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.
Quote from Perodequeso » The lesson we all learned it that- for some people certain things will be un-intuitive no matter what
Quote from Perodequeso »when you make a correction for one group a different group is then in the same position.
Quote from Perodequeso »The best answer is to make it so that the most amount of people can comprehend what you're trying to put forth and for the rest you just have to use baby steps.
Quote from Perodequeso »Not all new players want to attack creatures with creatures, but yes many do.
Quote from Perodequeso »Once you explain the simple rule that that's not how Magic works you move on.
Quote from Perodequeso »The game action of taking cards off the top of your deck and putting them into your discard pile is referred to as "Milling" or being "Milled", that's not very intuitive terminology
Quote from Perodequeso »Magic is a game space, not real life, not every thing needs to function like a perfect analog in the real world.
Quote from Perodequeso »You explain the rule to people and after a time they get it
Quote from Perodequeso »Magic is the most complex game(from a rules perspective) and it can be overwhelming for new players but, that's why we're patient and try to teach them at every opportunity we have.
Quote from Perodequeso »You purposed fix would add more issues that it would solve
Quote from Perodequeso »the game is too old and too deep to make the kind of changes you're asking
Quote from Perodequeso »You cannot turn the game into something it's not, especially if the proprietors have no desire to do such.
Quote from Perodequeso »When people have said that Pokemon and Yugio systems have the ability for creatures to attack creatures you counter with "but in those systems you cannot block the attack, Magic has a system of being able to block the attack"
Quote from Perodequeso »so you have no desire to change those systems to include blocking.
Quote from Perodequeso »Different games have different rules, if a game isn't your bag play another one.
Quote from Perodequeso »Do you really think, if we use your concept of a new card type that can attack each other, that behave like a creature but isn't a creature
Quote from Perodequeso »will n ot be confusing for new players?
Quote from Perodequeso »"We have these creatures, they can attack players and planeswalkers, and they can block. We have these summons that can attack players, planes walkers, and each other and they can block"-new player "why aren't they just the same thing?"
Quote from Perodequeso »"Let me explain 25 years of Magic design to you" new player"ZZZZZZZZZZ".
Quote from Perodequeso »You claim to have play tested your idea, fine. But I'll wager you play tested with kid gloves on. You and your play group tested it in a manner to make it work, to prove it's feasible. But did you propose it to a third party?
Quote from Perodequeso »but WOTC will never implement such a sweeping change to the game
Quote from Perodequeso »at this point because you'd literally turn Magic into another game altogether.
Quote from Perodequeso »I have a friend(been playing since 2001) who thinks Planeswalkers do damage to the creatures that attack them.
Quote from Perodequeso »...and was even more confused when Magic had the old PLaneswalker rule.
Quote from Perodequeso »I have yet another friend who couldn't grasp that Equipment were not Auras and would get infinitely frustrated that they stayed on the battlefield, he's still bitter about it to this day.
Quote from Perodequeso »Instead of trying to convince "us" that WOTC needs to implement your idea why not just create a new format(in the appropriate threads) and see how it goes. I do that a lot, I love creating new formats, but I don't desire to change the basic game.
I'd argue that most new players assume that you can attack creatures, especially when they see that you can do the same with planeswalkers, why? Because it makes sense, right?
If a unit can comprehend the command to attack on a certain piece, why it wouldn't comprehend it for another?
That's how intuitive design works.
Then tell me a game where you can attack units but are also able to protect them by using your other units?
Because it will mess up the balance of older cards maybe? Why would they need to be the same thing?
Quote from SwordSkill »
Well as a matter of fact we have been doing this for over 5 years, since it made most sense to my fellow pupils, and were negative on the idea of using the actual rules since they claim that it doesn't make sense.
As a result we had to ban several cards (Especially cards who dealt with evasion, for example ublockability was banned since it was used as one turn free removal.)
Still the amount of time doesn't matter, what matters is that by making the game more intuitive, it becomes more friendly to newcomers, not to mention that having to think what underlings you have to protect adds an additional layer of strategy.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Technically the same is true for lands (and artifacts as you stated) as units can attack those as well.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Planeswalkers being able to be attacked also makes sense flavorwise as you are are planeswalker yourself
Quote from Kamino_Taka »and when you cast a planeswalker in flavor you basically just ask him to do things for you, hence loyalty.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »With creatures thats different as they do lorewise nothing and are just copies of some entity you know of.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Thats how good design works if you only explain it once it should be understood intuitive design works without the need for an explanation and on that part both systems the real and the proposed are technically unintuitive.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Technically Hearthstone (taunt) and Kaijudo/Duel masters(blocker) does this
Quote from Kamino_Taka »They don't need to be but if you just add another type it wouldn't solve your main Issue now would it?
Quote from Kamino_Taka »In addition it would be even more unintuitive for the reason of similarity so it would actually increase your problem.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Unifying stuff tend to clean up misunderstandings and make it more streamlined (see interrupts becoming instants , combining Poly/Mono/Cont. Artifacts into one).
Quote from Kamino_Taka »I also believe it would diminish choices since it would lead to the answer to any problem being play the better creature/summon which would also lead to less different cards being played.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »I also think that board state overview gets more complicated while not getting that much more depth if any.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Also I have some questions about how you resolve certain scenarios.
Like Player 1 Attacks Player 2'a Creature A with his Creature X and 2's B with his Z. Now can Player 2 Just block X with B and Z with A? Or does a creature being attacked count as blocking creature even though it's not blocking it's just beeing attacked.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »P.s. If thats flavor/intuitive wise the logical thing wouldn't it also be logical that the player can block creatures as well? As every commander has the ability to take a hit if its for the greater good?
Quote from HugSeal »Could you please explain this notion further?
Quote from HugSeal »Having the rules set up so you have to house-ban a bunch of cards makes the game more intuitive?
Quote from HugSeal »I just don't see how it is intuitive to play the game in a way that makes it very unbalanced and where you have to look to another set of bans for it to be playable?
Quote from HugSeal »I also thought you advocated for having a new kind of creature and keep the opld ones working as they already do? How does that make the game more intuitive?
Quote from The Fluff »Soltari Guerrillas could "attack" other creatures, provided the opponent has no shadow creatures to block it.
However, every creature attacking other creatures becoming the norm would totally wreck the established combat sytem of the game. This would turn into another game entirely.
Quote from Xeruh »I don't think Planeswalkers are remotely the same either because you can attack them if you need to.