Damage on the stack was counter-intuitive, I like that change.
Bring back ManaBurn, I loved ManaFlare in its day.
The free-mulligan or partial Paris Mulligan or the 7-6-6-5-5-5 / 7-6-6-5-5 mulliganing I don't like.
We have tried a few variations at my kitchen table.
1> Separate Basic Land stacks vs everything else. Worked poorly. Both decks (or playing EDH, all decks), quickly built up super well and could create very long games due to stall. Luckily, none play extreme counter-control decks, or it would have just wrecked.
2> This mulligan rule we have used a few times. Set aside all cards if you wish to mulligan, then draw new hand, always setting aside if you don't keep. The numbers were a little different, 7-6-5-5-4-4-4-4-3+. It has seen a little bit of success, and we are still in the process of testing it (have played with this rule less than a dozen times at the moment). This prevents the slowness of shuffling a jillion times, gives some advantage because you know what you won't have, and whether mana screw or mana flood will make it (percentages I don't know the numbers) more likely that you will draw something not as screwy.
I liked interrupts, but I am not sure I'd bring that back (I definitely wouldn't bring back Mana Source).
I think a couple of aspects of the TRAMPLE ability need to be cleaned up. I agree with the OP that when combined with deathtouch, it seems counterintuitive and unfair. WotC unfortunately didn't account for deathtouch when writing the trample rule, I think. A trampling creature should still have to deal 'damage equal to toughness' rather than 'lethal damage' before assigning to a player.
I also don't feel right about tramplers vs. creatures with protection. For similar reasoning, if a trampler cannot assign 'damage equal to toughness' to a blocking creature, it should not be allowed to assign to a player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes I wonder why I still live amongst the humans?"
I'm honestly quite surprised by so many people ardently defending mana burn.
It just always seemed like an irrelevant rule to me. The key issue is this: suppose I taught two people to play magic, explained all the rules and timing, gave them some decks and cards to play with, but just forgot to mention that mana burn existed at all. They could play happily for years and never realize anything was missing at all. That's different than, say, if I forgot to explain the precise timing of how combat damage works, where for a while they wouldn't notice but at some point they'd say "hey, I'm attacking, she's blocking, I've got a giant growth, she's got a lightning bolt, exactly what happens, precisely?".
In addition to being a rule which you would never miss if you didn't know it was supposed to be there, it (mana burn) is a rule which just very very rarely comes up. I've played tens of thousands of games of magic since 1995, and the number in which mana burn was actually relevant to the outcome of the game was probably less than 20, and most of those involved abusing Convalescent Care.
Combine those two things with the way that mana burn closes off various bits of interesting design space, and it seems like a slam dunk.
(On the other hand, while I also think that removing damage on the stack was the right decision, I certainly had an initial gut reaction of "what? huh? how can they get rid of that! it's awesome!", so I certainly understand that position. But my reaction to the removal of mana burn was somewhere between a shrug and "it's about time".)
I prefer to think that when the same individual is summoned to multiple places, he or she is torn apart by the magical forces and as a result all involved players will get chunks of that legend's corpse in their graveyard.
I like it, but it still doesn't thematically explain clones.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I'm honestly quite surprised by so many people ardently defending mana burn.
*snip*
In addition to being a rule which you would never miss if you didn't know it was supposed to be there, it (mana burn) is a rule which just very very rarely comes up.
*snip*
In the mid-90s, my group played large games, and by large games I mean like8-12 person games where all effects affected everyone. Yes, we probably got one game in for a night, as the games lasted a long time. But I've played 100s of games where there are huge decks, 6+ howling mines and 6+ mana flares. And with mana upkeep costs, Mana Burn was very relevant.
I guess to say it another way, just because you don't want it, doesn't mean others don't want it, which was the purpose of this thread.
Sure, I'm not trying to say you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm curious about your motivation.
Bringing back mana burn would make two changes, near as I can tell.
1. It would make people not be so reckless with mana doublers and things like Gaea's Cradle.
2. It would make certain strategies "viable" again (lots of Prophecy stuff, and Mana Flare).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I'm pretty sure the percentage of Magic players for whom mana burn has ever been relevant can be counted on about half a finger. There's really no reason to keep it around, and lots of unnecessary and surprising rules baggage to do so.
I'm pretty sure that there are thousands upon thousands of people who don't play magic the way you play magic and would consider some of your tenants of playing the game very different than their own.
It does seem that this thread was supposed to be what would people change, and nothing to do with (so many, not just you) others who are just constantly saying other people's changes make no sense to them. Guess what, that's fine. But to consistently say such things pretty much shows that you don't care one iota for what other people would change, which is again, the point of this thread.
It does seem that this thread was supposed to be what would people change, and nothing to do with (so many, not just you) others who are just constantly saying other people's changes make no sense to them. Guess what, that's fine. But to consistently say such things pretty much shows that you don't care one iota for what other people would change, which is again, the point of this thread.
Sure, but there's a difference between "I personally enjoy magic more when there's mana burn", which is basically purely a personal preference issue, and "if I were in charge of magic rules -- presumably with the health of the game as a whole in mind, and the preferences and experiences of all players across all formats and types of play -- I would bring back mana burn", which is something which is at least soemwhat amenable to objective discussion and debate.
I can well believe that there are certain types of play, or certain formats, in which mana burn comes up an awful lot more than in the magic I've played over the course of my life... and if you say that's been your experience, there's no reason for me not to believe you. But I'm curious whether what you're saying is basically just that you personally prefer mana burn or that you think that mana burn is good for the game as a whole.
As has also been pointed out, lack of mana burn has led to sloppy play by many players. One of the 2 cards (Braid?) that people are saying is the death of mana burn was actually printed prior to the mana burn being chucked. And why isn't trying to win by forcing mana burn any more viable than any other play? It was a change that was very unnecessary, and has led to people being a lot more careless within their play.
As far as good for the game as a whole, why not? Even flavorwise, it works. If your mana pool empties (as it always has) and there are no repercussions, then what was the point. But if you, as a wizard, draw up all those power, and then, for all intents and purposes, just swallow it, well, it has to go somewhere.
As has also been pointed out, lack of mana burn has led to sloppy play by many players. One of the 2 cards (Braid?) that people are saying is the death of mana burn was actually printed prior to the mana burn being chucked. And why isn't trying to win by forcing mana burn any more viable than any other play? It was a change that was very unnecessary, and has led to people being a lot more careless within their play.
As far as good for the game as a whole, why not? Even flavorwise, it works. If your mana pool empties (as it always has) and there are no repercussions, then what was the point. But if you, as a wizard, draw up all those power, and then, for all intents and purposes, just swallow it, well, it has to go somewhere.
one was printed before, omnath is the other, which could have been worded exactly like Upwelling and would have been fine to print with mana burn.
Mana burn was great for keeping ramp in check. I dont know how many times ive seen cloudposts make more mana than they used, just because they can. when they changed mana burn, my entire playgroup jumped on posts, urzatron, infinite mana elves, all sorts of stuff.
See, that's you stroking your ego when you say the removal of mana burn promotes carelessness. Nobody ever taps more land than they need to anyway.
It's bad because it's an additional technicality for new players to learn, and it adds nothing to strategy or complexity, and it restricts design space.
Hey guys new rule: if both players control a white permanent and a red permanent, then at the end of the turn, the turn player takes one damage. You know, because the fire builds on the oxygen from the open space! And it gets hot and stuff! How about that, huh?
Edit for guy above: then they remove omnath and you lose. This makes omnath unplayable outside of the grimiest casual decks. I like the avatar tho
And you can keep ramp in check by printing cards to remove their threats. You don't need a fundamental rule targeted to nerf it. Imagine something like whenever you play an island, tap target creature you control. That belongs on a card, not as a fundamental rule of the game.
It does seem that this thread was supposed to be what would people change, and nothing to do with (so many, not just you) others who are just constantly saying other people's changes make no sense to them.
I'm not so sure about that. The author of the OP (MaxtheFool) has asked people to justify and explain their changes, and then has commented on the wisdom of those explanations, so it kind of seems like that is exactly what the thread is supposed to be.
Now, that does not sound like a good use of my time, or a thread I want to spend much energy on, but it is hard to say that the thread is not "supposed" to be that way when he is defending that very position.
It's bad because it's an additional technicality for new players to learn, and it adds nothing to strategy or complexity, and it restricts design space.
Strategy and complexity that were in place with mana burn were pointed out above, so you are just being obtuse. It would not restrict design space at all, as all you have to do is add a little text to a card- as a matter of fact having both as potential play routs (only possible with mana burn) opens more design space.
People over produce mana all the time, heck I recall that being something you had to plan for well when using Karoos (or Bouncelands if you will). Storm combo, and other strategies adore that they do not have to worry about over producing mana- that is not stroking anybody's ego...it is fact. EDH decks have all sorts of potential for wallowing in sloppy play because they don't have to worry about over production.
Just because it has never occurred to you, does not mean it is non-existent.
Hey guys new rule: if both players control a white permanent and a red permanent, then at the end of the turn, the turn player takes one damage. You know, because the fire builds on the oxygen from the open space! And it gets hot and stuff! How about that, huh?
Really? One would hope you are just being childish, and don't actually think that white permanents are all open spaces, and red permanents represent only fire. Your attempt at exaggeration just makes you look like a a newb who just started playing after years of Pokemon. I will be generous and assume that is not the case.
I'm not so sure about that. The author of the OP (MaxtheFool) has asked people to justify and explain their changes, and then has commented on the wisdom of those explanations, so it kind of seems like that is exactly what the thread is supposed to be.
Now, that does not sound like a good use of my time, or a thread I want to spend much energy on, but it is hard to say that the thread is not "supposed" to be that way when he is defending that very position.
Strategy and complexity that were in place with mana burn were pointed out above, so you are just being obtuse. It would not restrict design space at all, as all you have to do is add a little text to a card- as a matter of fact having both as potential play routs (only possible with mana burn) opens more design space.
People over produce mana all the time, heck I recall that being something you had to plan for well when using Karoos (or Bouncelands if you will). Storm combo, and other strategies adore that they do not have to worry about over producing mana- that is not stroking anybody's ego...it is fact. EDH decks have all sorts of potential for wallowing in sloppy play because they don't have to worry about over production.
Just because it has never occurred to you, does not mean it is non-existent.
What percent of the meta do you think makes infinite mana?
And planning for karoo lands is not exactly difficult, just a trap for players who don't know the rule.
As has also been pointed out, lack of mana burn has led to sloppy play by many players.
So? It's only sloppy play if mana burn exists.
Chaos Orb used to cause people to play their lands and creatures physically spaced out. Once chaos orb was banned, people could put their lands in a big pile. Chaos Orb being banned led to sloppy play... but only sloppy play in a context in which Chaos Orb existed. If I have a bunch of lands or mana sources that produce varying amounts of mana, and I need to be able to cast a spell and leave mana for a counterspell up, then it matters how I tap, and my need to counter a spell will already punish "sloppy play". If I don't, then there's some incentive to leave mana up to bluff some instant or other. If I'm going to empty my hand so no point in bluffing, which should I have to go through some rigamarole of tapping and untapping grim monolith over and over again just to not be "sloppy"?
Again, if you think mana burn makes the game more fun, that's our personal preference, I'm not going to say you're "wrong"... but that doesn't mean I won't question or debate the points you make.
Again, if you think mana burn makes the game more fun, that's our personal preference, I'm not going to say you're "wrong"... but that doesn't mean I won't question or debate the points you make.
So you did start this thread in order to argue with people?
Mana burn is bad for the game's design. It greatly restricts Wizard's ability to make cards like Pulse of the Forge (and when they do, it allows the far too easy abuse of the mechanic through intentionally mana burning yourself, making a joke of it). This also impacts cards like Timely Reinforcements.
Just as you cannot discard cards on a whim, you should not be able to reduce your life total on a whim.
one was printed before, omnath is the other, which could have been worded exactly like Upwelling and would have been fine to print with mana burn.
Mana burn was great for keeping ramp in check. I dont know how many times ive seen cloudposts make more mana than they used, just because they can. when they changed mana burn, my entire playgroup jumped on posts, urzatron, infinite mana elves, all sorts of stuff.
My original post I did say only one was printed before, perhaps you misread, or maybe you were just clarifying.
See, that's you stroking your ego when you say the removal of mana burn promotes carelessness. Nobody ever taps more land than they need to anyway.
It's bad because it's an additional technicality for new players to learn, and it adds nothing to strategy or complexity, and it restricts design space.
Hey guys new rule: if both players control a white permanent and a red permanent, then at the end of the turn, the turn player takes one damage. You know, because the fire builds on the oxygen from the open space! And it gets hot and stuff! How about that, huh?
Edit for guy above: then they remove omnath and you lose. This makes omnath unplayable outside of the grimiest casual decks. I like the avatar tho
And you can keep ramp in check by printing cards to remove their threats. You don't need a fundamental rule targeted to nerf it. Imagine something like whenever you play an island, tap target creature you control. That belongs on a card, not as a fundamental rule of the game.
Hyperbole and stupidity will definitely get you far in life. I didn't make up some idiotic rule like you are attempting to do. I was talking about a rule that existed for many years. Your opinion is that it is stupid and limits design space and yadda yadda yadda. I am glad you feel that your opinion is the only one that matters. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.
I'm not so sure about that. The author of the OP (MaxtheFool) has asked people to justify and explain their changes, and then has commented on the wisdom of those explanations, so it kind of seems like that is exactly what the thread is supposed to be.
Now, that does not sound like a good use of my time, or a thread I want to spend much energy on, but it is hard to say that the thread is not "supposed" to be that way when he is defending that very position.
Strategy and complexity that were in place with mana burn were pointed out above, so you are just being obtuse. It would not restrict design space at all, as all you have to do is add a little text to a card- as a matter of fact having both as potential play routs (only possible with mana burn) opens more design space.
People over produce mana all the time, heck I recall that being something you had to plan for well when using Karoos (or Bouncelands if you will). Storm combo, and other strategies adore that they do not have to worry about over producing mana- that is not stroking anybody's ego...it is fact. EDH decks have all sorts of potential for wallowing in sloppy play because they don't have to worry about over production.
Just because it has never occurred to you, does not mean it is non-existent.
Really? One would hope you are just being childish, and don't actually think that white permanents are all open spaces, and red permanents represent only fire. Your attempt at exaggeration just makes you look like a a newb who just started playing after years of Pokemon. I will be generous and assume that is not the case.
I guess you missed part of my original post too (seems to be a lot of that going around here). Here, let me recapture that part.
"...and nothing to do with (so many, not just you) others who are just constantly saying other people's changes make no sense to them..."
I made the critical part of the statement bold, I underlined it, and I italicized it. Perhaps you can see it now. I'll translate for you. People have made their choices. They have given their reasons, they have justified them. I feel sorry for you if you feel every single opinion on here contradicts yours.
And if you read the OP, there really is nothing there that says to justify at all.
Chaos Orb used to cause people to play their lands and creatures physically spaced out. Once chaos orb was banned, people could put their lands in a big pile. Chaos Orb being banned led to sloppy play... but only sloppy play in a context in which Chaos Orb existed. If I have a bunch of lands or mana sources that produce varying amounts of mana, and I need to be able to cast a spell and leave mana for a counterspell up, then it matters how I tap, and my need to counter a spell will already punish "sloppy play". If I don't, then there's some incentive to leave mana up to bluff some instant or other. If I'm going to empty my hand so no point in bluffing, which should I have to go through some rigamarole of tapping and untapping grim monolith over and over again just to not be "sloppy"?
Again, if you think mana burn makes the game more fun, that's our personal preference, I'm not going to say you're "wrong"... but that doesn't mean I won't question or debate the points you make.
Sort of like your "point" of mana fixing? Yeah, losing because of mana screw or mana flood sucks, but it's also part of the "randomness" of the game. Heck, why not just let everybody stack their decks and see what happens if you are so worried about mana fixing.
And just because you disagree with someone else's opinion, does not in any way shape or form, make your opinion more valid.
I am kind of done with this thread, I should have know better than to get involved with a troll thread anyway.
Quote from FieryBalrog »
Mana burn is bad for the game's design. It greatly restricts Wizard's ability to make cards like Pulse of the Forge (and when they do, it allows the far too easy abuse of the mechanic through intentionally mana burning yourself, making a joke of it). This also impacts cards like Timely Reinforcements.
Just as you cannot discard cards on a whim, you should not be able to reduce your life total on a whim.
I understand that some people can't handle extra complexity, and that is why WOTC changed the rule. I am proud of you for admitting it.
Bring back ManaBurn, I loved ManaFlare in its day.
The free-mulligan or partial Paris Mulligan or the 7-6-6-5-5-5 / 7-6-6-5-5 mulliganing I don't like.
We have tried a few variations at my kitchen table.
1> Separate Basic Land stacks vs everything else. Worked poorly. Both decks (or playing EDH, all decks), quickly built up super well and could create very long games due to stall. Luckily, none play extreme counter-control decks, or it would have just wrecked.
2> This mulligan rule we have used a few times. Set aside all cards if you wish to mulligan, then draw new hand, always setting aside if you don't keep. The numbers were a little different, 7-6-5-5-4-4-4-4-3+. It has seen a little bit of success, and we are still in the process of testing it (have played with this rule less than a dozen times at the moment). This prevents the slowness of shuffling a jillion times, gives some advantage because you know what you won't have, and whether mana screw or mana flood will make it (percentages I don't know the numbers) more likely that you will draw something not as screwy.
I liked interrupts, but I am not sure I'd bring that back (I definitely wouldn't bring back Mana Source).
Oh yeah, NO MYTHICS!
Destroy target enchangment
I also don't feel right about tramplers vs. creatures with protection. For similar reasoning, if a trampler cannot assign 'damage equal to toughness' to a blocking creature, it should not be allowed to assign to a player.
It just always seemed like an irrelevant rule to me. The key issue is this: suppose I taught two people to play magic, explained all the rules and timing, gave them some decks and cards to play with, but just forgot to mention that mana burn existed at all. They could play happily for years and never realize anything was missing at all. That's different than, say, if I forgot to explain the precise timing of how combat damage works, where for a while they wouldn't notice but at some point they'd say "hey, I'm attacking, she's blocking, I've got a giant growth, she's got a lightning bolt, exactly what happens, precisely?".
In addition to being a rule which you would never miss if you didn't know it was supposed to be there, it (mana burn) is a rule which just very very rarely comes up. I've played tens of thousands of games of magic since 1995, and the number in which mana burn was actually relevant to the outcome of the game was probably less than 20, and most of those involved abusing Convalescent Care.
Combine those two things with the way that mana burn closes off various bits of interesting design space, and it seems like a slam dunk.
(On the other hand, while I also think that removing damage on the stack was the right decision, I certainly had an initial gut reaction of "what? huh? how can they get rid of that! it's awesome!", so I certainly understand that position. But my reaction to the removal of mana burn was somewhere between a shrug and "it's about time".)
I like it, but it still doesn't thematically explain clones.
Not confusing at all. 1 deathtouch damage is still "lethal damage" to the Fog Bank, but then it gets prevented.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I wasn't saying DOTS made unsummon worse... I was saying the removal of DOTS from the rules made unsummon worse.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
To really spell it out with an example:
Before the rule change, it was possible to block, put damage on the stack to kill the attacker, then unsummon the blocker before it died.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I knew I was going to bobble that. In either event, I liked the idea.
EDH: Captain Sisay Tokens
Standard: White Weenie :symw:, UW Control:symwu:
In the mid-90s, my group played large games, and by large games I mean like8-12 person games where all effects affected everyone. Yes, we probably got one game in for a night, as the games lasted a long time. But I've played 100s of games where there are huge decks, 6+ howling mines and 6+ mana flares. And with mana upkeep costs, Mana Burn was very relevant.
I guess to say it another way, just because you don't want it, doesn't mean others don't want it, which was the purpose of this thread.
Sure, I'm not trying to say you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm curious about your motivation.
Bringing back mana burn would make two changes, near as I can tell.
1. It would make people not be so reckless with mana doublers and things like Gaea's Cradle.
2. It would make certain strategies "viable" again (lots of Prophecy stuff, and Mana Flare).
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I'm pretty sure that there are thousands upon thousands of people who don't play magic the way you play magic and would consider some of your tenants of playing the game very different than their own.
It does seem that this thread was supposed to be what would people change, and nothing to do with (so many, not just you) others who are just constantly saying other people's changes make no sense to them. Guess what, that's fine. But to consistently say such things pretty much shows that you don't care one iota for what other people would change, which is again, the point of this thread.
Sure, but there's a difference between "I personally enjoy magic more when there's mana burn", which is basically purely a personal preference issue, and "if I were in charge of magic rules -- presumably with the health of the game as a whole in mind, and the preferences and experiences of all players across all formats and types of play -- I would bring back mana burn", which is something which is at least soemwhat amenable to objective discussion and debate.
I can well believe that there are certain types of play, or certain formats, in which mana burn comes up an awful lot more than in the magic I've played over the course of my life... and if you say that's been your experience, there's no reason for me not to believe you. But I'm curious whether what you're saying is basically just that you personally prefer mana burn or that you think that mana burn is good for the game as a whole.
As far as good for the game as a whole, why not? Even flavorwise, it works. If your mana pool empties (as it always has) and there are no repercussions, then what was the point. But if you, as a wizard, draw up all those power, and then, for all intents and purposes, just swallow it, well, it has to go somewhere.
one was printed before, omnath is the other, which could have been worded exactly like Upwelling and would have been fine to print with mana burn.
Mana burn was great for keeping ramp in check. I dont know how many times ive seen cloudposts make more mana than they used, just because they can. when they changed mana burn, my entire playgroup jumped on posts, urzatron, infinite mana elves, all sorts of stuff.
It's bad because it's an additional technicality for new players to learn, and it adds nothing to strategy or complexity, and it restricts design space.
Hey guys new rule: if both players control a white permanent and a red permanent, then at the end of the turn, the turn player takes one damage. You know, because the fire builds on the oxygen from the open space! And it gets hot and stuff! How about that, huh?
Edit for guy above: then they remove omnath and you lose. This makes omnath unplayable outside of the grimiest casual decks. I like the avatar tho
And you can keep ramp in check by printing cards to remove their threats. You don't need a fundamental rule targeted to nerf it. Imagine something like whenever you play an island, tap target creature you control. That belongs on a card, not as a fundamental rule of the game.
Now, that does not sound like a good use of my time, or a thread I want to spend much energy on, but it is hard to say that the thread is not "supposed" to be that way when he is defending that very position.
Strategy and complexity that were in place with mana burn were pointed out above, so you are just being obtuse. It would not restrict design space at all, as all you have to do is add a little text to a card- as a matter of fact having both as potential play routs (only possible with mana burn) opens more design space.
People over produce mana all the time, heck I recall that being something you had to plan for well when using Karoos (or Bouncelands if you will). Storm combo, and other strategies adore that they do not have to worry about over producing mana- that is not stroking anybody's ego...it is fact. EDH decks have all sorts of potential for wallowing in sloppy play because they don't have to worry about over production.
Just because it has never occurred to you, does not mean it is non-existent.
Really? One would hope you are just being childish, and don't actually think that white permanents are all open spaces, and red permanents represent only fire. Your attempt at exaggeration just makes you look like a a newb who just started playing after years of Pokemon. I will be generous and assume that is not the case.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
What percent of the meta do you think makes infinite mana?
And planning for karoo lands is not exactly difficult, just a trap for players who don't know the rule.
What do you think of my rule?
I guess it just depends on how careful you think people should be with the rules in a complex strategy game.
I am utterly bored with the discussion. I am sorry that you felt my response was emotionally charged- it just struck me as absurd.
Oh, you edited it? Woops. I think your rule shows a level of exaggeration that borders on non-sensical.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
So? It's only sloppy play if mana burn exists.
Chaos Orb used to cause people to play their lands and creatures physically spaced out. Once chaos orb was banned, people could put their lands in a big pile. Chaos Orb being banned led to sloppy play... but only sloppy play in a context in which Chaos Orb existed. If I have a bunch of lands or mana sources that produce varying amounts of mana, and I need to be able to cast a spell and leave mana for a counterspell up, then it matters how I tap, and my need to counter a spell will already punish "sloppy play". If I don't, then there's some incentive to leave mana up to bluff some instant or other. If I'm going to empty my hand so no point in bluffing, which should I have to go through some rigamarole of tapping and untapping grim monolith over and over again just to not be "sloppy"?
Again, if you think mana burn makes the game more fun, that's our personal preference, I'm not going to say you're "wrong"... but that doesn't mean I won't question or debate the points you make.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Did you post on the internet thinking that no one would ever dare disagree with your opinion?
Just as you cannot discard cards on a whim, you should not be able to reduce your life total on a whim.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
My original post I did say only one was printed before, perhaps you misread, or maybe you were just clarifying.
Hyperbole and stupidity will definitely get you far in life. I didn't make up some idiotic rule like you are attempting to do. I was talking about a rule that existed for many years. Your opinion is that it is stupid and limits design space and yadda yadda yadda. I am glad you feel that your opinion is the only one that matters. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.
I guess you missed part of my original post too (seems to be a lot of that going around here). Here, let me recapture that part.
"...and nothing to do with (so many, not just you) others who are just constantly saying other people's changes make no sense to them..."
I made the critical part of the statement bold, I underlined it, and I italicized it. Perhaps you can see it now. I'll translate for you. People have made their choices. They have given their reasons, they have justified them. I feel sorry for you if you feel every single opinion on here contradicts yours.
And if you read the OP, there really is nothing there that says to justify at all.
Sort of like your "point" of mana fixing? Yeah, losing because of mana screw or mana flood sucks, but it's also part of the "randomness" of the game. Heck, why not just let everybody stack their decks and see what happens if you are so worried about mana fixing.
And just because you disagree with someone else's opinion, does not in any way shape or form, make your opinion more valid.
I am kind of done with this thread, I should have know better than to get involved with a troll thread anyway.
I understand that some people can't handle extra complexity, and that is why WOTC changed the rule. I am proud of you for admitting it.