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.
This isn't an inherently bad idea, because you sidestepped the point that's normally an awful idea, the actual proposed change. Without a proposal there isn't much to discuss, unless your actually on the side that believes there isn't an imbalance or it isn't significant, which is hard to argue. Anything that grants card advantage or selection could easily be abused by combo decks and should be avoided. Helping specific archtypes more than others isn't bad but it shouldn't but horribly imbalanced, such as being a major boon to one while doing nothing for others. So I'm going to put forth a few ideas that I believe could add some incentive to going second without swinging the imbalance in the other direction.
Your first land enters untapped, if it would enter tapped it untaps as though you had an Amulet of Vigor. This is simple and can be very useful but doesn't seem to break anything besides the bouncelands in modern. Which could be dealt with by banning whatever card they are abusing. Its an easily grokable ability but rather complex to teach to beginners, though they may not have to learn about it right away.
On your first turns lands tap to produce any color of mana. This one is rather unintuitive but has more potential to save bad hands. I'm almost certain this doesn't cause any brokenness but I wouldn't be shocked to find out I'm wrong.
You may begin the game with a land from your hand in play, but skip your untap step and your first land drop. This allows you to have plays on turn 1 but still denies you the advantage of extra mana you wouldn't normally have. This one I believe is most open to abuse but still seems reasonable most of the time.
Any of these could be an advantage to give to the player going second that wouldn't immediately swing the game in their favor. I look forward to other peoples ideas to fix this imbalance and on how horribly wrong I am about how broken the abilities I've proposed are.
I think your first change does not accomplish enough. Most lands played in competitive Magic enter the battlefield untapped anyways, so this only affects a handful of cards across formats.
Your second change is better, but it would also not come up in many games. For instance, it does nothing to help monocolored decks. With good color fixing in every format, plenty of decks do not have trouble creating the correct color of mana on their first turn.
Your third change is the best. What you are proposing is that the player going second would begin with their first land directly on the battlefield during the opponent's turn instead of having to wait for their turn to play the land. What I like about this is that it addresses the inability to interact during the first turn of the game outside of "free" spells. I think you are headed in the right direction, but the same result can be done in a less convoluted manner
Do you have the statistics to prove that going second is worse? People choosing going second doesn't mean going second is worse; it's only an impression until you can provide hard numbers to which player performs better.
Do not try to fix something which isn't broken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Do you have the statistics to prove that going second is worse? People choosing going second doesn't mean going second is worse; it's only an impression until you can provide hard numbers to which player performs better.
Do not try to fix something which isn't broken.
I am not sure where a compilation of statistical data of that sort would be found, but it is not necessary to prove this point.
I seriously doubt that so many players are acting under an erroneous belief that there is an advantage to be had going first, when in reality there is none - especially pro players who have been playing and writing about this game for many years. Players looking to get an edge constantly try and figure out what they can be doing better. If there was no statistical difference on win % between play and draw, we would not see players opting to play the vast majority of the time. Aside from the corner cases I presented, this aspect of Magic has been solved.
What this discussion really hinges upon is what exactly you want to accomplish when you say 'equalizing' the first and second turn player.
Do you want to:
1. Give going first and second their own individual strategic merit, so that there's a relatively even percentage of people choosing either first or second.
2. Make it so that first and second each are so evenly advantaged that people effectively don't care which one they get.
If the first one is your goal, then understand that it would probably leave us in a very similar situation to what we're in now, perhaps marginally more even.
If 50 percent of decks want to go first, and 50 percent of decks want to go second, then you'll still have quite a few games occurring where people don't get what they want because of dice rolls, giving one side the same advantage that they have now.
If Deck A likes going first, and Deck B likes going second, then matching them against each other would pretty much be a perfect situation. No matter who wins the die roll, both sides are fairly happy, assuming they choose to go whichever their deck prefers.
However, if Deck A is put into a mirror match, or perhaps goes against another different deck that likes going first, then we're in the exact same situation that we're in now.
This is also a fairly generous analogy, as I don't think it's likely that you'd be able to find a mechanic that benefits 50 percent of decks in a format to the point where they'd take it over going first.
The second option, making people not care about whether or not they go first, is impossible for the exact reason that I mentioned above. There is no advantage you could give a player that is so unanimously useful that it rivals being able to go first, unless you made it ludicrous to the point of people preferring to go second.
No matter what you gave to the second turn player, some decks would care way more about it than others, leading to the exact same situation we're in now where losing the die roll just sucks most of the time.
If whatever we change is going to lead to a different, but still existent advantage to winning the die roll, then I don't think it's worth making the change.
Do you have the statistics to prove that going second is worse? People choosing going second doesn't mean going second is worse; it's only an impression until you can provide hard numbers to which player performs better.
Do not try to fix something which isn't broken.
The best "proof" is the number of winnings in a given tournament of players that won the dice roll (and start due to that).
Its pretty huge so there is no denying at all that its a huge benefit.
The player that wins the dice roll is much more likely to win, given the decks and players are roughly on the same level.
As matches are played in best of 3 , the starting game is RANDOM , but then the loser chooses, and say they win, again the loser chooses.
So the person that wins the dice roll might have 2 chances to begin a game, while the loser of the dice roll just gets 1 shot to start a game.
Thats something you simply cannot avoid in a game of turns.
You COULD change the game fundamentally and let both players play simultaneously (and is still the "active" player to make choices, but the steps and phases of untap-upkeep-draw-mainphase-combat-mainphase-end are shared).
If you could pull that off, it might reduce the problem to a minimum, but its a huge deal and far from trivial.
----
Magic more and more favors the "snow-ball" mechanics. The first that attacks gets the advantage, as being untapped against an tapped out blocker is always in your favor if you have the tricks or removal.
Mechanics that favor the attacker further make this more problematic, and we have a lot of them.
Mechanics that benefit the defender are massively in the minority (stuff like block 2+ creatures and such, extremely rare and on mediocre cards).
----
The same is true for planeswalkers, which generate an advantage and attacking them is an option, so the first that plays them gets the benefit quicker.
Control decks would to some degree favor being on the draw in a mirror, as having the 1 extra card is more valuable.
But over the formats having a true control mirror match is reasonable rare, as the decks that simply go aggressive in some way or another are in the absolute majority.
----
In Limited you could favor drawing cards if the format is slow and punishes aggressive draws with enough mass removal (stuff like Infest , Pyroclasm and the like) , but thats also pretty much non-existing at this point (in Ixalan we got them at uncommon, which helps, but they are still higher in rarity and so less likely to show up to begin with).
----
A potential fix could be to give the player on the draw more life points or anything simplistic to have a better chance to play the catch-up and not get steamrolled.
As 2 aggressive decks playing each other, the one on the draw is in almost any case behind and gets punished by almost any mechanic in modern sets.
The formats have enough 2 drops that struggling on mana is less of an issue, so that "critical" +1 card is less of an factor.
If you have a format in which 2 drops are "bad" and 3 drops outclass them easily, the format can swap to 4+ drops that matter more, so starting wouldnt be good. In this case you always want to be on the draw, and its bad to start. So we actually just exchange it.
Hitting the sweet spot of a format in which starting and drawing is truly equally worth doing, is incredible difficult to archive.
----
In constructed of older formats you have a lot of plays in the first 2 turns of the game that can massively impact how the game goes.
A good draw will do very unfair stuff, and the catchup player has to "counter" that draw or simply loses without much hope.
For example, if you have Stony Silence and you are on the play, you can totally get it out quickly enough to be really backbreaking. If they start, its much less good, as they can already play a 3 drop that potentially wins the game already and demands removal.
Thats true for a lot of decks in modern, as specific cards have a huge impact if played on a turn earlier and would be downright useless if you are on the draw (reason enough that its a good idea to change your deck with sideboarding simply for the reason that you start or draw in the next game).
----
As it is right now, the game favor the 1st player in many ways, the biggest impact have the cards mechanics that favor the attacking player, while the game "tries" to give a defending player more options, in reality, they are often tapped out and cant really benefit from it (or get downright destroyed, with tricks that make double blocks especially terrible).
Good ideas how to fix that are complicated to do, as it makes a huge difference to apply these changes to Limited, Constructed and the different formats of Vintage, Legacy and Standard ; and even Commander etc.
So a universal solution is unlikely to satisfy all of them.
But its undeniable that the starting player has a very very real advantage right now (easily an 70/30 winning chance difference, as starting wins all forms of races and key-card plays, while the +1 card only matters if you are in a real card advantage battle that goes into the longer game).
What this discussion really hinges upon is what exactly you want to accomplish when you say 'equalizing' the first and second turn player.
Do you want to:
1. Give going first and second their own individual strategic merit, so that there's a relatively even percentage of people choosing either first or second.
2. Make it so that first and second each are so evenly advantaged that people effectively don't care which one they get.
If the first one is your goal, then understand that it would probably leave us in a very similar situation to what we're in now, perhaps marginally more even.
If 50 percent of decks want to go first, and 50 percent of decks want to go second, then you'll still have quite a few games occurring where people don't get what they want because of dice rolls, giving one side the same advantage that they have now.
If Deck A likes going first, and Deck B likes going second, then matching them against each other would pretty much be a perfect situation. No matter who wins the die roll, both sides are fairly happy, assuming they choose to go whichever their deck prefers.
However, if Deck A is put into a mirror match, or perhaps goes against another different deck that likes going first, then we're in the exact same situation that we're in now.
This is also a fairly generous analogy, as I don't think it's likely that you'd be able to find a mechanic that benefits 50 percent of decks in a format to the point where they'd take it over going first.
The second option, making people not care about whether or not they go first, is impossible for the exact reason that I mentioned above. There is no advantage you could give a player that is so unanimously useful that it rivals being able to go first, unless you made it ludicrous to the point of people preferring to go second.
No matter what you gave to the second turn player, some decks would care way more about it than others, leading to the exact same situation we're in now where losing the die roll just sucks most of the time.
If whatever we change is going to lead to a different, but still existent advantage to winning the die roll, then I don't think it's worth making the change.
Option 2 is what I am after.
Due to the turn-based nature of the game, one player is going to have to be the first to play. But it should not end up being an important factor in the outcome of the game. Note that it is not an important factor in every game, but right now it is important in enough games to matter.
The second option, making people not care about whether or not they go first, is impossible for the exact reason that I mentioned above. There is no advantage you could give a player that is so unanimously useful that it rivals being able to go first, unless you made it ludicrous to the point of people preferring to go second.
I think its reasonable to imagine a change that would not sway the preference all the way to the draw.
There are a few ideas I have which I think would fit this criteria:
1. On the first turn of the game, spells cannot be cast.
this would prevent the advantage player one has by being able to cast spells uninterrupted on the first turn of the game. it would greatly slow down explosive starts
2. The player who is playing second gains x amount of life (x being some agreed upon number after rigorous playtesting)
the extra life would help against aggro decks that play first, giving the second player more time to catch up.
3. The player going first does not skip his/her first draw step. Instead, that player begins the game with an opening hand of 6 rather than 7.
this rule goes for a different approach than the first two. the draw player is rewarded by seeing an extra card before deciding on mulligans, rather than both players seeing the same number of cards.
I like the life gain idea, but in match-ups where the starting amount of life is not relevant it doesn’t help. I think the way to go is to give the second player options.
For example, in the first turn, the second player could have a series of options to choose from. Instead of drawing he could opt for extra amount of life, scry X cards, or any other option that would reasonably help him in any given match-up.
Maybe give the second player a free mulligan. It's not really a tangible advantage in some cases as the player may get a good initial hand anyway, but it is some insurance for players going second.
Combo decks usually wanna go first, but with a free mulligan, maybe they would be more incentivized to go second.
So, what about a free scry 1 during player 2's first upkeep step? Seems like it would allow them some slight advantage in reacting to the first player's first actions without being crazy overpowered or abusable. It's simple to implement and wouldn't seem to have a large impact and it is something universally beneficial. After all, you get a free scry if you mulligan anyway. It could at least take the edge off the advantage even if going first was still desirable. If player 2 got to scry due to mulligans they would still get the additional scry in their upkeep.
i think the problem inherentintly lies in that one player will always have more lands on the field than the other. there is no way both play will begin from 1 mana to 2 and so on.
for example chess doesn't have this problem as both players start off with i believe 16 pieces. both resources are always equal, unless a player makes a mistake or gets outplayed in which case the other players did deserve that win.
i think the problem inherentintly lies in that one player will always have more lands on the field than the other. there is no way both play will begin from 1 mana to 2 and so on.
for example chess doesn't have this problem as both players start off with i believe 16 pieces. both resources are always equal, unless a player makes a mistake or gets outplayed in which case the other players did deserve that win.
Well in reality, chess has a very similar problem, but complexity beats randomness.
Being first is a flat advantage and you have to make a mistake to give it up.
In magic the randomness kicks in and you can simply not curve out, while the others does.
But if both players have a more or less superb hand, the starting player is always in the attacking role and simply wins earlier, and if the defending player cannot ignore blocking (say Glorybringer and the like) , it very greatly benefits the 1st player.
There are a handful of cards that benefit the 2nd player, stuff like Tithe and mechanics that give you something for being behind. To some degree thats true for Fateful hour cards, but being at 5 life is very specific and the opponent can play around it.
But in sum, Magic has way too less mechanics that allow the 2nd player to play a catch-up game, the vast majority of mechanics simply benefit the 1st player and the one that is attacking.
The very best card they probably ever designed in this regard is Timely Reinforcements.
I think to some extent new cards can improve this situation without necessitating a rules change. But this means more reactive cards like Timely Reinforcements would need to be printed.
I do believe this could happen in standard and limited if they change their design philosophy a bit to favor reactive elements in the game rather than aggressive ones.
In modern, there are such a huge variety of threats that it is very difficult to line up the correct answers to all of them. This is one of the major complaints with the format. Aether Vial / Cavern blanks counterspells. Hexproof creatures / non-creature decks blank removal spells. And so forth.
In legacy, control is a bit better. Force of Will helps the player on the draw quite a bit. The ability to set up one-mana board wipes with terminus is a thing. Going first is still an advantage, but I think its not as significant as in standard and modern because of all of the cheap interaction going around.
Solution: print lots of new reactive/answer cards for standard, and thus limited and modern. Its possible that play design will help get this done, but we can't guarantee it. It's much easier to remediate standard in this way than it is to remediate modern.
Is the statistical difference really that big? I saw an article analyzing it and the conclusion was that it was 53%-47% in favor of the first. Perfectly balancing going first and second is probably nearly impossible. I play a lot of board games, and even in the Euro-style ones where players that don't go first tend to be compensated the later their turn is in a round, there always seems to be a slight first player advantage.
I think to some extent new cards can improve this situation without necessitating a rules change. But this means more reactive cards like Timely Reinforcements would need to be printed.
I do believe this could happen in standard and limited if they change their design philosophy a bit to favor reactive elements in the game rather than aggressive ones.
In modern, there are such a huge variety of threats that it is very difficult to line up the correct answers to all of them. This is one of the major complaints with the format. Aether Vial / Cavern blanks counterspells. Hexproof creatures / non-creature decks blank removal spells. And so forth.
In legacy, control is a bit better. Force of Will helps the player on the draw quite a bit. The ability to set up one-mana board wipes with terminus is a thing. Going first is still an advantage, but I think its not as significant as in standard and modern because of all of the cheap interaction going around.
Solution: print lots of new reactive/answer cards for standard, and thus limited and modern. Its possible that play design will help get this done, but we can't guarantee it. It's much easier to remediate standard in this way than it is to remediate modern.
I think this sums it up best.
One thing I didn't see mentioned or merely glossed over is the application of these ideas really only apply on the first game. On game 2 and 3, you have the sideboard to contend with. If the disadvantaged player fails to put in answers (or is unable due to the format), then does it really matter?
I'm not disputing the idea first turn advantage. What I'm disputing is the idea of modifying opening game procedures when the real answer lies elsewhere.
The only reason I dislike giving the draw player a scry is because it conflicts with the mulligan scry rule, and it could make things more confusing if you have multiple game rules granting you scry.
Right now I am leaning towards my 3rd suggestion:
3. The player going first does not skip his/her first draw step. Instead, that player begins the game with an opening hand of 6 rather than 7.
This is a very subtle change with quite larger consequences. Deciding on a keep with 6 cards compared to 7 is something that less experienced players may not consider that big of a deal, but it really will.
Perhaps the solution is to print cards that would tend to favor the player who didn't get to play first. I have included some samples that I have printed out to supplement casual drafts. Of course, more potent versions of such cards would be needed for faster formats like Modern.
Perhaps the solution is to print cards that would tend to favor the player who didn't get to play first. I have included some samples that I have printed out to supplement casual drafts. Of course, more potent versions of such cards would be needed for faster formats like Modern.
I like the second land quite a bit. I would re-word it though to say "this enters tapped unless you control fewer lands than an opponent". The way it currently reads, I believe if both players control an equal number of lands and you played it then it would enter untapped because it does not see itself in play yet. I am not 100% sure of this
Scry 1 would probably be the best thing you could give the player on the draw. It's the most minimal amount that you could really give, which is probably enough to bring the play vs. draw percentages a little bit closer.
The idea is this:
If you played first and play Monument Valley, it comes into play tapped on turn 1.
But if you didn't have the privilege to play first, you could play it untapped on turn 1.
So essentially, if you are on the draw and the aggressor who played first plays a land each turn, you can play cards like Monument Valley essentially as old school legendary dual lands. Hence, such cards tend to be worse on the play and better on the draw.
The idea is this:
If you played first and play Monument Valley, it comes into play tapped on turn 1.
But if you didn't have the privilege to play first, you could play it untapped on turn 1.
So essentially, if you are on the draw and the aggressor who played first plays a land each turn, you can play cards like Monument Valley essentially as old school legendary dual lands. Hence, such cards tend to be worse on the play and better on the draw.
Yeah, I figured that was what you had intended. I just don't know if the card is worded correctly so that it works in that way.
Their are too many strong ago cards/statagys. You need stronger control cards to make going second more desireable. Alternatively you need to print more cards that impact based on turn order
Example
Turn bolt
RR
Instant
Deals 3 damage to target creature or player, IF you are going second you may play turn bolt for 0.
Goblin of time
R
haste
If you are playing first goblin of time comes in to play with 2 -1/-1 counters
4/4
Land of sands
Land
T Add 1 to yoru mana pool
If you are not playing first Land of sands also has
T Sacrifice land of sands Destroy target land.
Their are too many strong ago cards/statagys. You need stronger control cards to make going second more desireable. Alternatively you need to print more cards that impact based on turn order
Example
Turn bolt
RR
Instant
Deals 3 damage to target creature or player, IF you are going second you may play turn bolt for 0.
Goblin of time
R
haste
If you are playing first goblin of time comes in to play with 2 -1/-1 counters
4/4
Land of sands
Land
T Add 1 to yoru mana pool
If you are not playing first Land of sands also has
T Sacrifice land of sands Destroy target land.
Good ideas, but we aren't seeing this happen at all. How can we convince them to implement the idea?
Good ideas, but we aren't seeing this happen at all. How can we convince them to implement the idea?
Its a design - nightmare, as the mechanic would only really work if they made it for pretty much ANY card in some way, if its that explicitly done its just not going to happen.
The only things we have that directly reference this is Gemstone Caverns and its kinda of an anomaly.
The mechanic has to be done that it works somewhat fairly and its not just flat out better when you are the 2nd+ player, especially if you need to track that (ofcourse players wont really forget, but its also not something you keep track of automatically, as it wouldnt matter in so many cases).
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.
Your first land enters untapped, if it would enter tapped it untaps as though you had an Amulet of Vigor. This is simple and can be very useful but doesn't seem to break anything besides the bouncelands in modern. Which could be dealt with by banning whatever card they are abusing. Its an easily grokable ability but rather complex to teach to beginners, though they may not have to learn about it right away.
On your first turns lands tap to produce any color of mana. This one is rather unintuitive but has more potential to save bad hands. I'm almost certain this doesn't cause any brokenness but I wouldn't be shocked to find out I'm wrong.
You may begin the game with a land from your hand in play, but skip your untap step and your first land drop. This allows you to have plays on turn 1 but still denies you the advantage of extra mana you wouldn't normally have. This one I believe is most open to abuse but still seems reasonable most of the time.
Any of these could be an advantage to give to the player going second that wouldn't immediately swing the game in their favor. I look forward to other peoples ideas to fix this imbalance and on how horribly wrong I am about how broken the abilities I've proposed are.
Your second change is better, but it would also not come up in many games. For instance, it does nothing to help monocolored decks. With good color fixing in every format, plenty of decks do not have trouble creating the correct color of mana on their first turn.
Your third change is the best. What you are proposing is that the player going second would begin with their first land directly on the battlefield during the opponent's turn instead of having to wait for their turn to play the land. What I like about this is that it addresses the inability to interact during the first turn of the game outside of "free" spells. I think you are headed in the right direction, but the same result can be done in a less convoluted manner
Do not try to fix something which isn't broken.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I am not sure where a compilation of statistical data of that sort would be found, but it is not necessary to prove this point.
I seriously doubt that so many players are acting under an erroneous belief that there is an advantage to be had going first, when in reality there is none - especially pro players who have been playing and writing about this game for many years. Players looking to get an edge constantly try and figure out what they can be doing better. If there was no statistical difference on win % between play and draw, we would not see players opting to play the vast majority of the time. Aside from the corner cases I presented, this aspect of Magic has been solved.
Do you want to:
1. Give going first and second their own individual strategic merit, so that there's a relatively even percentage of people choosing either first or second.
2. Make it so that first and second each are so evenly advantaged that people effectively don't care which one they get.
If the first one is your goal, then understand that it would probably leave us in a very similar situation to what we're in now, perhaps marginally more even.
If 50 percent of decks want to go first, and 50 percent of decks want to go second, then you'll still have quite a few games occurring where people don't get what they want because of dice rolls, giving one side the same advantage that they have now.
If Deck A likes going first, and Deck B likes going second, then matching them against each other would pretty much be a perfect situation. No matter who wins the die roll, both sides are fairly happy, assuming they choose to go whichever their deck prefers.
However, if Deck A is put into a mirror match, or perhaps goes against another different deck that likes going first, then we're in the exact same situation that we're in now.
This is also a fairly generous analogy, as I don't think it's likely that you'd be able to find a mechanic that benefits 50 percent of decks in a format to the point where they'd take it over going first.
The second option, making people not care about whether or not they go first, is impossible for the exact reason that I mentioned above. There is no advantage you could give a player that is so unanimously useful that it rivals being able to go first, unless you made it ludicrous to the point of people preferring to go second.
No matter what you gave to the second turn player, some decks would care way more about it than others, leading to the exact same situation we're in now where losing the die roll just sucks most of the time.
If whatever we change is going to lead to a different, but still existent advantage to winning the die roll, then I don't think it's worth making the change.
The best "proof" is the number of winnings in a given tournament of players that won the dice roll (and start due to that).
Its pretty huge so there is no denying at all that its a huge benefit.
The player that wins the dice roll is much more likely to win, given the decks and players are roughly on the same level.
As matches are played in best of 3 , the starting game is RANDOM , but then the loser chooses, and say they win, again the loser chooses.
So the person that wins the dice roll might have 2 chances to begin a game, while the loser of the dice roll just gets 1 shot to start a game.
Thats something you simply cannot avoid in a game of turns.
You COULD change the game fundamentally and let both players play simultaneously (and is still the "active" player to make choices, but the steps and phases of untap-upkeep-draw-mainphase-combat-mainphase-end are shared).
If you could pull that off, it might reduce the problem to a minimum, but its a huge deal and far from trivial.
----
Magic more and more favors the "snow-ball" mechanics. The first that attacks gets the advantage, as being untapped against an tapped out blocker is always in your favor if you have the tricks or removal.
Mechanics that favor the attacker further make this more problematic, and we have a lot of them.
Mechanics that benefit the defender are massively in the minority (stuff like block 2+ creatures and such, extremely rare and on mediocre cards).
----
The same is true for planeswalkers, which generate an advantage and attacking them is an option, so the first that plays them gets the benefit quicker.
Control decks would to some degree favor being on the draw in a mirror, as having the 1 extra card is more valuable.
But over the formats having a true control mirror match is reasonable rare, as the decks that simply go aggressive in some way or another are in the absolute majority.
----
In Limited you could favor drawing cards if the format is slow and punishes aggressive draws with enough mass removal (stuff like Infest , Pyroclasm and the like) , but thats also pretty much non-existing at this point (in Ixalan we got them at uncommon, which helps, but they are still higher in rarity and so less likely to show up to begin with).
----
A potential fix could be to give the player on the draw more life points or anything simplistic to have a better chance to play the catch-up and not get steamrolled.
As 2 aggressive decks playing each other, the one on the draw is in almost any case behind and gets punished by almost any mechanic in modern sets.
The formats have enough 2 drops that struggling on mana is less of an issue, so that "critical" +1 card is less of an factor.
If you have a format in which 2 drops are "bad" and 3 drops outclass them easily, the format can swap to 4+ drops that matter more, so starting wouldnt be good. In this case you always want to be on the draw, and its bad to start. So we actually just exchange it.
Hitting the sweet spot of a format in which starting and drawing is truly equally worth doing, is incredible difficult to archive.
----
In constructed of older formats you have a lot of plays in the first 2 turns of the game that can massively impact how the game goes.
A good draw will do very unfair stuff, and the catchup player has to "counter" that draw or simply loses without much hope.
For example, if you have Stony Silence and you are on the play, you can totally get it out quickly enough to be really backbreaking. If they start, its much less good, as they can already play a 3 drop that potentially wins the game already and demands removal.
Thats true for a lot of decks in modern, as specific cards have a huge impact if played on a turn earlier and would be downright useless if you are on the draw (reason enough that its a good idea to change your deck with sideboarding simply for the reason that you start or draw in the next game).
----
As it is right now, the game favor the 1st player in many ways, the biggest impact have the cards mechanics that favor the attacking player, while the game "tries" to give a defending player more options, in reality, they are often tapped out and cant really benefit from it (or get downright destroyed, with tricks that make double blocks especially terrible).
Good ideas how to fix that are complicated to do, as it makes a huge difference to apply these changes to Limited, Constructed and the different formats of Vintage, Legacy and Standard ; and even Commander etc.
So a universal solution is unlikely to satisfy all of them.
But its undeniable that the starting player has a very very real advantage right now (easily an 70/30 winning chance difference, as starting wins all forms of races and key-card plays, while the +1 card only matters if you are in a real card advantage battle that goes into the longer game).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Option 2 is what I am after.
Due to the turn-based nature of the game, one player is going to have to be the first to play. But it should not end up being an important factor in the outcome of the game. Note that it is not an important factor in every game, but right now it is important in enough games to matter.
I think its reasonable to imagine a change that would not sway the preference all the way to the draw.
There are a few ideas I have which I think would fit this criteria:
1. On the first turn of the game, spells cannot be cast.
this would prevent the advantage player one has by being able to cast spells uninterrupted on the first turn of the game. it would greatly slow down explosive starts
2. The player who is playing second gains x amount of life (x being some agreed upon number after rigorous playtesting)
the extra life would help against aggro decks that play first, giving the second player more time to catch up.
3. The player going first does not skip his/her first draw step. Instead, that player begins the game with an opening hand of 6 rather than 7.
this rule goes for a different approach than the first two. the draw player is rewarded by seeing an extra card before deciding on mulligans, rather than both players seeing the same number of cards.
For example, in the first turn, the second player could have a series of options to choose from. Instead of drawing he could opt for extra amount of life, scry X cards, or any other option that would reasonably help him in any given match-up.
Combo decks usually wanna go first, but with a free mulligan, maybe they would be more incentivized to go second.
for example chess doesn't have this problem as both players start off with i believe 16 pieces. both resources are always equal, unless a player makes a mistake or gets outplayed in which case the other players did deserve that win.
Well in reality, chess has a very similar problem, but complexity beats randomness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
Being first is a flat advantage and you have to make a mistake to give it up.
In magic the randomness kicks in and you can simply not curve out, while the others does.
But if both players have a more or less superb hand, the starting player is always in the attacking role and simply wins earlier, and if the defending player cannot ignore blocking (say Glorybringer and the like) , it very greatly benefits the 1st player.
There are a handful of cards that benefit the 2nd player, stuff like Tithe and mechanics that give you something for being behind. To some degree thats true for Fateful hour cards, but being at 5 life is very specific and the opponent can play around it.
But in sum, Magic has way too less mechanics that allow the 2nd player to play a catch-up game, the vast majority of mechanics simply benefit the 1st player and the one that is attacking.
The very best card they probably ever designed in this regard is Timely Reinforcements.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I do believe this could happen in standard and limited if they change their design philosophy a bit to favor reactive elements in the game rather than aggressive ones.
In modern, there are such a huge variety of threats that it is very difficult to line up the correct answers to all of them. This is one of the major complaints with the format. Aether Vial / Cavern blanks counterspells. Hexproof creatures / non-creature decks blank removal spells. And so forth.
In legacy, control is a bit better. Force of Will helps the player on the draw quite a bit. The ability to set up one-mana board wipes with terminus is a thing. Going first is still an advantage, but I think its not as significant as in standard and modern because of all of the cheap interaction going around.
Solution: print lots of new reactive/answer cards for standard, and thus limited and modern. Its possible that play design will help get this done, but we can't guarantee it. It's much easier to remediate standard in this way than it is to remediate modern.
I think this sums it up best.
One thing I didn't see mentioned or merely glossed over is the application of these ideas really only apply on the first game. On game 2 and 3, you have the sideboard to contend with. If the disadvantaged player fails to put in answers (or is unable due to the format), then does it really matter?
I'm not disputing the idea first turn advantage. What I'm disputing is the idea of modifying opening game procedures when the real answer lies elsewhere.
Right now I am leaning towards my 3rd suggestion:
This is a very subtle change with quite larger consequences. Deciding on a keep with 6 cards compared to 7 is something that less experienced players may not consider that big of a deal, but it really will.
I like the second land quite a bit. I would re-word it though to say "this enters tapped unless you control fewer lands than an opponent". The way it currently reads, I believe if both players control an equal number of lands and you played it then it would enter untapped because it does not see itself in play yet. I am not 100% sure of this
If you played first and play Monument Valley, it comes into play tapped on turn 1.
But if you didn't have the privilege to play first, you could play it untapped on turn 1.
So essentially, if you are on the draw and the aggressor who played first plays a land each turn, you can play cards like Monument Valley essentially as old school legendary dual lands. Hence, such cards tend to be worse on the play and better on the draw.
Yeah, I figured that was what you had intended. I just don't know if the card is worded correctly so that it works in that way.
Otherwise, it's a very simple and elegant design.
Example
Turn bolt
RR
Instant
Deals 3 damage to target creature or player, IF you are going second you may play turn bolt for 0.
Goblin of time
R
haste
If you are playing first goblin of time comes in to play with 2 -1/-1 counters
4/4
Land of sands
Land
T Add 1 to yoru mana pool
If you are not playing first Land of sands also has
T Sacrifice land of sands Destroy target land.
Good ideas, but we aren't seeing this happen at all. How can we convince them to implement the idea?
Its a design - nightmare, as the mechanic would only really work if they made it for pretty much ANY card in some way, if its that explicitly done its just not going to happen.
The only things we have that directly reference this is Gemstone Caverns and its kinda of an anomaly.
The mechanic has to be done that it works somewhat fairly and its not just flat out better when you are the 2nd+ player, especially if you need to track that (ofcourse players wont really forget, but its also not something you keep track of automatically, as it wouldnt matter in so many cases).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮