complexity creep in MTG. The first place it's going to probably be looked at is layers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Temporary indestructible is basically the same thing as regeneration (there's a few situations where they're different, but overall they're really similar). Personally I thought regeneration had more flavor, but it's kind of understandable that they wanted to combine two really similar keywords into one. For all intents and purposes regeneration isn't going away, the name is just changing.
This disgusts me that an evergreen ability that's been with us since Alpha is no longer going to be used. I find regenerate to be more flavorful than indestructible, despite indestructible does everything regenerate can do.
It disgusts you? Because they made an informed decision you don't happen to personally agree with?
Did the loss of fear and then intimidate also disgust you?
Going with Hexproof over Shroud is understandable, but there was still flavorful design space with regeneration.
There was flavorful design space with shroud too, as with basically every other keyword including those that would never be printed.
What's next, dropping first strike because double strike obsoletes first strike? Where do they stop?
Let me introduce you to the slippery slope fallacy.
They'll stop with whatever they don't think they can improve, as you would expect.
I really fail to see Wizards' logic when it comes to dropping or adding evergreen keywords. Prowess makes no sense flavorfulwise. A +1/+1 bonus for casting a non-creature spell, wait, what? It's like they're throwing darts at a board making these decisions.
Hey look, an argument from incredulity/ignorance as well.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.
Just because you don't get what they are doing, you don't get the resonance aimed for, you don't like the gameplay created- these are not reasons that they aren't doing something well considered, they aren't making generally resonant designs, they aren't creating generally fun gameplay.
The fact that their decisions seem so blatantly foolish to you, should be an indicator that you probably don't understand what you are talking about. WotC can be accused of being various things, simply stupid is not one of them. They know what they're doing- they been doing it successfully for more than 20 years. Certainly, when by your own admission you don't know their reasoning, that's not a position to criticize them from.
Maybe they could patch that by having a rule that creatures on the way to the graveyard based on stack stuff can't be sacrificed as part of ability costs?
But then you're creating a second class of instants that aren't truly instants, because you have some that are playable anytime, and some that are playable most of the time except in one particular scenario. It's better if it's an all or nothing with damage on the stack and death triggers. After the 6th edition change to put literally everything on the stack (including damage) it birthed us true combat tricks, but it made it kinda difficult to teach new players. Ultimately, the walk back from this with M10 rules change was to help make the game more approachable to new players, and the sales increases would suggest that the M10 rules changes have worked.
This disgusts me that an evergreen ability that's been with us since Alpha is no longer going to be used. I find regenerate to be more flavorful than indestructible, despite indestructible does everything regenerate can do.
It disgusts you? Because they made an informed decision you don't happen to personally agree with?
Did the loss of fear and then intimidate also disgust you?
Going with Hexproof over Shroud is understandable, but there was still flavorful design space with regeneration.
There was flavorful design space with shroud too, as with basically every other keyword including those that would never be printed.
What's next, dropping first strike because double strike obsoletes first strike? Where do they stop?
Let me introduce you to the slippery slope fallacy.
They'll stop with whatever they don't think they can improve, as you would expect.
I really fail to see Wizards' logic when it comes to dropping or adding evergreen keywords. Prowess makes no sense flavorfulwise. A +1/+1 bonus for casting a non-creature spell, wait, what? It's like they're throwing darts at a board making these decisions.
Hey look, an argument from incredulity/ignorance as well.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.
Just because you don't get what they are doing, you don't get the resonance aimed for, you don't like the gameplay created- these are not reasons that they aren't doing something well considered, they aren't making generally resonant designs, they aren't creating generally fun gameplay.
The fact that their decisions seem so blatantly foolish to you, should be an indicator that you probably don't understand what you are talking about. WotC can be accused of being various things, simply stupid is not one of them. They know what they're doing- they been doing it successfully for more than 20 years. Certainly, when by your own admission you don't know their reasoning, that's not a position to criticize them from.
Yawn.
Public Mod Note
(LouCypher):
Spam warning - LouCypher
The absence of it in SOI is a pretty huge tipoff, though. Regenerate mainly stayed around this long for the flavor of "zombies don't die". Indestructible is much easier to grok, and does about the same thing; the only difference is regenerated creatures being removed from combat and tapped if they weren't tapped already, and the regenerate shield only activates once.
Regeneration also removes damage from the creature. This is very unintuitive to some because an indestructible creature can get lethal damage without dying, then later lose indestructible causing it to die. Not a common occurance, but I have seen it happen and with more indestructible, it will become more common.
The absence of it in SOI is a pretty huge tipoff, though. Regenerate mainly stayed around this long for the flavor of "zombies don't die". Indestructible is much easier to grok, and does about the same thing; the only difference is regenerated creatures being removed from combat and tapped if they weren't tapped already, and the regenerate shield only activates once.
Regeneration also removes damage from the creature. This is very unintuitive to some because an indestructible creature can get lethal damage without dying, then later lose indestructible causing it to die. Not a common occurance, but I have seen it happen and with more indestructible, it will become more common.
It also taps the creature but does not require it be untapped. That let you throw a burn spell at an opposing creature with regenerate to force them to tap it so you could get damage through with an attacker. As interesting as regenerate could be from a strategic standpoint, the fact that it is overly complicated and very unintuitive makes it a pretty bad mechanic. They had been leaving it in on like one creature a set (at most) for a long time largely just because it was a huge part of the game for so long, but they finally figured out that it just wasn't worth it. Making a creature indestructible till the end of turn does the same thing the majority of the time and is far less complicated and far more intuitive.
Plus this opens them up to make other, more specific, regeneration-like mechanics for flavor reasons on individual cards every now and then which could be cool.
Maybe we could keep the current regeneration rules as is, but help clear things up flavor wise for people by making prominent some descriptions of it as making sure a creature has the energy to regenerate before the injuries are received, rather than calling it a 'shield'?
Maybe we could keep the current regeneration rules as is, but help clear things up flavor wise for people by making prominent some descriptions of it as making sure a creature has the energy to regenerate before the injuries are received, rather than calling it a 'shield'?
The rules and text itself were much of the problem though.
If there are no cards that say "regenerate" in standard, then it would be as pointless printing those 4 CMC spells as it would be printing something that says it removes the "Bands with other" ability in a standard set. Like my post implies, I hope they are willing to print them in supplemental sets. Also, hopefully 4 CMC wrath spells aren't gone forever in standard sets. I dislike how things seem to always be added to the too good for standard list. I miss my 1 CMC mana dorks, my lightning bolts, 4 cmc wraths, and counterspell.
Sure there is, there's a great reason, not printing Wrath of God or Damnation 5-8 into Modern. Unlike cheap burn spells (where reprinting the same burn spell without the 'it can't be regenerated' rider text won't break other formats of the game) Damnation and Wrath of God are very good spells even if they didn't hose Regeneration. So reprinting them into standard without that coming into play would be peculiar but not actually that disruptive as neither will be at common/uncommon to screw up complexity. The ruling text would basically be 'ignore this line of text.'
Remember the new blandard rules
- no cmc 4 wipes
- weak selective counters at 1/2
- weak discard cf inquisition/thoughtseize
- little landkill of note
- no hexproof, protection or other things that make creatures hard to kill
- everything must be about creatures, creatures, more creatures, and planeswalkers
- nothing that allows prison or spell based combos to be tier 1 or even 2
So Damnation/Wrath is not coming back anyway, regardless of Regeneration.
To be honest I won't miss regen in draft too much, I would prefer it there but don't feel strongly about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Remember the new blandard rules
- no cmc 4 wipes
- weak selective counters at 1/2
- weak discard cf inquisition/thoughtseize
- little landkill of note
- no hexproof, protection or other things that make creatures hard to kill
- everything must be about creatures, creatures, more creatures, and planeswalkers
- nothing that allows prison or spell based combos to be tier 1 or even 2
So Damnation/Wrath is not coming back anyway, regardless of Regeneration.
To be honest I won't miss regen in draft too much, I would prefer it there but don't feel strongly about it.
To everyone who keeps making these arguments, let me remind you that development has said about that they intentionally vary the power levels of different effects to create different states of balance. What they decided was balanced in the current environment is not necessarily about what can be balanced in a healthy environment generally.
But their definition of healthy is unchanging- it will not vary one iota in the broadest sense- it means the game will be based around creatures, planeswalkers and that spells, especially controlling prison spells, will take a back seat. They are not going to change that overall approach. New players like creatures according to them, and new players make spells like Wrath much worse by playing badly when they first get into the game. I do not doubt that they could do a balanced environment with wrath @4, I just think that the idea that R and D are going to stumble across a format where wrath @4 works is unlikely. One of their big design questions is undoubtedly "do new players like this?". The answer with Wrath effects is generally "no", so I don't think they will be especially keen to try and bring them back, even if they do work in a specific environment there will always be someone asking "can we do something else?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Again, I must be at a disagreement with the premise of the issue.
When I started, me and friends who were also starting never found the ability to be complicated. I don't understand still what is counter or unintuitive about it either. We also never thought the creature went to the graveyard and then returned.
The fourth edition rule book that came in starter decks explained it well and simply and there just weren't the issues that appear to be at the root of this "problem" and subsequent lose of the ability. It was an awesome ability to have. It allowed a 'unkillable' style blocker that could only be taken care of by cards that "Buried" or specifically said 'cannot be regenerated' all again easy enough concepts.
It still seems to me to have been fine until they changed damage on the stack rules.
I'm glad most people seem able to relax and not get all uptight about old mechanics falling by the wayside. You need to remember that, originally, Magic's rules were very different. The general themes were there, but no one had to program it into code, so no one bothered to be really strict about the algorithms. WotC is far, far better about understanding how mechanics work now.
Some old mechanics are just badly done. Regeneration was poorly templated for current rules, and suffers from being complicated and intuitive. Even at the time, plenty of people who blew past the Rulebook though that Regeneration brought the creature back from the yard. Banding was better, but still confusing.
The game is not less complex just because they stop using weird mechanics, any more than the legal system is less good now that Courts prefer not to use obscure latin terms. Magic designers nowadays understand that you can make your rules and abilities simpler, easier to grok, and let the complexity arise from the interactions between the cards, not from the individual cards. It's a good thing.
As I proposed before, consider the following two abilities:
New Regeneration X (If this creature would die, you may pay X. If you do, tap it instead.)
New Banding X (X: Choose another creature you control. While attacking this turn, the chosen creature and this one are considered a single creature for purposes of choosing defenders.)
These each drop some of the less intuitive aspects of the abiltiy and are far easier to understand. This is more how they go about templating things nowadays, and that's a great thing.
That's not really true. We all need to give WotC some credit, here; they've done an amazing job of tweaking the game and designing so well that they can pull levers on power creep in different areas, scale back in others, all with the result that overall the game does not degenerate into ever-more-creep. They change things each set, sometimes subtly, changing the focus of the mechanics. And even then, every set gives us new combo and fun interactions ON TOP OF the whole "creature on creature" nonsense.
Heck, look at the last few Pro Tours. This last one was a Control v. Control mirror. The Modern one before that was Eldrazi v. Eldrazi. And so on. There's lots of vitality and change.
New Banding X (X: Choose another creature you control. While attacking this turn, the chosen creature and this one are considered a single creature for purposes of choosing defenders.)
No mention at all of how damage assignment would be handled? Isn't that really the most important part of banding?
It isn't THAT complicated. The problem is that it doesn't work intuitively. I've had to explain it to people that have been playing for years. It's like protection. What about the word protection from X would imply that it has 4 random abilties rather than simply being immune to all things X? Regeneration intuitively should work like Reassembling Skeleton even though it's a very dangerous ability. It actually ends up doing 100% of what regeneration does now, though, without confusing anyone. It removes damage, removes from combat, and taps the creature.
The skeleton works fine and isn't confusing. It's way too powerful on any decent body, though. Give it one more power and you probably have to go up one on the mana cost and return cost, although you might be able to get away with 3/1 for 2B on both if you really want to push it. That might be too strong in limited though.
People who think regeneration is complicated need to play a different card game.
Or you could deal with the fact that some people understand certain things less easily than you, just as some people understand certain things more easily than you. I mean seriously, you are basically saying some players don't deserve to play the game because they don't understand a single damn mechanic.
"I don't think it's complicated" is essentially a non argument really. One player's perception of a mechanic's complexity is insignificant here.
The fact is people simply did not understand the mechanic very well- that's why they did it. Nothing you can say will change that. And WotC is not going to ignore that just because you don't think it's so hard. They are going to act for the larger playerbase, as is in their interests, as is in the majority of players interests.
People who think regeneration is complicated need to play a different card game.
Or you could deal with the fact that some people understand certain things less easily than you, just as some people understand certain things more easily than you. I mean seriously, you are basically saying some players don't deserve to play the game because they don't understand a single damn mechanic.
"I don't think it's complicated" is essentially a non argument really. One player's perception of a mechanic's complexity is insignificant here.
The fact is people simply did not understand the mechanic very well- that's why they did it. Nothing you can say will change that. And WotC is not going to ignore that just because you don't think it's so hard. They are going to act for the larger playerbase, as is in their interests, as is in the majority of players interests.
I just think they haven't tried their hardest to understand it, really. Sure it might come off as confusing at first, but you're telling me there's still people out there who just can't understand it?
And there are things way more confusing in this game, such as layering, triggers, etc...
If there's one thing we can count on Magic to do, it's break rules and overturn precedents. Let's wait and see.
Going with Hexproof over Shroud is understandable, but there was still flavorful design space with regeneration. What's next, dropping first strike because double strike obsoletes first strike? Where do they stop?
I really fail to see Wizards' logic when it comes to dropping or adding evergreen keywords. Prowess makes no sense flavorfulwise. A +1/+1 bonus for casting a non-creature spell, wait, what? It's like they're throwing darts at a board making these decisions.
Most of the original Evergreen mechanics sucked. Regeneration is the first good one to be replaced next to an under use of protection now. They want to "design a better game" and right now it's going to be Color Pie and simplifying Magic. The one major thing that makes me think a major rules change in Magic is coming is that Rosewater wants to solve complexity creep in MTG. The first place it's going to probably be looked at is layers.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
It disgusts you? Because they made an informed decision you don't happen to personally agree with?
Did the loss of fear and then intimidate also disgust you?
There was flavorful design space with shroud too, as with basically every other keyword including those that would never be printed.
Let me introduce you to the slippery slope fallacy.
They'll stop with whatever they don't think they can improve, as you would expect.
Hey look, an argument from incredulity/ignorance as well.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.
Just because you don't get what they are doing, you don't get the resonance aimed for, you don't like the gameplay created- these are not reasons that they aren't doing something well considered, they aren't making generally resonant designs, they aren't creating generally fun gameplay.
The fact that their decisions seem so blatantly foolish to you, should be an indicator that you probably don't understand what you are talking about. WotC can be accused of being various things, simply stupid is not one of them. They know what they're doing- they been doing it successfully for more than 20 years. Certainly, when by your own admission you don't know their reasoning, that's not a position to criticize them from.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
But then you're creating a second class of instants that aren't truly instants, because you have some that are playable anytime, and some that are playable most of the time except in one particular scenario. It's better if it's an all or nothing with damage on the stack and death triggers. After the 6th edition change to put literally everything on the stack (including damage) it birthed us true combat tricks, but it made it kinda difficult to teach new players. Ultimately, the walk back from this with M10 rules change was to help make the game more approachable to new players, and the sales increases would suggest that the M10 rules changes have worked.
Yawn.
Regeneration also removes damage from the creature. This is very unintuitive to some because an indestructible creature can get lethal damage without dying, then later lose indestructible causing it to die. Not a common occurance, but I have seen it happen and with more indestructible, it will become more common.
You get me there.
Why did you even bother to respond if this is all you have to offer?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It also taps the creature but does not require it be untapped. That let you throw a burn spell at an opposing creature with regenerate to force them to tap it so you could get damage through with an attacker. As interesting as regenerate could be from a strategic standpoint, the fact that it is overly complicated and very unintuitive makes it a pretty bad mechanic. They had been leaving it in on like one creature a set (at most) for a long time largely just because it was a huge part of the game for so long, but they finally figured out that it just wasn't worth it. Making a creature indestructible till the end of turn does the same thing the majority of the time and is far less complicated and far more intuitive.
Plus this opens them up to make other, more specific, regeneration-like mechanics for flavor reasons on individual cards every now and then which could be cool.
The rules and text itself were much of the problem though.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Remember the new blandard rules
- no cmc 4 wipes
- weak selective counters at 1/2
- weak discard cf inquisition/thoughtseize
- little landkill of note
- no hexproof, protection or other things that make creatures hard to kill
- everything must be about creatures, creatures, more creatures, and planeswalkers
- nothing that allows prison or spell based combos to be tier 1 or even 2
So Damnation/Wrath is not coming back anyway, regardless of Regeneration.
To be honest I won't miss regen in draft too much, I would prefer it there but don't feel strongly about it.
To everyone who keeps making these arguments, let me remind you that development has said about that they intentionally vary the power levels of different effects to create different states of balance. What they decided was balanced in the current environment is not necessarily about what can be balanced in a healthy environment generally.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
When I started, me and friends who were also starting never found the ability to be complicated. I don't understand still what is counter or unintuitive about it either. We also never thought the creature went to the graveyard and then returned.
The fourth edition rule book that came in starter decks explained it well and simply and there just weren't the issues that appear to be at the root of this "problem" and subsequent lose of the ability. It was an awesome ability to have. It allowed a 'unkillable' style blocker that could only be taken care of by cards that "Buried" or specifically said 'cannot be regenerated' all again easy enough concepts.
It still seems to me to have been fine until they changed damage on the stack rules.
Some old mechanics are just badly done. Regeneration was poorly templated for current rules, and suffers from being complicated and intuitive. Even at the time, plenty of people who blew past the Rulebook though that Regeneration brought the creature back from the yard. Banding was better, but still confusing.
The game is not less complex just because they stop using weird mechanics, any more than the legal system is less good now that Courts prefer not to use obscure latin terms. Magic designers nowadays understand that you can make your rules and abilities simpler, easier to grok, and let the complexity arise from the interactions between the cards, not from the individual cards. It's a good thing.
As I proposed before, consider the following two abilities:
New Regeneration X (If this creature would die, you may pay X. If you do, tap it instead.)
New Banding X (X: Choose another creature you control. While attacking this turn, the chosen creature and this one are considered a single creature for purposes of choosing defenders.)
These each drop some of the less intuitive aspects of the abiltiy and are far easier to understand. This is more how they go about templating things nowadays, and that's a great thing.
That's not really true. We all need to give WotC some credit, here; they've done an amazing job of tweaking the game and designing so well that they can pull levers on power creep in different areas, scale back in others, all with the result that overall the game does not degenerate into ever-more-creep. They change things each set, sometimes subtly, changing the focus of the mechanics. And even then, every set gives us new combo and fun interactions ON TOP OF the whole "creature on creature" nonsense.
Heck, look at the last few Pro Tours. This last one was a Control v. Control mirror. The Modern one before that was Eldrazi v. Eldrazi. And so on. There's lots of vitality and change.
...and if it 'died' from lethal damage, it would die again, because it still has lethal damage marked on it.
No mention at all of how damage assignment would be handled? Isn't that really the most important part of banding?
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
Or you could deal with the fact that some people understand certain things less easily than you, just as some people understand certain things more easily than you. I mean seriously, you are basically saying some players don't deserve to play the game because they don't understand a single damn mechanic.
"I don't think it's complicated" is essentially a non argument really. One player's perception of a mechanic's complexity is insignificant here.
The fact is people simply did not understand the mechanic very well- that's why they did it. Nothing you can say will change that. And WotC is not going to ignore that just because you don't think it's so hard. They are going to act for the larger playerbase, as is in their interests, as is in the majority of players interests.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That post sir just made my day
-Rg valakut
-U/W control
-U/R storm
-G/W value town
Legacy :
-Storm
I just think they haven't tried their hardest to understand it, really. Sure it might come off as confusing at first, but you're telling me there's still people out there who just can't understand it?
And there are things way more confusing in this game, such as layering, triggers, etc...
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries