If there is no possible way to use, interact with or otherwise participate in a spell until its cost has been paid, then paying the cost and entering the stack can be said to happen at the same time.
The point you're missing is that there are situations where it is relevant that the spell goes onto the stack first. If you could pay costs before moving the card you're casting to the stack then you could, for example, cast a Silvergill Adept and use the same card to pay for the "reveal a Merfolk" cost.
Granted, 99% of the time there's no functional difference, but I don't see a legitimate basis for a claim that things shouldn't be done in a sequence if there's no opportunity for players to respond in the middle of it. You follow that line of thinking and you would have to let players take actions in the middle of resolving spells and abilities as well, and that leads to substantially more rules headaches than what the current system does.
I would reinstate mana burn and interrupts, reverse the negation of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters, reinstate floating mana to the end of the phase, and reinstate player death occurring at the end of the phase rather than immediately.
There are several policy changes I would make if I could but they aren't rules changes per se.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Collection:
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
I would reinstate mana burn and interrupts, reverse the negation of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters, reinstate floating mana to the end of the phase, and reinstate player death occurring at the end of the phase rather than immediately.
Just curious... can you explain why you favor any or all of these changes? Thanks...
If there is no possible way to use, interact with or otherwise participate in a spell until its cost has been paid, then paying the cost and entering the stack can be said to happen at the same time.
I sympathize with where you're coming from, but I think you're just flat out wrong here.
We're used to thinking about what we might describe as the "macro" scale of magic... with the stack, and with people getting priority, and people responding to things, and so forth, and with good reason. Because it's an incredibly elegant framework about which the game is built.
And on that scale, there are plenty of things in magic that happen "atomically"... things which can't be responded to by anyone. So in the frame of reference that we're all used to spending most of our time in, those things certainly intuitively seem to happen "at once" or "all at the same time". But they don't... and the order matter. The reason the order matters is it lets us answer all sorts of questions that would be otherwise unanswersable. Can I cast stone rain targetting a land which I sacrifice in order to pay the cost of the stone rain? Can a royal assassin assassinate himself? And many many vastly more complicated questions. If "casting a spell" was just something that all "happened at once", there would be no way to even begin to answer those questions. Casting a spell HAS to have precise and clearly defined steps internally, as it does, so that when these tricky questions come up, there's a single well-defined answer that everyone will agree on.
There are other situations in which there are similar sets of things which happen in a specific order even though they happen "at once" from a macro gameplay perspective... someone controls a bunch of plague rats with different amounts of damage on them, and then of them dies setting off a chain reaction. That's all just state based effects happening, so if (for instance) you're watching it on magic online you go in one frame from 5 creatures in play to 0. But there's a specific and important order in which it all happens.
And still other things (to the best of my knowledge) in fact do happen at literally and completely the same time. Some obvious ones such as a bunch of creatures all dying from wrath, or from combat damage.... but also some tricky things like "as long as" effects ending. If I steal something with vedalken shackles, and then later on you twiddle the shackles, you get control of the creature back, and it's not a triggered ability, nor is it a state based effect, it's just a thing that happened. One game instant there's a tapped shackles and I control the creature, the next smallest-unit-of-quantum-gameplay forward there's an untapped shackles and you control the creature. It's meaningless to speak of an "order" in which those two things happened.
1.) Bring back mana burn. We're not playing YuGiOh, people. We can handle a complex game.
2.) Ban several major blue cards, such as Jace, Azami, Force of Will, etc. Let's give another color have a chance to shine for once.
3.) I don't know if it counts as rules changes, but I would destroy the reserved list and then make Force of Will the new FNM card. Maybe dual lands after that...
4.) I would use my new power of being in charge of Magic rules to threaten to make all basic lands tap for colorless unless Wizards makes Bolas/Kokusho a canon pairing. (Yes, I am a crazy shipper. I have accepted this fact.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho! Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
2.) Ban several major blue cards, such as Jace, Azami, Force of Will, etc. Let's give another color have a chance to shine for once.
You didn't even say which formats you were talking about. Do you mean in every format? That is quite the horrible idea. Also, if you are going to use card tags, how about making tags that work?
Azami, Lady of Scrolls is a bad card, no need to ban in any competitive format. Force of Will, together with Wasteland, is a big reason why Legacy is such a fantastic and diverse format. Jace, the Mind Sculptor is already banned in every format it is broken in. In Legacy and Vintage, it is just another playable card. Also, we don't ban cards in Vintage, we restrict them. Don't break that tradition!
Mana burn wasn't removed for complexity reasons. It was for design reasons. Omnath, Braids of Fire and such. How many times do we have to say this?
I'm at work, so I can't pull up the article....If I recall correctly, the M10 Rules Changes article on the Wizards site made a point of saying that Mana Burn is unintuitive for new players, and that was a big part in removing it. Could you perhaps provide the source that claims that the reasoning was to print cards like Braid of Fire (Which was printed before M10)?
Mana burn wasn't removed for complexity reasons. It was for design reasons. Omnath, Braids of Fire and such. How many times do we have to say this?
No it was complexity.
Wizards compared it to playing chess, but you have to answer a trivia question in order to move a piece.
Design was a secondary concern
I would reinstate mana burn and interrupts, reverse the negation of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters, reinstate floating mana to the end of the phase, and reinstate player death occurring at the end of the phase rather than immediately.
Just curious... can you explain why you favor any or all of these changes? Thanks...
Mana burn is the only one that I feel extremely strongly about. The other ones I would just do out of preference. The stated reasons that they removed mana burn:
Many players aren't aware of the existence of mana burn as a game concept. Discovering it exists, especially via an opponent manipulating his own life total for gain, can be jarring. Its existence impacts game play in a negligible way, whereas its existence impacts card design space somewhat significantly.
Source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a (change 3B)
While it may have opened up some design space I feel that mana burn was flavorful and its removal encourages sloppy game-play. It had an enormous impact on the game-play in my circle. It was the hidden downside to powerful cards like Mana Flare, Academy, &c. and players had to carefully manage their resources and even include cards to bleed their excess mana to prevent burning themselves to death. It was a layer of complexity and consideration that I felt was important.
My reasoning for interrupts is similar. It was flavorful and I enjoyed the way that the game played with 3 different speeds of spells. They were eliminated because they were deemed incompatible with the 6th edition timing update (the stack) but I think that the rules are robust enough to make room for them.
Negation of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters. I know that they are keeping folks from getting confused about what the stats of creatures are. Well, my circle never had trouble figuring it out and this has foiled me more than once by eliminating counters that I could have later made useful again. Also, counters of other denominations are common occurrences at my table and it's hard to explain why +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters specifically negate but the others don't, such as with Frankenstein's Monster.
Floating mana allowed all sorts of neat tricks. They shut it down because new players don't know the differences between steps and phases very well. I think that's a good reason to learn the phases and steps, not to remove the impetus.
Games were more suspenseful when players had until the end of the phase before they died. They had a better chance of saving themselves or of dealing lethal damage to the opponent as well. A lot more games ended in draws when this was the rule. It was more exciting and more satisfactory.
I know that a lot of folks won't agree with my reasoning or decisions and that's okay. To each their own. I still know a play-group who play with pre-sixth edition rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Collection:
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
It is not bad in EDH. In EDH, it makes turn 5 combos that kill the entire table, which is neither fun nor fair.
You cut of a pretty important part of the sentence you quoted. Was that on purpose? That is horrible behaviour, and I'd rather be treated with more respect than that. You know I was talking about competitive formats.
If that is the case, then how do you explain Shahrazad?
Doesn't matter for the cards you suggested we ban, as no cards get banned in Vintage for power level reasons. You wanted to reduce the power level of blue, so that is what you must have had in mind.
You cut of a pretty important part of the sentence you quoted. Was that on purpose? That is horrible behaviour, and I'd rather be treated with more respect than that. You know I was talking about competitive formats.
EDH is getting very competitive now in terms of decks. Also, there are EDH tournaments that you get planeswalker points for. That is the definition of "competitive." For this reason, I did not think that part of your sentence was relevant. If you prefer, I can post your whole though. I was just trying to be concise.
Doesn't matter for the cards you suggested we ban, as no cards get banned in Vintage for power level reasons. You wanted to reduce the power level of blue, so that is what you must have had in mind.
Yes, but if I was in charge of the Magic rules, that would not be the case. This thread is about an imaginary situation. My imagination is not limited by those conventions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho! Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
EDH is getting very competitive now in terms of decks. Also, there are EDH tournaments that you get planeswalker points for. That is the definition of "competitive." For this reason, I did not think that part of your sentence was relevant. If you prefer, I can post your whole though. I was just trying to be concise.
Where did you get that definition from?
The definition of "competitive" is that it is a subdivision of sanctioned. Sanctioned tournaments are split into casual and competitive. Competitive tournaments are the ones that give you Seasonal PWP, Yearly PWP and/or Pro points. They can only use competitive formats. So as you see, the distinction I made in the sentence you partially quoted was important. Commander is not competitive unless you make up a fake definition that WotC itself does not use.
Yes, but if I was in charge of the Magic rules, that would not be the case. This thread is about an imaginary situation. My imagination is not limited by those conventions.
Don't know if it's been said, but I would get rid of the "slow play" rule for combo decks that can't state the specific number of times they need to do the loop or whatever to win. Four Horsemen, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN - WUB Gifts - W Knights - W Soul Sisters - WR Land Destruction - B Mono Black Control
I would reinstate mana burn. For a brief time. My biggest beef with removing it wasn't the act itself, it was the fact that it was a part of MtG since the beginning, it was a part of the world, it was a fundamental aspect of how magic worked in this multiverse...and it's gone, just like that, never acknowledged. And NO, Archonoid, NO, Jiyor, NO. It WAS acknowledged in the stories, it DID make sense that it hurt, and it STILL BURNS. ME! that WotC cares so ****ing little. Bottom line: I'd try to get it into the story that we were focusing on people that had never grown up with mana burn, it was erased by the Mending as that's the only extant event that actually makes sense, then some fluctuation occurs and it comes back, it needs to be dealt with, etc etc.
I'd stop design from being so arbitrarily stodgy with subtypes. There's no good reason that Gate, Curse, and more couldn't have been around sooner. I am well aware of potential balance issues that could come up, I in no way want to force an enchantment tribal block just for the sake of it, but I do want to be able to control Chronologies, cast Landslide spells, use Factories to empower Engines, etc. There IS a lot you can do with them, and there ISN'T a good reason not to include them on relevant cards elsewhere, especially with the types already present.
I'd make certain cards Dinosaurs. As they should be. You know which ones, I've gone into this many times, do not respond to this part of my post with nothing else to say, you will be wasting people's time.
Rebel, Serf, Survivor, Mutant, Ally, Mystic...so many types that could easily fit in literally anywhere, yet they aren't. I have a special soft spot for the latter two myself; I have a long list of cards I'd gladly errata with the underused types.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
I've been playing MtG for about 10 years and mana burn never EVER came up until the M10 rules change when it was eliminated with an outcry of heresy from few and a great shrug of indifference from many more. It seems to me like a lot of people want it back because it was "a skill tester" that old players can pat themselves on the back for playing around and that newer players never had to deal with because why would you tap more lands than you needed to do stuff? I agree with Wizards that it was a pretty unnecessary part of the game and the only cases I could see it applying in modern magic is the cases of infinite mana combos that fail to do anything and kill you instead. Or if you're one of the 0.05% of magic players who happens to have Mana Drains and you have nothing to spend the X on.
I would get rid of Instants, and instead make Flash a supertype. So instead of instants you would have "Flash Sorceries" and instead of creatures with the keyword flash, you would have "Flash Creatures". You could also have "flash enchantments" and "flash artifacts". It eliminates an unnecessary card type, and slightly cleans up text boxes on cards with flash. I remember reading a MaRo article that said they would like to do that now, but can't only because it changes too much that's already ingrained in the game. I agree, but in accordance with the OP's "don't worry about changing existing stuff" scenario, that's what I would do.
I would get rid of the rule that says you have to deal lethal damage to the first creature in the blocking order before you can do any damage to the next creature. Probably wouldn't come up all that often, but I think it's silly that you can't deal a couple points of damage to each of the creatures blocking your dude and then clean up with a Pyroclasm.
I would get rid of planeswalkers. I'm sure there are plenty of people who like them, and I accept that this is probably just me being a grumpy over "these crazy newfangled cards in MY game!" but in my honest opinion, Magic was perfectly balanced (in terms of the game mechanics, not necessarily the cards themselves) without them, and they drastically changed that balance by introducing a new card type that functions totally differently than the rest of the game. It just felt like taking rock, paper, scissors an deciding "you know what? This game would be better if there was a fourth option!" Again, I accept that planeswalkers really aren't the dynamite of Magic, and probably don't hurt the game, but I personally don't like them. Biased opinion or not, if I had full control of Magic, Planeswalkers as cards would no longer exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
they now work the same as they did when they were printed
This is true, but it required an errata for the cards to function as such under current rules. I would remove that errata, and a bunch of junky cards would become good. Lake Of The Dead too.
So you won't actually know the p/t of a creature unless you ask? And it can change from moment to moment? That seems even more insane than what we have now.
I meant that you choose the order whenever a new effects comes into play, not at any moment. Just announce the order then. There may be memory issues, but I doubt they are any worse than the current situation. Th eonly time it makes any difference is if there are multiple value-settings effects in play. These are pretty rare to begin with, but when they do come into play, do *you* know how the current rules apply? I'm not sure how not knowing is worse than having to openly tell your opponent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Granted, 99% of the time there's no functional difference, but I don't see a legitimate basis for a claim that things shouldn't be done in a sequence if there's no opportunity for players to respond in the middle of it. You follow that line of thinking and you would have to let players take actions in the middle of resolving spells and abilities as well, and that leads to substantially more rules headaches than what the current system does.
There are several policy changes I would make if I could but they aren't rules changes per se.
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
Just curious... can you explain why you favor any or all of these changes? Thanks...
I sympathize with where you're coming from, but I think you're just flat out wrong here.
We're used to thinking about what we might describe as the "macro" scale of magic... with the stack, and with people getting priority, and people responding to things, and so forth, and with good reason. Because it's an incredibly elegant framework about which the game is built.
And on that scale, there are plenty of things in magic that happen "atomically"... things which can't be responded to by anyone. So in the frame of reference that we're all used to spending most of our time in, those things certainly intuitively seem to happen "at once" or "all at the same time". But they don't... and the order matter. The reason the order matters is it lets us answer all sorts of questions that would be otherwise unanswersable. Can I cast stone rain targetting a land which I sacrifice in order to pay the cost of the stone rain? Can a royal assassin assassinate himself? And many many vastly more complicated questions. If "casting a spell" was just something that all "happened at once", there would be no way to even begin to answer those questions. Casting a spell HAS to have precise and clearly defined steps internally, as it does, so that when these tricky questions come up, there's a single well-defined answer that everyone will agree on.
There are other situations in which there are similar sets of things which happen in a specific order even though they happen "at once" from a macro gameplay perspective... someone controls a bunch of plague rats with different amounts of damage on them, and then of them dies setting off a chain reaction. That's all just state based effects happening, so if (for instance) you're watching it on magic online you go in one frame from 5 creatures in play to 0. But there's a specific and important order in which it all happens.
And still other things (to the best of my knowledge) in fact do happen at literally and completely the same time. Some obvious ones such as a bunch of creatures all dying from wrath, or from combat damage.... but also some tricky things like "as long as" effects ending. If I steal something with vedalken shackles, and then later on you twiddle the shackles, you get control of the creature back, and it's not a triggered ability, nor is it a state based effect, it's just a thing that happened. One game instant there's a tapped shackles and I control the creature, the next smallest-unit-of-quantum-gameplay forward there's an untapped shackles and you control the creature. It's meaningless to speak of an "order" in which those two things happened.
no blocking order, no requirement that i need to deal all damage and kill 1 guy off first etc
i like the current system of no damage on stack but i hate the fact that i cant deal damage how ever i like.
Wanna hear what I think about restaurants?
Check out my http://damancy.blogspot.com/
Trust me! IM FAT!!!!
1.) Bring back mana burn. We're not playing YuGiOh, people. We can handle a complex game.
2.) Ban several major blue cards, such as Jace, Azami, Force of Will, etc. Let's give another color have a chance to shine for once.
3.) I don't know if it counts as rules changes, but I would destroy the reserved list and then make Force of Will the new FNM card. Maybe dual lands after that...
4.) I would use my new power of being in charge of Magic rules to threaten to make all basic lands tap for colorless unless Wizards makes Bolas/Kokusho a canon pairing. (Yes, I am a crazy shipper. I have accepted this fact.)
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho!
Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
BMy Little KokushoB
RBRakdos UNLEASHED!!!RB
My Standard Decks:
UGRakdos, Bolas, and Ludevic Go To A PartyUG
You didn't even say which formats you were talking about. Do you mean in every format? That is quite the horrible idea. Also, if you are going to use card tags, how about making tags that work?
Azami, Lady of Scrolls is a bad card, no need to ban in any competitive format. Force of Will, together with Wasteland, is a big reason why Legacy is such a fantastic and diverse format. Jace, the Mind Sculptor is already banned in every format it is broken in. In Legacy and Vintage, it is just another playable card. Also, we don't ban cards in Vintage, we restrict them. Don't break that tradition!
I'm at work, so I can't pull up the article....If I recall correctly, the M10 Rules Changes article on the Wizards site made a point of saying that Mana Burn is unintuitive for new players, and that was a big part in removing it. Could you perhaps provide the source that claims that the reasoning was to print cards like Braid of Fire (Which was printed before M10)?
No it was complexity.
Wizards compared it to playing chess, but you have to answer a trivia question in order to move a piece.
Design was a secondary concern
It is not bad in EDH. In EDH, it makes turn 5 combos that kill the entire table, which is neither fun nor fair.
If that is the case, then how do you explain Shahrazad?
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho!
Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
BMy Little KokushoB
RBRakdos UNLEASHED!!!RB
My Standard Decks:
UGRakdos, Bolas, and Ludevic Go To A PartyUG
Mana burn is the only one that I feel extremely strongly about. The other ones I would just do out of preference. The stated reasons that they removed mana burn:
Source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a (change 3B)
While it may have opened up some design space I feel that mana burn was flavorful and its removal encourages sloppy game-play. It had an enormous impact on the game-play in my circle. It was the hidden downside to powerful cards like Mana Flare, Academy, &c. and players had to carefully manage their resources and even include cards to bleed their excess mana to prevent burning themselves to death. It was a layer of complexity and consideration that I felt was important.
My reasoning for interrupts is similar. It was flavorful and I enjoyed the way that the game played with 3 different speeds of spells. They were eliminated because they were deemed incompatible with the 6th edition timing update (the stack) but I think that the rules are robust enough to make room for them.
Negation of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters. I know that they are keeping folks from getting confused about what the stats of creatures are. Well, my circle never had trouble figuring it out and this has foiled me more than once by eliminating counters that I could have later made useful again. Also, counters of other denominations are common occurrences at my table and it's hard to explain why +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters specifically negate but the others don't, such as with Frankenstein's Monster.
Floating mana allowed all sorts of neat tricks. They shut it down because new players don't know the differences between steps and phases very well. I think that's a good reason to learn the phases and steps, not to remove the impetus.
Games were more suspenseful when players had until the end of the phase before they died. They had a better chance of saving themselves or of dealing lethal damage to the opponent as well. A lot more games ended in draws when this was the rule. It was more exciting and more satisfactory.
I know that a lot of folks won't agree with my reasoning or decisions and that's okay. To each their own. I still know a play-group who play with pre-sixth edition rules.
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
You cut of a pretty important part of the sentence you quoted. Was that on purpose? That is horrible behaviour, and I'd rather be treated with more respect than that. You know I was talking about competitive formats.
Doesn't matter for the cards you suggested we ban, as no cards get banned in Vintage for power level reasons. You wanted to reduce the power level of blue, so that is what you must have had in mind.
EDH is getting very competitive now in terms of decks. Also, there are EDH tournaments that you get planeswalker points for. That is the definition of "competitive." For this reason, I did not think that part of your sentence was relevant. If you prefer, I can post your whole though. I was just trying to be concise.
Yes, but if I was in charge of the Magic rules, that would not be the case. This thread is about an imaginary situation. My imagination is not limited by those conventions.
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho!
Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
BMy Little KokushoB
RBRakdos UNLEASHED!!!RB
My Standard Decks:
UGRakdos, Bolas, and Ludevic Go To A PartyUG
Where did you get that definition from?
The definition of "competitive" is that it is a subdivision of sanctioned. Sanctioned tournaments are split into casual and competitive. Competitive tournaments are the ones that give you Seasonal PWP, Yearly PWP and/or Pro points. They can only use competitive formats. So as you see, the distinction I made in the sentence you partially quoted was important. Commander is not competitive unless you make up a fake definition that WotC itself does not use.
All right, fair enough.
They revert the game back to the old rules system and people complain.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
I'd stop design from being so arbitrarily stodgy with subtypes. There's no good reason that Gate, Curse, and more couldn't have been around sooner. I am well aware of potential balance issues that could come up, I in no way want to force an enchantment tribal block just for the sake of it, but I do want to be able to control Chronologies, cast Landslide spells, use Factories to empower Engines, etc. There IS a lot you can do with them, and there ISN'T a good reason not to include them on relevant cards elsewhere, especially with the types already present.
I'd make certain cards Dinosaurs. As they should be. You know which ones, I've gone into this many times, do not respond to this part of my post with nothing else to say, you will be wasting people's time.
Rebel, Serf, Survivor, Mutant, Ally, Mystic...so many types that could easily fit in literally anywhere, yet they aren't. I have a special soft spot for the latter two myself; I have a long list of cards I'd gladly errata with the underused types.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
I would get rid of the rule that says you have to deal lethal damage to the first creature in the blocking order before you can do any damage to the next creature. Probably wouldn't come up all that often, but I think it's silly that you can't deal a couple points of damage to each of the creatures blocking your dude and then clean up with a Pyroclasm.
I would get rid of planeswalkers. I'm sure there are plenty of people who like them, and I accept that this is probably just me being a grumpy over "these crazy newfangled cards in MY game!" but in my honest opinion, Magic was perfectly balanced (in terms of the game mechanics, not necessarily the cards themselves) without them, and they drastically changed that balance by introducing a new card type that functions totally differently than the rest of the game. It just felt like taking rock, paper, scissors an deciding "you know what? This game would be better if there was a fourth option!" Again, I accept that planeswalkers really aren't the dynamite of Magic, and probably don't hurt the game, but I personally don't like them. Biased opinion or not, if I had full control of Magic, Planeswalkers as cards would no longer exist.
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
The Great Creature Token Project
This is incorrect.
This is true, but it required an errata for the cards to function as such under current rules. I would remove that errata, and a bunch of junky cards would become good. Lake Of The Dead too.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
I meant that you choose the order whenever a new effects comes into play, not at any moment. Just announce the order then. There may be memory issues, but I doubt they are any worse than the current situation. Th eonly time it makes any difference is if there are multiple value-settings effects in play. These are pretty rare to begin with, but when they do come into play, do *you* know how the current rules apply? I'm not sure how not knowing is worse than having to openly tell your opponent.