Okay, I really like MTG, been playing for over 10 years, I just made this account cause I needed to get it out of my chest.
I have seen people mentioning it previously but usually ended up blocked by the "This way MTG is more deep"
Anyway, I don't want to waste your time too much so I'll just go straight to the point.
I just find it kinda uh.... that even after all these years and even after Planeswalker cards came into being where one can choose to attack them directly.
One needs to waste slots in his deck to put removals that have nothing to do with the rest of the rest of the deck's theme, just because if someone drops a Master of the Wild Hunt and you already happen to have three 1/1 tokens, you just can't do anything because you both know that he won't attack with him.
People at this point usually say that MTG would lose strategy and a lot of cards which would say "Fight target creature" would be meaningless but I assure you they won't, since those cards bypass blockers so they will still just be useful to have in your deck.
Narrativelly speaking it just makes no sense in my humble opinion for your creatures to understand that they should attack a Planeswalker but can't understand attacking a creature, I know this rule has been ever since before Planewalker cards came out but with today's standards it makes no sense anymore.
Anyway thank you for reading this, I'm not trying to sparkle a debate, I just wanted to get it out of my chest because I really like this game and I really want to see players having more choices with their creatures.
I politiely dissagree. I think one of the defining characteristics of Mtg is that you don't attack creatures. It is a big difference from many of the other card games out there and one I am very happy about, it makes it unique and honestly adds a lot more depth to the game. Being able to choose blockers gives players more decisions. As for creatures knowing to attack player and planeswalkers and not creaures. Planeswalkers are basically a new player helping you so thematically i makes sense ou can choose to attack them. And I think thematically it makes sense you can't attack creatures. If I was a general commanding an army, I am not going to put my key cards in harms way (For instance not blocking with them) unless it was life or death. Your opponent is trying to beat you. You place your troops in such a way to stop them, you decide where your armies are to stop theirs. If your opponent could directly attack your creatures in the combat step, it negates this. I mena no offense, I just think that what you are looking for is not in th espirit of the game but can be found in other games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander: UBG Tasigur, the lab enabler UR Planeswalker Control UBRW Breya's personal box of combos BRW Vampire beats, by Dre 1 Karn, where all lands are command towers UBR Inalla's Venser lock UBRGW Atog Atog contraption tribal WUB Xur's second chance UGW Derivi, bird tribal R Brother's Yamazaki BRG Prosh, the scourge of multiplayer GW Capt. Sisay's Deck Dumping Service UB All Your Spells do Belong to Me UG Tapioca Pearl BG Meren's grinder
Being able to choose blockers gives players more decisions.
Well I never mention anything about not being able to declare blockers, when you attack Planeswalkers you are able to do so, right? Same thing would probably apply with attacking creatures.
Planeswalkers are basically a new player helping you so thematically i makes sense ou can choose to attack them.
I politely disagree, Planeswalkers are permanent cards in play, if one is able to give command to a creature to attack an entity, there is no reason why one should not to able to command that creature to attack another entity, it just makes sense.
If I was a general commanding an army, I am not going to put my key cards in harms way
Though the fact that creatures may directly attack the player so according to your logic, the player/general always puts himself in harms way.
And besides that's why are blockers for, you would always be able to protect your keycards by choosing to block either yourself (Thus taking the damage.) or have one creature under your control protect your keycards.
Your opponent is trying to beat you. You place your troops in such a way to stop them, you decide where your armies are to stop theirs.
I completely agree with that.
If your opponent could directly attack your creatures in the combat step, it negates this.
Sorry but no, because that's why are blocker for, the same way one chooses to attack a planeswalker.
I mena no offense, I just think that what you are looking for is not in th espirit of the game but can be found in other games.
I am not aware of any as in Hearthstone for example, you don't have an option to protect your creatures by declaring blockers once someone has decided to attack them (Unless you have a creature with taunt but that's another story.)
Again I think that being able to choose how attackers behave more freely, would give much more depth to the gameplay rather than filling your deck with removals that don't fit with the rest of the deck thematically just because it's the only way to practically sweep the board.
I think that if you have a bunch of tokens and the other player has one just thing that continually spawns things, you should be able to keep playing instead of waiting for the removal to come to your hand (Which by that time will probably be too late since the board would have probably be filled.)
Again I mean no offense, MTG is still a great game despite it's flaws and that's why we enjoy it.
I also want to thank you that you took your time to reply to this, means so much to me.
I had a huge response but decided it was too harsh and it’s a suggested change that’s never going to happen. This isn’t Yu-Gi-Oh. In a nut shell, I would not support such a change if WotC ever dared to propose it.
Soo....
Why not make a house rule with some friends that you can target creatures and try it out? See how you like it. Might even become a new format if enough people are interested.
I never actually played Yu-Gi-Oh to be able to speak about, I'm speaking about MTG, I really can't understand where this negativity is coming from, it's just a personal opinion, it's not like WoTC will be concerned anyway, when there are more important flaws such as the infamous "land problem".
So let's just not be harsh to one another after a card game, alright? There is really no need for hostility.
SavannahLion is right; the combat system isn't a flaw of Magic, it's one of the biggest attractions for me and a lot of people, it's one of the biggest sources of strategic depth, and neither will WotC change it nor would I ever want them to. If you want to play the way you want casually, then absolutely do so and maybe you could even come up with another format this way, it's true. But don't expect a lot of people to want to play that way.
Thank you for the response, I took no offense to it I think I misunderstood your initial proposal and thought you meant to change the combat system to be like Hearthstone's I did not realize you still could block attacks like normal even if they were directed at creatures. This is an interesting idea and definitely a house rule I might play around with to get more feedback for you. My main concern is I don't like creature based decks. I like removal and taking damage myself over my utility creatures being in danger, so this would take a realignment of my deck design but I will definitely ponder this more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander: UBG Tasigur, the lab enabler UR Planeswalker Control UBRW Breya's personal box of combos BRW Vampire beats, by Dre 1 Karn, where all lands are command towers UBR Inalla's Venser lock UBRGW Atog Atog contraption tribal WUB Xur's second chance UGW Derivi, bird tribal R Brother's Yamazaki BRG Prosh, the scourge of multiplayer GW Capt. Sisay's Deck Dumping Service UB All Your Spells do Belong to Me UG Tapioca Pearl BG Meren's grinder
SavannahLion is right; the combat system isn't a flaw of Magic
This is a subjective opinion, not everyone shares it, I expect most of MTG Salvation members to be on your side on this since because we have familiarized with the system over so many years, but let's be real, the fact that you can command your creatures to attack one type of entity but not another just doesn't make sense, again this is my personal opinion.
But don't expect a lot of people to want to play that way.
Well, this thing was being said about Hearthstone as well, and now MTG can't even compare with it in terms of popularity.
Ninja edit: It's not like Hearthstone has better combat system (Especially when you can't protect your creatures.)
Let's try not to be so negative on personal opinions ok? I never said how others should be playing it, I only expressed my own opinion, again, it's not likely it will change anyway.
Once again thank you for spending your time reading this, I just kind of finding it sad when there is this level of negativity even of subjective opinions.
Sure no problem, misunderstanding happen always, it's part of discussion.
I would really like your feedback on this, unfortunatelly in my area mtg isn't that popular so I could test it out and need to rely on virtual media (such as MTGO/MTGA) which pretty much enforce rules so It's kind of impossible to test it out.
One thing I could suggest though if you are going to try it out is also make the player being able to block as well (Just like a creature does.).
One thing I expect from this is that if only one creature is attacking, it wouldn't make much difference with the current ruleset (Since the player can block to take the damage as normal.) but if more than one attack attack then it can make situations where even though removals will still be useful, the game won't be halted until one eventually draws one.
I know it might sound crazy but I think giving players more freedom of choice makes a much more interesting gameplay.
Use creatures with the provoke ability.
Where attacking creatures falls apart are dealing with mostly blue creatures:
Should you be able to attack an unblockable creature?
How about if the targeted creature has islandwalk? Islandhome?
If your creature can only block creatures with flying, could it attack a non flying creature?
Could a Giant Spider attack a Mesa Pegasus?
Would an attacked creature count as a blocking creature, if so would creatures unable to block be safe from being attacked; what about Thicket Basilisk?
Could I attack your Doomgape with five 1/1 devil tokens to have them all die and each deal 5 damage to your Doomgape, thus dealing ten damage and saving myself from trample damage that would occur if you attacked me?
From an initial look, red and green would prosper from this greatly while the other colors (white and blue especially) would suffer considerably. Interestingly enough, red and green are home to both the provoke and fight mechanic.
If you want a flavor reason, think of yourself as being able to see via movie-spy satellites onto the opponent’s battlefield, but your creatures/troops can only see in general areas. The defending creatures know the lay of the land and can use it to either hide or get to where they need to be, but when attacking, they typically do not feel familiar on enemy soil (else they would have landwalk).
Fighting creatures come to the edge, hurling insults until the other creature comes out to shut it up. Provoke sends your creature a DM calling its mom bad names and your creature goes to beat up the troll only to find it is a 6/6 ogre with first strike.
A lot of things in Magic doesn't make sense lorewise, indeed. This combat aspect you're saying is one of those things, definitely.
For example, I don't think it makes sense to have multiple copies of the same card in your deck, since the cards are like pages in a book that tells you how to cast spells. So why multiple pages of the same spell in your library? But there is a format for that: Singleton
Planeswalker cards also doens't make a lot of sense, because again: it is like you're gathering mana to cast... another mage almost as powerful as you??? But there is Pauper where Magic is more oldschool and don't have planeswalkers.
So... Definitely you could create a casual format where you can attack creatures. Maybe someday it becomes popular, who knows. But a major change would be rough and affect too many cards and change a lot of the way you play Magic. It would also cause creatures to be much more vunerable so that players on the draw would be in a huge disavantadge. Like... I play my Ezuri to stabilize the board and then suddently you kill it with your 1/1s abd I can't do a thing about it.
A change like this would recreate Magic entirely.
So... as an alternative, like a new format where you can attack creatures, that seems totally fine and yes, it makes much more sense lorewise. But a major change... Hmmmm. It would be like allowing to play with hands in football suddently. It changes the game so much that it would become another game.
UBRGrixis Shard: Grixis believes in a bold and impassioned search for satisfaction, perfection, and self expression. Those of Grixis colors have an eagerness to break the status quo and remake things in their own image. They disregard tradition and conventional approval, seeing them as unnecessary to achieve their goals, the well behaved rarely make history. Blue wants perfection. Black wants power. Red wants freedom.
I have thought of that too a long time ago, but still it doesn't work the same way because you force a creature to block so defending player can't protect it and choose other blockers to protect it.
Should you be able to attack an unblockable creature?
Probably not, same with flying unless you choose to attack said flying with either another flying or reach creature, generally if it can't block it, it can't attack it as well probably.)
Would an attacked creature count as a blocking creature
Would an attaced planeswalked count as a blocking planeswalker?
Could I attack your Doomgape with five 1/1 devil tokens to have them all die and each deal 5 damage to your Doomgape, thus dealing ten damage and saving myself from trample damage that would occur if you attacked me?
If Doomgape attacked and you blocked with said devils you would be able to do that right?
Same situation here (provided the other player doesn't protect it by blocking with other creatures.)
From an initial look, red and green would prosper from this greatly while the other colors (white and blue especially) would suffer considerably. Interestingly enough, red and green are home to both the provoke and fight mechanic.
I'm not sure, cause blue has bouncers and white has bounds with blockers as well, it shouldn't be that easy.
If you want a flavor reason, think of yourself as being able to see via movie-spy satellites onto the opponent’s battlefield, but your creatures/troops can only see in general areas.
So if that was the case, if two 2/2 creatures happened to stumble upon another 4/4 creature while they were in that general area they should be able to try and kill it right? Still this can't happen because even though they are in that area they are so obsessed on finding the defending player or planeswalker that when one of them gets blocked by the 4/4 the other other one doesn't even have the choice to help it so they can kill the 4/4 together and leaves the other 2/2 to fend for itself while it keeps searching for the player, that's actual MTG, so unless the player uses a Band Together the other creature will leave the one to fend for itself against the bigger one.
I would like to ask for clarification on how you would like this 'attacking creatures' to work. Your earlier response seems to indicate that as a player I could choose to block an attack on my creature. If this is the case I want to ask, other than adding more visible decision points would this actually change anything? In a game where you desperately want to attack a creature, the player would just defend in the same way that they simply wouldn't block.
If that isn't how you wanted it then its a fairly detrimental change that essentially kills utility creatures which are a significant part of the game.
For example, I don't think it makes sense to have multiple copies of the same card in your deck, since the cards are like pages in a book that tells you how to cast spells. So why multiple pages of the same spell in your library? But there is a format for that: Singleton
Well, cards in your hand represent your knowledge at that time, if you know something well, then you could be casting in multiple times so it makes sense it that regard.
Planeswalker cards also doens't make a lot of sense, because again: it is like you're gathering mana to cast... another mage almost as powerful as you???
Well, when you are able to summon one kind of entity, why should you be able to summon another? (Provided you have the knowledge to cast it.)
Maybe someday it becomes popular, who knows. But a major change would be rough and affect too many cards and change a lot of the way you play Magic.
Well, to be honest I don't think this would ever happen since MTG has had this rule since ever, so up until Planeswalker cards came into being, the only thing creatures could attack were the players only.
I play my Ezuri to stabilize the board and then suddently you kill it with your 1/1s abd I can't do a thing about it.
Well, if one player has a big creature it would make sense to be possible for it to get taken down by a swarm of smaller ones, just like blockers.
A change like this would recreate Magic entirely.
And this is exactly why I think this would never happen, if it were to happen to would make a lot of balancing issues and would totally mess up the structure.
So... as an alternative, like a new format where you can attack creatures, that seems totally fine and yes, it makes much more sense lorewise. But a major change... Hmmmm. It would be like allowing to play with hands in football suddently. It changes the game so much that it would become another game.
True, I don't see it happening anytime soon as well, unless they come up with a new card type just like they did with the planeswalker so they won't mess tge balance of older formats.
I would like to ask for clarification on how you would like this 'attacking creatures' to work. Your earlier response seems to indicate that as a player I could choose to block an attack on my creature. If this is the case I want to ask, other than adding more visible decision points would this actually change anything? In a game where you desperately want to attack a creature, the player would just defend in the same way that they simply wouldn't block.
If it's only one creature that it's attacking it wouldn't make much difference since the player could block and take the damage himself, but if there are more (Say you have for example four 1/1 tokens and the opponent has a 3/3.) then say you could declare attackers attacking that 3/3 creature, the opponent could block one of those four and the other three would deal their damage to the 3/3 which would pretty much clean the board by the time the combat is over.
But if your opponent has a 2/2 along with that 3/3 and you had your three 1/1 then one of those creatures could be blocked by the player and the other by the 2/2 and only the two 1/1 would result dealing their damage to the 3/3 which would result it surviving.
If that isn't how you wanted it then its a fairly detrimental change that essentially kills utility creatures which are a significant part of the game.
Planeswalker are also utility permanent essentially but still they can be attacked as normally.
The problem is not that, the problem is the balancing issues that would arise from the colors since some may get more benefits than others (Token decks for example would thrive, assuming the other player doesn't play with evasion.)
If that isn't how you wanted it then its a fairly detrimental change that essentially kills utility creatures which are a significant part of the game.
Planeswalker are also utility permanent essentially but still they can be attacked as normally.
The problem is not that, the problem is the balancing issues that would arise from the colors since some may get more benefits than others (Token decks for example would thrive, assuming the other player doesn't play with evasion.)
There is a very significant difference between utility creatures and planeswalkers. Most utility creatures that are used are 1 or 2 mana while planeswalkers essentially start at 3, yes there are some 2 but they aren't used much. In the early turns you can't count of having other creatures to defend your utility creatures while you can use your early turns to set it up so your walkers remain unmolested.
This is all ignoring the mountain of details that would need to be hammered out regarding evasion abilities.
In the early turns you can't count of having other creatures to defend your utility creatures
But you could use yourself to protect your early game utility creatures by blocking, if that were the case.
Say for example you drop a Llanowar Elves first turn, then your opponent throws something with haste, you block it and take the damage for youtself, second turn you have Druid of the Cowl and yourself to either use for mana or protect your Llanowar Elves, for instance.
This is all ignoring the mountain of details that would need to be hammered out regarding evasion abilities.
Agreed I just thrown an example, still in my opinion this should a probably a new card type, not creatures, something that won't affect older cards so they could continue to play as they used to, let's call the "Summon" for example since it's a term that has previously been used by MTG to describe creatures, this "Summon" thingy could simply act as a "Creature" with the additional ruling that it could attack other "Summons".
If a "Summon" for example has flying then it would read as "This summon can only be attacked or blocked by summons with either flying or reach".
That's the only way I could practically see it working so it won't ruin the balance of older formats.
In the early turns you can't count of having other creatures to defend your utility creatures
But you could use yourself to protect your early game utility creatures by blocking, if that were the case.
Say for example you drop a Llanowar Elves first turn, then your opponent throws something with haste, you block it and take the damage for youtself, second turn you have Druid of the Cowl and yourself to either use for mana or protect your Llanowar Elves, for instance.
That is why I limited this comment to if you couldn't defend your creatures.
If that isn't how you wanted it then its a fairly detrimental change that essentially kills utility creatures which are a significant part of the game.
A moment of thought brings up a second problem, besides evasion. Can a creature block if they are being attacked? Can they block the creature that is attacking them to get a block trigger? Is an attacked creature considered blocking? I'm sure there are even more questions/problems that would arise from such a change. Its interesting to think about at least.
That is why I limited this comment to if you couldn't defend your creatures.
My apologies then about that, still you wouldn't be able to defend your creatures from a lot of things, right? I mean if you 1 dropped something and got shocked, I understand that the creature thing could bring imbalance but that doesn't change the fact that early drop creatures are also vulnerable to early game removal as well.
I'm sure there are even more questions/problems that would arise from such a change. Its interesting to think about at least.
I'm glad I could give some food for thought, still I need to pin down that doing this to current card type would bring disaster balance wise.
Can they block the creature that is attacking them to get a block trigger?
An interesting question, one which could also bring disadvantages besides advantages, for example let's say you have a triggered ability which triggers when a creature you control becomes blocking, then if your opponent happens to have a Gideon's Reproach at that time, it would also be vulnerable to that, if that were the case.
No idea about blocking Planeswalkers, such a thing would only exist with s rules change and not even the one you suggested.
With Doomgape, as it has trample, 5 of the ten damage would be dealt to the five devils at the same time the remaining 5 would be dealt to the defending player. The devils would then die and their triggers would go off, giving them the option to deal 5 more damage and thus avenging their own death and their controllers 5-damaged face.
Bounce does not kill. It is using up a card to cost the opponent tempo. Kill spells like Murder is a straight card-for-card interaction, which is what makes Royal Assassin one of the few weenies still playable with said rule change as it can help “defend” itself, thus making it on par with that of Steel Leaf Champion.
Flavorwise, do realize legends are not the actual legends pulled from time, they are copies created upon summoning. Thus they are typically devoid of most emotion and want to keep eyes on the price of winning. They care not if their partner or brother dies because they are but copies... clones made to serve the player
After reading through this thread I have a few observations:
Since there are 25 years of combat design without this in mind so many mechanics would need a retrofitting. On top more layers of combat rules complexity, all in the name of flavor.
Imagine trying to represent a complex board state visually. Which creatures are attacking which. Which attacked creatures are blocking what other creatures. It’s bad enough as it is to properly keep a complex board state figured out during combat.
Mechanically, what you get out adding all this is net neutral at best if not net negative.
You attack my creature, I choose my self to block. I still get the same choice, just in a different way.
Currently, you attack me, I choose to block or not. The end result doesn’t vary.
Now had this kind of mechanic been part of original design, that would be a whole another thing to ponder about.
As someone who played quite a fair share of TCGs. Magic, Yugioh, Heartstone, Legends of the Five Rings, and a few even more obscure.
I have to say that magic has an absolutely solid combat system. And I frankly don't care if it makes sense or not it works mechanically and that is all that matters to me...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
They did directly attacking creatures with the provoke mechanic.
And it turns out its incredible strong mechanic if you can at will force a small creature to just die with your bigger one.
The game loses strategy, as the other is rewarded even more.
its already a big advantage to be the attacker, so the games combat mechanics at least "try" to give the defending player some kind of options, which means, you can simply choose to not block.
If you cant choose to ignore an attacker, the games just a slaughter fest of who can keep the biggest stuff around, even more so than it already is in formats filled with removal spells ; if a creature can just kill other creatures, you need less removal and simply bigger and better creatures (especially first strike and deathtouch become really brutal).
Anyhow.
The idea to attack stuff is not bad, it just turns out, the game benefits a lot more from giving the defending player more options to increase the strategic depth.
Any power to the attacking player simply makes the "snowball" games even worse, in which a tiny advantage just growth itself into an ever increasing problem, which makes comebacks less likely (and the comebacks from bad draws is the most juicy experiences a player can have in magic, the seemingly unwinnable nightmare games that suddenly turn around and you still win ; any snowball mechanic stands in the way of that).
----
Mechanics like Provoke however (and the even more annoying lure can produce nice cards, but the combat system itself shouldnt change just to archive this).
Imagine trying to represent a complex board state visually. Which creatures are attacking which.
It's really not that bad, especially if you take aside the attackers with the attacked creature, then the controller of the attacked creature can just put the blocking creatures in the middle, just like in a regular game.
You attack my creature, I choose my self to block. I still get the same choice, just in a different way.
Currently, you attack me, I choose to block or not. The end result doesn’t vary.
Except that just like a creature the player could only (normally) block one creature, which means that if your opponent attacks with a swarm your creature, he could actually do damage to it.
They did directly attacking creatures with the provoke mechanic.
Provoke doesn't allow you to attack creatures, it simply forces them to block with said creature, which means that you can't use other creatures to block thus protecting the creature with provoke.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have seen people mentioning it previously but usually ended up blocked by the "This way MTG is more deep"
Anyway, I don't want to waste your time too much so I'll just go straight to the point.
I just find it kinda uh.... that even after all these years and even after Planeswalker cards came into being where one can choose to attack them directly.
One needs to waste slots in his deck to put removals that have nothing to do with the rest of the rest of the deck's theme, just because if someone drops a Master of the Wild Hunt and you already happen to have three 1/1 tokens, you just can't do anything because you both know that he won't attack with him.
People at this point usually say that MTG would lose strategy and a lot of cards which would say "Fight target creature" would be meaningless but I assure you they won't, since those cards bypass blockers so they will still just be useful to have in your deck.
Narrativelly speaking it just makes no sense in my humble opinion for your creatures to understand that they should attack a Planeswalker but can't understand attacking a creature, I know this rule has been ever since before Planewalker cards came out but with today's standards it makes no sense anymore.
Anyway thank you for reading this, I'm not trying to sparkle a debate, I just wanted to get it out of my chest because I really like this game and I really want to see players having more choices with their creatures.
Thanks in advance, I wish a good day to everyone.
UBG Tasigur, the lab enabler UR Planeswalker Control
UBRW Breya's personal box of combos BRW Vampire beats, by Dre
1 Karn, where all lands are command towers UBR Inalla's Venser lock
UBRGW Atog Atog contraption tribal WUB Xur's second chance
UGW Derivi, bird tribal R Brother's Yamazaki
BRG Prosh, the scourge of multiplayer GW Capt. Sisay's Deck Dumping Service
UB All Your Spells do Belong to Me UG Tapioca Pearl
BG Meren's grinder
Well I never mention anything about not being able to declare blockers, when you attack Planeswalkers you are able to do so, right? Same thing would probably apply with attacking creatures.
I politely disagree, Planeswalkers are permanent cards in play, if one is able to give command to a creature to attack an entity, there is no reason why one should not to able to command that creature to attack another entity, it just makes sense.
Though the fact that creatures may directly attack the player so according to your logic, the player/general always puts himself in harms way.
And besides that's why are blockers for, you would always be able to protect your keycards by choosing to block either yourself (Thus taking the damage.) or have one creature under your control protect your keycards.
I completely agree with that.
Sorry but no, because that's why are blocker for, the same way one chooses to attack a planeswalker.
I am not aware of any as in Hearthstone for example, you don't have an option to protect your creatures by declaring blockers once someone has decided to attack them (Unless you have a creature with taunt but that's another story.)
Again I think that being able to choose how attackers behave more freely, would give much more depth to the gameplay rather than filling your deck with removals that don't fit with the rest of the deck thematically just because it's the only way to practically sweep the board.
I think that if you have a bunch of tokens and the other player has one just thing that continually spawns things, you should be able to keep playing instead of waiting for the removal to come to your hand (Which by that time will probably be too late since the board would have probably be filled.)
Again I mean no offense, MTG is still a great game despite it's flaws and that's why we enjoy it.
I also want to thank you that you took your time to reply to this, means so much to me.
Soo....
Why not make a house rule with some friends that you can target creatures and try it out? See how you like it. Might even become a new format if enough people are interested.
So let's just not be harsh to one another after a card game, alright? There is really no need for hostility.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
UBG Tasigur, the lab enabler UR Planeswalker Control
UBRW Breya's personal box of combos BRW Vampire beats, by Dre
1 Karn, where all lands are command towers UBR Inalla's Venser lock
UBRGW Atog Atog contraption tribal WUB Xur's second chance
UGW Derivi, bird tribal R Brother's Yamazaki
BRG Prosh, the scourge of multiplayer GW Capt. Sisay's Deck Dumping Service
UB All Your Spells do Belong to Me UG Tapioca Pearl
BG Meren's grinder
This is a subjective opinion, not everyone shares it, I expect most of MTG Salvation members to be on your side on this since because we have familiarized with the system over so many years, but let's be real, the fact that you can command your creatures to attack one type of entity but not another just doesn't make sense, again this is my personal opinion.
Well, this thing was being said about Hearthstone as well, and now MTG can't even compare with it in terms of popularity.
Ninja edit: It's not like Hearthstone has better combat system (Especially when you can't protect your creatures.)
Let's try not to be so negative on personal opinions ok? I never said how others should be playing it, I only expressed my own opinion, again, it's not likely it will change anyway.
Once again thank you for spending your time reading this, I just kind of finding it sad when there is this level of negativity even of subjective opinions.
I would really like your feedback on this, unfortunatelly in my area mtg isn't that popular so I could test it out and need to rely on virtual media (such as MTGO/MTGA) which pretty much enforce rules so It's kind of impossible to test it out.
One thing I could suggest though if you are going to try it out is also make the player being able to block as well (Just like a creature does.).
One thing I expect from this is that if only one creature is attacking, it wouldn't make much difference with the current ruleset (Since the player can block to take the damage as normal.) but if more than one attack attack then it can make situations where even though removals will still be useful, the game won't be halted until one eventually draws one.
I know it might sound crazy but I think giving players more freedom of choice makes a much more interesting gameplay.
Where attacking creatures falls apart are dealing with mostly blue creatures:
Should you be able to attack an unblockable creature?
How about if the targeted creature has islandwalk? Islandhome?
If your creature can only block creatures with flying, could it attack a non flying creature?
Could a Giant Spider attack a Mesa Pegasus?
Would an attacked creature count as a blocking creature, if so would creatures unable to block be safe from being attacked; what about Thicket Basilisk?
Could I attack your Doomgape with five 1/1 devil tokens to have them all die and each deal 5 damage to your Doomgape, thus dealing ten damage and saving myself from trample damage that would occur if you attacked me?
From an initial look, red and green would prosper from this greatly while the other colors (white and blue especially) would suffer considerably. Interestingly enough, red and green are home to both the provoke and fight mechanic.
My immediate advice is to run Fall of the Hammer and Rabid Bite. Also see if your table will try it.
If you want a flavor reason, think of yourself as being able to see via movie-spy satellites onto the opponent’s battlefield, but your creatures/troops can only see in general areas. The defending creatures know the lay of the land and can use it to either hide or get to where they need to be, but when attacking, they typically do not feel familiar on enemy soil (else they would have landwalk).
Fighting creatures come to the edge, hurling insults until the other creature comes out to shut it up. Provoke sends your creature a DM calling its mom bad names and your creature goes to beat up the troll only to find it is a 6/6 ogre with first strike.
For example, I don't think it makes sense to have multiple copies of the same card in your deck, since the cards are like pages in a book that tells you how to cast spells. So why multiple pages of the same spell in your library? But there is a format for that: Singleton
Planeswalker cards also doens't make a lot of sense, because again: it is like you're gathering mana to cast... another mage almost as powerful as you??? But there is Pauper where Magic is more oldschool and don't have planeswalkers.
So... Definitely you could create a casual format where you can attack creatures. Maybe someday it becomes popular, who knows. But a major change would be rough and affect too many cards and change a lot of the way you play Magic. It would also cause creatures to be much more vunerable so that players on the draw would be in a huge disavantadge. Like... I play my Ezuri to stabilize the board and then suddently you kill it with your 1/1s abd I can't do a thing about it.
A change like this would recreate Magic entirely.
So... as an alternative, like a new format where you can attack creatures, that seems totally fine and yes, it makes much more sense lorewise. But a major change... Hmmmm. It would be like allowing to play with hands in football suddently. It changes the game so much that it would become another game.
Best MTG colour test ever: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/8905d5/what_kind_of_mage_would_you_be_test_your_colors/
UBR Grixis Shard: Grixis believes in a bold and impassioned search for satisfaction, perfection, and self expression. Those of Grixis colors have an eagerness to break the status quo and remake things in their own image. They disregard tradition and conventional approval, seeing them as unnecessary to achieve their goals, the well behaved rarely make history. Blue wants perfection. Black wants power. Red wants freedom.
I have thought of that too a long time ago, but still it doesn't work the same way because you force a creature to block so defending player can't protect it and choose other blockers to protect it.
Probably not, same with flying unless you choose to attack said flying with either another flying or reach creature, generally if it can't block it, it can't attack it as well probably.)
Would an attaced planeswalked count as a blocking planeswalker?
If Doomgape attacked and you blocked with said devils you would be able to do that right?
Same situation here (provided the other player doesn't protect it by blocking with other creatures.)
I'm not sure, cause blue has bouncers and white has bounds with blockers as well, it shouldn't be that easy.
So if that was the case, if two 2/2 creatures happened to stumble upon another 4/4 creature while they were in that general area they should be able to try and kill it right? Still this can't happen because even though they are in that area they are so obsessed on finding the defending player or planeswalker that when one of them gets blocked by the 4/4 the other other one doesn't even have the choice to help it so they can kill the 4/4 together and leaves the other 2/2 to fend for itself while it keeps searching for the player, that's actual MTG, so unless the player uses a Band Together the other creature will leave the one to fend for itself against the bigger one.
If that isn't how you wanted it then its a fairly detrimental change that essentially kills utility creatures which are a significant part of the game.
Well, cards in your hand represent your knowledge at that time, if you know something well, then you could be casting in multiple times so it makes sense it that regard.
Well, when you are able to summon one kind of entity, why should you be able to summon another? (Provided you have the knowledge to cast it.)
Well, to be honest I don't think this would ever happen since MTG has had this rule since ever, so up until Planeswalker cards came into being, the only thing creatures could attack were the players only.
Well, if one player has a big creature it would make sense to be possible for it to get taken down by a swarm of smaller ones, just like blockers.
And this is exactly why I think this would never happen, if it were to happen to would make a lot of balancing issues and would totally mess up the structure.
True, I don't see it happening anytime soon as well, unless they come up with a new card type just like they did with the planeswalker so they won't mess tge balance of older formats.
If it's only one creature that it's attacking it wouldn't make much difference since the player could block and take the damage himself, but if there are more (Say you have for example four 1/1 tokens and the opponent has a 3/3.) then say you could declare attackers attacking that 3/3 creature, the opponent could block one of those four and the other three would deal their damage to the 3/3 which would pretty much clean the board by the time the combat is over.
But if your opponent has a 2/2 along with that 3/3 and you had your three 1/1 then one of those creatures could be blocked by the player and the other by the 2/2 and only the two 1/1 would result dealing their damage to the 3/3 which would result it surviving.
Planeswalker are also utility permanent essentially but still they can be attacked as normally.
The problem is not that, the problem is the balancing issues that would arise from the colors since some may get more benefits than others (Token decks for example would thrive, assuming the other player doesn't play with evasion.)
This is all ignoring the mountain of details that would need to be hammered out regarding evasion abilities.
But you could use yourself to protect your early game utility creatures by blocking, if that were the case.
Say for example you drop a Llanowar Elves first turn, then your opponent throws something with haste, you block it and take the damage for youtself, second turn you have Druid of the Cowl and yourself to either use for mana or protect your Llanowar Elves, for instance.
Agreed I just thrown an example, still in my opinion this should a probably a new card type, not creatures, something that won't affect older cards so they could continue to play as they used to, let's call the "Summon" for example since it's a term that has previously been used by MTG to describe creatures, this "Summon" thingy could simply act as a "Creature" with the additional ruling that it could attack other "Summons".
If a "Summon" for example has flying then it would read as "This summon can only be attacked or blocked by summons with either flying or reach".
That's the only way I could practically see it working so it won't ruin the balance of older formats.
A moment of thought brings up a second problem, besides evasion. Can a creature block if they are being attacked? Can they block the creature that is attacking them to get a block trigger? Is an attacked creature considered blocking? I'm sure there are even more questions/problems that would arise from such a change. Its interesting to think about at least.
My apologies then about that, still you wouldn't be able to defend your creatures from a lot of things, right? I mean if you 1 dropped something and got shocked, I understand that the creature thing could bring imbalance but that doesn't change the fact that early drop creatures are also vulnerable to early game removal as well.
I'm glad I could give some food for thought, still I need to pin down that doing this to current card type would bring disaster balance wise.
An interesting question, one which could also bring disadvantages besides advantages, for example let's say you have a triggered ability which triggers when a creature you control becomes blocking, then if your opponent happens to have a Gideon's Reproach at that time, it would also be vulnerable to that, if that were the case.
With Doomgape, as it has trample, 5 of the ten damage would be dealt to the five devils at the same time the remaining 5 would be dealt to the defending player. The devils would then die and their triggers would go off, giving them the option to deal 5 more damage and thus avenging their own death and their controllers 5-damaged face.
Bounce does not kill. It is using up a card to cost the opponent tempo. Kill spells like Murder is a straight card-for-card interaction, which is what makes Royal Assassin one of the few weenies still playable with said rule change as it can help “defend” itself, thus making it on par with that of Steel Leaf Champion.
Flavorwise, do realize legends are not the actual legends pulled from time, they are copies created upon summoning. Thus they are typically devoid of most emotion and want to keep eyes on the price of winning. They care not if their partner or brother dies because they are but copies... clones made to serve the player
Since there are 25 years of combat design without this in mind so many mechanics would need a retrofitting. On top more layers of combat rules complexity, all in the name of flavor.
Imagine trying to represent a complex board state visually. Which creatures are attacking which. Which attacked creatures are blocking what other creatures. It’s bad enough as it is to properly keep a complex board state figured out during combat.
Mechanically, what you get out adding all this is net neutral at best if not net negative.
You attack my creature, I choose my self to block. I still get the same choice, just in a different way.
Currently, you attack me, I choose to block or not. The end result doesn’t vary.
Now had this kind of mechanic been part of original design, that would be a whole another thing to ponder about.
I have to say that magic has an absolutely solid combat system. And I frankly don't care if it makes sense or not it works mechanically and that is all that matters to me...
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
And it turns out its incredible strong mechanic if you can at will force a small creature to just die with your bigger one.
The game loses strategy, as the other is rewarded even more.
its already a big advantage to be the attacker, so the games combat mechanics at least "try" to give the defending player some kind of options, which means, you can simply choose to not block.
If you cant choose to ignore an attacker, the games just a slaughter fest of who can keep the biggest stuff around, even more so than it already is in formats filled with removal spells ; if a creature can just kill other creatures, you need less removal and simply bigger and better creatures (especially first strike and deathtouch become really brutal).
Anyhow.
The idea to attack stuff is not bad, it just turns out, the game benefits a lot more from giving the defending player more options to increase the strategic depth.
Any power to the attacking player simply makes the "snowball" games even worse, in which a tiny advantage just growth itself into an ever increasing problem, which makes comebacks less likely (and the comebacks from bad draws is the most juicy experiences a player can have in magic, the seemingly unwinnable nightmare games that suddenly turn around and you still win ; any snowball mechanic stands in the way of that).
----
Mechanics like Provoke however (and the even more annoying lure can produce nice cards, but the combat system itself shouldnt change just to archive this).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
It's really not that bad, especially if you take aside the attackers with the attacked creature, then the controller of the attacked creature can just put the blocking creatures in the middle, just like in a regular game.
Except that just like a creature the player could only (normally) block one creature, which means that if your opponent attacks with a swarm your creature, he could actually do damage to it.
I haven't really played that much Yugioh, but from what I've recall you can't block in Yugioh, so your creatures are pretty much defenseless.
Provoke doesn't allow you to attack creatures, it simply forces them to block with said creature, which means that you can't use other creatures to block thus protecting the creature with provoke.