I believe it would be in the best interest of Magic if the play/draw advantage difference was equalized to a further extent.
Currently, across all non-multiplayer competitive Magic formats, there are only a few decks that choose to play second after winning the randomized method of determining the choice: highly reactive control mirrors, heavy discard decks such as 8-rack and lantern in modern, manaless dredge, and occasionally in certain limited environments that are slow enough to allow this and where hitting your land drops is the more important than tempo.
Lately, there have been some concerns about players cheating with dice rolls and whether or not the entire randomization method should be run by a computer program instead. However, the only reason why this is a big deal to begin with is that the imbalance exists in the first place.
The purpose of the game is first and foremost to win. It is not simply to "not lose". As a result, highly reactive decks are few and far between.
Giving the "draw" player an additional card is the current means of attempting to rectify the inherent disadvantage of going second. However, as we can clearly see, it is not enough. Aside from the few archetypes and situations I have mentioned, it is unlikely for a player to opt to go second. Often times commentators will say "x player is advantaged in this game because they won the die roll". But the reverse statement is rarely uttered.
Therefore, in the interest of game balance, I propose an amendment to the rules which would bring the advantage closer to an equal balance, something that is not achieved by the way the rules currently work.
I am not going to propose what the change should be, as I do not know. I am only identifying what I see as the problem. This is something that should be discussed at length and then rigorously tested by Wizards employees in the play design team so that all future games of Magic can therefore be improved.
I am not advocating for any bans or anything, but can we talk about how terrible a design Hollow One is? How did something like this make it past development or play design?
I think I'd rather them give the "draw" player an additional advantage to offset the tempo loss.
Similar to how Hearthstone provided a free extra mana to the player who went second.
If play/draw was equally desirable, it wouldn't matter so much who won the roll or not. As it currently stands, it really does matter too much in modern
What a cringeworthy flavor text, and seems like a major story spoiler as well. Glad I gave up on following MTG's storyline.
Card itself is neat, quite powerful if you have a planeswalker around, but sorcery speed makes it a lot worse. Not sure on this one. I'm guessing it is not going to see play.
Its fine in limited, but Vraska's Contempt has it beat in many ways for standard
This set is amazing so far. I dont know how much Modern impact, but I dont really care. The principles in play with this set, are what Magic needs to see.
Agreed. If this is the standard going forward, we are going to see very healthy standard formats and a lot of cards that could possibly break it into modern, but nothing that breaks standard or modern
Set design's influence is shining through very brightly in this set
I can't imagine them giving back any rituals unless they take something else away from storm in its place. And that's generally not how Wizards handles the banned/restricted list
Yep, but I think it's a net positive so far. This is an ok uncommon upshifted to a marginal rare. But we have had several cards that look like they should have been marginal to good rares downshifted to great uncommon.
I agree. There's also some cards that are common which could have easily been uncommon.
Currently, across all non-multiplayer competitive Magic formats, there are only a few decks that choose to play second after winning the randomized method of determining the choice: highly reactive control mirrors, heavy discard decks such as 8-rack and lantern in modern, manaless dredge, and occasionally in certain limited environments that are slow enough to allow this and where hitting your land drops is the more important than tempo.
Lately, there have been some concerns about players cheating with dice rolls and whether or not the entire randomization method should be run by a computer program instead. However, the only reason why this is a big deal to begin with is that the imbalance exists in the first place.
The purpose of the game is first and foremost to win. It is not simply to "not lose". As a result, highly reactive decks are few and far between.
Giving the "draw" player an additional card is the current means of attempting to rectify the inherent disadvantage of going second. However, as we can clearly see, it is not enough. Aside from the few archetypes and situations I have mentioned, it is unlikely for a player to opt to go second. Often times commentators will say "x player is advantaged in this game because they won the die roll". But the reverse statement is rarely uttered.
Therefore, in the interest of game balance, I propose an amendment to the rules which would bring the advantage closer to an equal balance, something that is not achieved by the way the rules currently work.
I am not going to propose what the change should be, as I do not know. I am only identifying what I see as the problem. This is something that should be discussed at length and then rigorously tested by Wizards employees in the play design team so that all future games of Magic can therefore be improved.
Similar to how Hearthstone provided a free extra mana to the player who went second.
If play/draw was equally desirable, it wouldn't matter so much who won the roll or not. As it currently stands, it really does matter too much in modern
Enjoy
Its fine in limited, but Vraska's Contempt has it beat in many ways for standard
Agreed. If this is the standard going forward, we are going to see very healthy standard formats and a lot of cards that could possibly break it into modern, but nothing that breaks standard or modern
Set design's influence is shining through very brightly in this set
Yes but the more of these you put in the deck, the greater the fail rate because neither Oath nor Impulse can grab themselves or each other
Seeing as how little play Oath already sees, I do believe this will not make it past standard
If chess tournaments can do it, Magic can too
Isn't it strictly worse than Oath of Nissa though?
Dont get me wrong I love one mana cantrips, but what advantages does this have to Oath?
I agree. There's also some cards that are common which could have easily been uncommon.
The card certainly looks strong. I think some sort of combo reanimator deck of sorts can be built around it