Quote from FirstSwordOfBant »Yeah, not being able to attack an opposing "army" with most of your "army"(creatures), but with some of them (your new creatures, but not really) should be much less confusing than the current, consistent way of dealing with combat.
Quote from FirstSwordOfBant »We're either completely talking past each other, or you're trolling hard. Either way, I'm out of this, since I don' see this discussion coming to any constructive result.
Quote from Perodequeso »Being able to attack Planeswalkers with creatures makes sense from a mechanical and lore perspective.
Quote from Perodequeso »In a ground based war, you send in the troops.
Quote from Perodequeso »The defensive position chooses to either engage or retreat.
Quote from Perodequeso »Magic’s combat system captures this perfectly well. If you are the attacking force and you wish to stop a retreating force, you need ranged weapons, hence removal spells.
Quote from Perodequeso »When an army amasses on the battlefield to attack, they don’t attack individual combatants
Quote from Perodequeso »in that moment the defending army decides how to respond.
Quote from Perodequeso »Active player yells “charge” and sends in the troops(attacking)
Quote from Perodequeso »If you want your predator drone to drop a bomb on my general, that’s not a massive, infantry attack
Quote from Perodequeso »Watch any movie depicting a bronze age, iron age, medieval, or Napoleonic battle. You’ll never see an amassed force targeting individual soldiers in a charge
Quote from Perodequeso »except for high value targets.
Quote from Perodequeso »But the targeting of high value targets is easily represented by either spells or activated abilities. Even archers and infantry gunners(smooth bore musket types) don’t target, they engage in volley fire. Artillery pieces don’t target individuals, they target areas or fortifications.
Quote from Perodequeso »Either way I’ll leave you be, WOTC will not likely go in the direction you’re suggesting so this entire discussion just idle banter.
Quote from Perodequeso »So if your idea, or one like it, could work, without breaking the game, WOTC designers would explore it.
Quote from Perodequeso »If you want people to be less negative about your idea spent dozens of hours play-testing it in multiple formats. Work out odd and troublesome interactions. Have a third party play-test it to find stuff you may have missed, take notes and then present your findings. Science it out then get back to us.
Quote from Perodequeso »People come to these forums all they time with their purposed “fixes” for the game, most of which stem from either a newness to the game or a lack of understanding of the game’s design rules.
Quote from Perodequeso »Most often these ideas are not well received. A large part of the Salvation community is very well versed in the game’s design, rules, and complexity nuance.
Quote from Perodequeso »Magic rules are like scientific peer review, better to be cautious and not screw it up than it is to accept something that needs retroactive fixing(WOTC already screws this up enough as it is).
Quote from runecrow »But it also makes sense that that creature should be able to run away from your attackers thus evading the attackers.
Quote from runecrow »But then, what if your attackers are cats attacking a dinosaur? That doesn't make sense.
Quote from runecrow »How does a wolf even do damage to a Phyrexian Dreadnaught? Doesn't make sense.
Quote from runecrow »And once my creature has hit your planeswalker, why is it having to go through defenders on the next turn all over again? Shouldn't he be right there on the planeswalker, trashing him continually? It makes no sense.
Quote from runecrow »But it makes perfect sense in the context of the rules themselves. That is the only "sense" that can be reasonably applied to form a meaningful argument. As for creatures, it makes sense they can't attack other creatures because the rules don't allow it.
Quote from runecrow »I have no idea why Garfield decided that in his game creatures can't attack other creatures, but it made sense to him from a mechanical point of view, and so it makes sense if you want to play the game he designed.
Quote from italofoca »If creatures could attack each other, the players with the biggest creature can attack and convert the board advantage into a bigget board advantage.[/qute]
Still there is a thing in magic which called blocking, being able to protect your creatures by blocking the attacking creature.
[quote from="italofoca »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=55"]Magic combat is designed so that board advantage only lets you attack the opponent life total which is most of the time is inconsequential to combat.
Quote from italofoca »This allow the player who is behind to catch up.
Quote from italofoca »The scenario of beign far behind on board, getting attacked until you are one turn away from losing and eventually turning the game around is far more common in mtg then in any other CG for this reason.
Quote from italofoca »PWs are exceptional high risk, high reward cards. By allowing creatures to be attacked like pws you would actually remove options from the game by forcing all cards to behave like this.
Quote from italofoca »I understand that allowing you to block for your creatures would limit this snow ballness. But the scenario where you block for your creature is exactly like choosing to not block a attack, this is inconsequential.
Quote from italofoca »This change would only impact the game when one player is so ahead he decides to attack with two creatures - and all this change would do is give a advantage to the player who is ahead.
Quote from italofoca »I think a game like this, where you can target creatures and act as blocker could be very interesting but the whole combat mechanics would be redesigned to accomodate this. It would be a totally different game.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »No, attacking other creatures does not make sense. You would need to restructure the whole game. Or play Pokemon or Yughio.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »If you want to fix the issue that you see then you would need to get rid of planeswalkers.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »Planeswalkers are the imbalance in the game. They are sorcery's plus enchantments with a bonus spell as the ultimate. But they aren't going away. They put a marketing face on the company that can sell more supplemental products such as card sleeves, binders and T-shirts. There is too much money to be made to get rid of planeswalkers.
Quote from SwordSkill »
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.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »The part in my post about planeswalkers is related because you can attack planeswalkers with creatures to kill them. Which is the subject of your thread.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »Other games you can attack creatures. In this game you can't.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »Your asking for a huge game modification.
Quote from SpeedGrapher »You can try creating a sub-variant of the game. Where you attack creatures with creatures. See if you can get people to play with you.
Quote from Sepulcra »On the other hand, it saddens me that "Creatures: The Gathering" is a more fitting name for the game nowadays. I wish I had more options for my instants and sorceries, generic "1R Sorcery Deal 3 + expansion mechanic" and "3U Draw 2 + expansion mechanic" got old pretty quick.