As menationed before, this is already the case in the current game without the premise anyway.
It wouldn't be honest to put the fault for that on the premise alone when we both know it already happens (premise or not.)
Assuming this is true the premise will only add rules not changing anything assuming this is false the premise will turn that into a problem. So why add the premise?
And without the premise the first player doesn't have that big of an advantage he would if we had the premise. And since utility creatures aren't doubly vunrable they will see play without the premise, with the premise they will be played less, but esp. the second player would still need removal anyways.
Quote from Swordskill »
No where was stated that this was about fixing the whole magic to begin with. All that was being said what to make it more intuitive in this particular aspect.
I also never said its about fixing the whole of magic I said fixing anything and making it more intuitive by changing rules is fixing it if you deemed it a problem, furthermore you said stuff about it fixing the "removal froblem" which it doesn't do IMO.
Quote from Swordskill »
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,
Quote from Swordskill »
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.
Quote from Swordskill »
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.
Edit:
Quote from Swordskill »
That's good and all but the entire scenario falls apart the moment you realize that you can pretty much make the exact game choices as a regular game of magic.
Except it isn't since playing utility creatures isnt a downside with the current rules it is though with the premise
Quote from Swordskill »
Because to tell you the truth it was kind of hard to make sense out of it
This is one of the easier ways to put it where you dont have to write stuff out, that is also a downside to the premise it makes things more convoluted.
Quote from Swordskill »
The fact that you tend to play aggro and even willing to sacrifice creatures just to deal a small amount of damage (as shown in the previous more comprehensive example.) doesn't mean that everyone does.
If you are playing aggro with the premise this is the way to complete the games objective of killing your opponent, sure you deal only little damage at a time but you prevent your opponent from getting his foot in the game.
Yes this only applies to aggro vs. aggro but you know if you are playing aggro and the field is spread out evenly with 1/3 aggro 1/3 control and 1/3 combo. Then 1/3 games would look like that and that would be detrimental.
EditEdit:
Yeah I'm done It seems like we are talking the same bulletpoints over and over again.
I think Cockatrice has no rules enforcement so you can use it as a testing ground for your premise if you need to test it online with some friends, good luck and have fun.
the missing 1/1 was my mistake. But even then it doesnt change much that in most states the first player is at an huge advantage. You wouldn't choose an option that only leads to a worse game state for you, and many options lead to the same gamestate anyway.
Lets play through a couple options again:
Legend
TXA = Turn X Player A
TXA(1) = Turn X Player A Outcome 1
(1)TXA = Turn X Player A Starting from Outcome (1) of the previous turn.
Turn Actions
+AX = A plays a X/X for X
A1 -> B1 A attacks B's 1/1 with his 1/1
A1 -> B1 / B A attacks B's 1/1 but B blocks face
A1-> B1 /B2 B blocks with his 2/2
TXA ~ TYA Game States are directly comparable (same options just with different creatures -> leads to same game states -> loop)
A20(1,2,3) B20 ()= Game State after turn A has 20 life a 1/1 a 2/2 and a 3/3 B has 20 life and no creatures.
T1A: +A1
A20(1) B20()
T1B: +B1
A20(1) B20 (1)
T2A(1): +A2
A1 -> B1 / B or A1 -> B
A20 (1,2) B19(1)
T2A(2):+A2
A1 -> B1 or A1 -> B /B1
A20(2) B20() ~ A20(1) B20()
T2A(2)~T1A
(1)T2B: +B2 (No attacks since only worse game state if he does)
A20(2,1) B19(2,1)
T3A(1): +A3
A2 -> B1/B or A2 -> B or A2 -> B
A1 -> B1/B2 A1 -> B/B2 A1 -> B1/B2
A20(3,2) B17 (1,2)
T3A(2): +A3
A2 -> B1/B2 or A2 -> B2 or A2 -> B /B2
A1 -> B1/B A1 -> B1/B A1 -> B
A20(3,1) B18(1)
T3A(3): +A3
A2 -> B2 or at least 4 different attacking/blocking Schemes
A1 -> B1
A20(3)B19() ~ A20(2)B20() ~ A20(1)B20()
T3A(3)~T2A(2)~T1A
T3A(4): +A3
A2 -> B1/B or A2 -> B
A20(3,2,1) B17(2,1) likely ~T2A(2).
(1)T3B: +B3 All Attacks will worsen your game state A20(3,2) B17 (1,2,3)
(2)T3B: +B3 All Attacks will worsen your game state A20(3,1) B18(3,1) ~ T2B
(3)T3B: +B3 No Attacks Possible A20(3)B19(3) ~ T1B
(4)T3B: +B3 All Attacks will worsen your game state A20(3,2,1) B17 (3,2,1) likely~T2B.
I will stop here, not only will many options just lead to the same game states thus not really gaining strategic depth but an illusion of choice. In this Hypothetical Many game states are similar to each other thus bringing B in the similar situations over and over and in this there is just 1 or at most 2 ways that might lead to a player B win. Many that Lead to Player A win even the loop where A doesn't do damage leads to A winning due to decking.
I mean sure this is just a hypothetical situation and there are things like two for ones , I havent tried the go wide strategies fully either but in how far ive simulated that it doesnt seem that much better for player B either.
But overall the things you say it fixes are IMO not worth it for all the things you break while doing so, and all the changes that would be needed to fix it (Evasion, abilities like First strike, deathtouch and haste,Rules Addage, possibly a new type) would make the game into a different game, even moreso than the 6th edition rule changes, planeswalkers and the several legendary rule changes.
That is not to say that if you like playing this way you should stop doing so, but the current premise fixes nothing gameplaywise but introduces a host of problems.
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face, and can only block one each combat
4. The new card type can block creatures and the new type
Quote from Swordskill »
Could you elaborate on that? What you think is the "correct" option? Would I be right to assume that you think that the "correct" option would be to keep attacking?
I can not elaborate that in specific sitioations and no its not always attacking. In general you discard options that lead to nothing or even to a loss. You actually provided an example with the 6/6 and the 7 1/1s technically you have multiple options but your only "real" option is to kill it.
This is already happening even without the new card type. Once you have the biggest creature (provided there are no other effects.) there is no reason not to attack.
In this case however if you think that you can simply leave openings and expect your summons to survive while you have left them unintended, you are in for a big surprise.
With or without premise if you have the biggest creature (without anything else) the best option is to attack in most cases. The thing that changes with premise is that you would almost always attack their biggest creature and almost always they would block with face, because otherwise you can't build up a board presence that easily. The end result would be the same as if you couldn't do that in a lot of cases, and the options added (Face blocking and New type attacking) would more often than not be the only correct option to chose.
Could you present an example that shows the huge advantage the player has with this concept?
Turn 1 Player A Plays a 1/1
Turn 1 Player B Plays a 1/1
Turn 2 A Plays a 2/2 and Attacks B's 1/1 with his own 1/1 B Blocks with face B 19 / A 20
Turn 2 B Plays a 2/2 can't attack with his 1/1 since A has a 2/2 Blocker
Turn 3 A Plays a 3/3 and Attacks B's 1/1 with his 1/1 and his 2/2 B blocks 1/1 with his 2/2 and 2/2 with Face B 17/ A 20 A has a 2/2 and a 3/3 B has a 2/2
Turn 3 B Plays a 3/3 can't attack with his 2/2 since the opponent has a 3/3 blocker.
Rinse and Repeat
In that scenario The second player is more desperate for removal than usual since otherwise he is always on the backfoot.
Lets see what changes if Turn 3 B doesn't Play a 3/3 but removes the opponents 3/3
Turn 3 B Kills A's 3/3 and attacks A's 2/2 with his own A blocks with face A 18 B 17 A has 2/2 B has 2/2.
Turn 4 A Plays a 4/4 and attacks B's 2/2 with his 2/2 B Blocks face A 18 B 15 A has a 4/4 and a 2/2 B has a 2/2.
Turn 4 B Plays a 4/4 And can't attack since A has a 4/4 blocker.
Rinse and repeat.
So even with just removal B is still on the backfoot so he needs removal + creature.
Lets start back with Turn 3 B
Turn 3 B Kills A's 3/3 plays a 1/1 and attacks A's 2/2 with his own A blocks with face A 18 B 17 A has 2/2 and B has a 2/2 and a 1/1.
Turn 4 A Plays a 4/4 and attacks B's 2/2 with his own B blocks with face A 18 B 15 A has a 2/2 and a 4/4 B has a 2/2 and a 1/1.
Turn 4 B Plays a 4/4 and can't attack with his 2/2 or 1/1 since A could just east one up with his 4/4. A has a 4/4 and a 2/2. B has a 4/4 a 2/2 and a 1/1.
Turn 5 A Plays a 5/5 and attacks B's 2/2 with his 2/2 and his 4/4 B blocks 4/4 with his own and either let the 2/2s kill each other or block face.
So either A 18 B 13 With A(5/5 , 2/2) B(2/2, 1/1) or A 18 B 15 A(5/5) B (1/1) In both cases its back to rinse and repeat.
So it becomes more valuable to be on or above curve than before and harder to combe back from if thats the case.
Since I adhere to Gameplay/function > Flavor all the time (since it is a game first and a story/universe second) That discussion for me is largely irellevant at least for now. (In case they can't harmonize always go with function)
The same can be said about Gameplay>Function and intuitiveness by the way. Just because something is more intuitive does not make it better (Gameplaywise) by default.
That the artifact does not have the ability to comprehend commands such as attacking, leaving and/or blocking, in this particular context.
Why does it not have that we are in a magical world where crows can wield swords?
Menace is just the name of an ability and since there is limited space on a card it is always a benefit of naming common abilities to save space, and it lets that ability be referenced more easily. SeeRayami, First of the Fallen for that.
Except when it doesn't since even in the novels summoned units are able to be commanded to strafe towards another summoned unit, so it doesn't even make sense in it's own concept.
The game came bevore the novels so technically its the novels which did it wrong :D.
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face, and can only block one each combat 4. The new card type can block creatures and the new type
A. More Options also don't neccesairly increase strategic depth, thats what I meant in an earlier post with if you have multiple options but only one is the obvious correct one you technically have more options but realistically only have one. And thats what I think the new type will do even if a player can only block one new type at a time.
B.In addition to that the player being able to block just one creature still doesn't help the with the premise added effect of the player going first gaining another huge advantage, in fact I think it actually increases that advantage more, since there is more incentive in keeping the opponents board small.
C. Not all evasion is created equal, it's true that with the premise flying (probably) becomes way to strong and menace would also get a boost, but trample intimidate and fear would probably be fine, and the not being able to be blocked by players would indeed be good but would also diminish the first player advantage a bit.
I wouldn't though to someone who says that a crow bearing a shield and a warhammer, just because this particular thing (artifact cards don't have toughness on them) doesn't make sense, don't you think?
What is the difference between the artifact thing and the crow thing though?
And the addage of not figuring out what and what doesnt make sense is rather hard to apply to fiction in general and games especially since you always have to have a certain degree of suspension of belief. As long as the "rules of the (fictional) universe" are uniform, it makes sense within that universe. Also that comparison with technology doesn't sit well with me since games are human made problems, and technology is human made solutions.
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face.
Can the new card type block creatures? Forgot to put that in there but I didn't ask.
A.Consequences from it being a special card type is the need for specialized removal so while it doesn't affect the older cards directly it does so indirektly making regular removal worse with it not being able to target the new card type. Or you need to change the rules so it can target those as well effectively errataing alot of cards (Technically this has been done already with the addition of planeswalkers and spells that target players but that was confusing for newer players which is why they now say specifically if it can target planeswalkers)
(Some removal stays the same though like VindicateBoomerang etc.)
The same is true for Pump spells, Auras, and Equipments.
I think if you wanna implement that an ability would be the preferred way to go.
B.The consequences of it being able to be blocked by face also makes them being able to be attacked useless since you can always block it with your face essentially making it the same as the player being attacked and that player simply not blocking.
So unless some of the new type have something like can't be blocked by players you are not increasing the design space or changing up the gameplay but you add rules nonetheless.
Quote from SwordSkill »
Actually removals would still be useful pieces to keep in deck since in a crowded board this would still practically be the way to get rid of the opponent's advantage, but they wouldn't be as necessary to have in so large quantities as now.
It just would give more freedom of choice to the player to decide whether he wants to put a removal or instead put a card that fits into the deck theme.
C.What difference does the premise actually make in that decision how does it lower the amount of needed removal (won't go into the theme thing for now)
with premise if you want to save a summon you can always just block with face if it is attacked without you can always just not block with the creature.
In the worst case you need to have more specialised removal in the best case you need the same amount (See A)
Quote from SwordSkill »
Well this is not about making a big change, but rather for making the game more intuitive as well as more strategic so there is no need for newer players to keep reminded that they can't attack opposition troops directly, and the additional layer of having to think how you can protect your troops from enemy troops adds an additional strategic layer since you can't expect to leave your utility units unattended and expect them to survive, this is not how actual combat works. [...] You would still be able to attack players and planeswalkers along with other summons.
So when you find an opening to opponent's defenses you could take out their utility summons in order to diminish his advantage.
D.(Not touching the intuivenes and the actual combat thing thing for now) How is it making it more stategic though since you can block with face so you can actually leave utility units unattended. (See B)
Quote from SwordSkill »
Indeed there would need to be a short period of adjustment, until the transition finishes, but after that there will only be one card type that would act as battle units. (Besides of course planeswalkers.)
E. This would change the gameplay of Eternal formats since they either wouldn't get new creatures and had to change to the Summons/Battle Units.
Quote from SwordSkill »
Of course it would be more complicated. When you also have to think how you can protect your own troops, as well as having to think how you can go past enemies defenses, you will soon realize that you would need more strategic skill than simply wait to draw the removal.
F. The things I said in B also apply here, especially the thing that complexity =/= strategic depth. In addition to that having removal and deciding when/if to use it is also a strategic decision sure when you need to draw it to use it that is different but with the premise the same thing happens, even If you remove the blocking with face thing since you still need to draw /have a creature that can actually kill the utility creature.
Quote from SwordSkill" »
Well, deep strategical thinking is not fitted for everyone, I guess.
See B and also try not to be so condescending.
The only time I will adress the flavor intuitivenes for now is to make Perodequeso a bit clearer.
Quote from SwordSkill" »
I can't understand why you think that a magical crow wouldn't be able to wield a magical shield along with a magical hammer? // this is not how actual combat works.
This is the thing Perodequeso is talking about, you want to add realism to an inherently unrealistic game and for him (and me) there are few if any upsides and plenty of downsides. So for us it makes no sense in pressing it into the rules.
One other thing that was also discussed was the implementation of different "areas" to where summons could be send, which means that the player could also command them as a turn based action to "leave" the area in order to escape potential combat.
I am hesistant to add this to your suggestions list due to the fact that for now it doesn't seem clearly defined as of now.
1. It could only attack other objects of the same card type, meaning that if it were to be a summon, it would be able to only attack other summons.
To Make it easier for myself so that we can discuss one "solution" at a time let me try to summarize the thing you like to see implemented. If it's incomplete or wrong please correct me.
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack creatures, the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face.
Is this correct?
Also for now lets just discuss the gameplay consequences (for now) , as the intuivenes and flavor are a different non gameplay related discussion.
Secondly, adding more choices leading to "diminishing" choices is kind of an oximoron don't you think?
No adding more choices is a thing that can lead to diminishing choices, If Choice A is best in any situation why ywould you chose another thing if every creature acts as removal the likelyhood of running removal is lessened because why would you run that when you can run a creature that does that and more?
The very fact that you think that in heartstone you can protect your creatures, means that you haven't completely comprehend the concept.
Hearthstone wasn't the only thing i've mentioned and i comprehend the concept, hearthstone made taunts to get rid of the downsides of the concept of creatures being attackable (Bigger creatures = almost always better) by introducing taunt, Kaijudo by introducing blockers (which comes closer to your implementation as blockers are the only ones that can block attacks), and you want to use magics blocker system to combat the downsides but as i stated before that leads to more downsides and rules changes needed confusing boards. There is a reason not many games use that kind of system, and changing a game to fit a system is usually the wrong approach.
There will be a lot of situations where attacking won't be an answer as there would be a blockers in your way, just like regular magic, not at best a couple of creatures with taunt.So having to think of ways to protect your underlings also adds a strategic value, because simply holding back will not only be enough, but you would also have to hold back in order have blockers to protect your other troops.
The simple fact that the first player who plays a creature is in that much more of a powerful situation than before the change is the reason why that will rarely be the case.
If Player A plays the first creature player B can't play a smaller creature since Player A will just kill it, so he either needs to A play the bigger creature while Player A can play more creatures and just kill the bigger creature woth more creatures once it's out or player B needs removal. So the only thing a change like this does is limit what people can do during their turns, and making going first into even more of an advantage at worst and being the same that you need removal anyways at best. Thus not solving the removal issue, and having less choice in the process.
Attacking is not an answer to everything in magic games, especially when faced with even more options, if nothing else, you would see players holding of creatures in order to protect others, so pretty much the exact opposite actually happens from what you predicted.
How will the scenario I described be resolved?
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.
No it isn't considered blocking, and yes they can, block each other, to swap combat situations, and this is why you would more often that not players holding back since they will soon realize that attacking is not the answer to everything as they though it is.
So it basically leads to stalemates as well if the player with the first creature somehow looses his advantage big time, stalemates where nothing happens is usually a thing you try to avoid in games, since it leads to sloggy games with slow pace and more luck, thing of games where both players are in top deck mode, usually not the most exiting games of magic you've played right?
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?
Exactly, and that's why it was stated that players could block as well in order to take the damage instead.
So you basically want the same game as it is right now but with rules added for what reason?
If you can block with your face anyway what makes it different from the current situation? If you don't want your creature to die you block with your face having the same result of just not blocking it in the first place. Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?
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?
Technically the same is true for lands (and artifacts as you stated) as units can attack those as well.
Planeswalkers being able to be attacked also makes sense flavorwise as you are are planeswalker yourself and when you cast a planeswalker in flavor you basically just ask him to do things for you, hence loyalty. With creatures thats different as they do lorewise nothing and are just copies of some entity you know of.
That's how intuitive design works.
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.
Then tell me a game where you can attack units but are also able to protect them by using your other units?
Technically Hearthstone (taunt) and Kaijudo/Duel masters(blocker) does this, in the most roundabout way pokemon does this as well. But seeing how those are implemented and how few there are like that i assume that there are some big balancing issues with that.
Because it will mess up the balance of older cards maybe? Why would they need to be the same thing?
They don't need to be but if you just add another type it wouldn't solve your main Issue now would it? In addition it would be even more unintuitive for the reason of similarity so it would actually increase your problem. Unifying stuff tend to clean up misunderstandings and make it more streamlined (see interrupts becoming instants , combining Poly/Mono/Cont. Artifacts into one).
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.
I also think that board state overview gets more complicated while not getting that much more depth if any.
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.
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?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Assuming this is true the premise will only add rules not changing anything assuming this is false the premise will turn that into a problem. So why add the premise?
And without the premise the first player doesn't have that big of an advantage he would if we had the premise. And since utility creatures aren't doubly vunrable they will see play without the premise, with the premise they will be played less, but esp. the second player would still need removal anyways.
I also never said its about fixing the whole of magic I said fixing anything and making it more intuitive by changing rules is fixing it if you deemed it a problem, furthermore you said stuff about it fixing the "removal froblem" which it doesn't do IMO.
Edit:
Except it isn't since playing utility creatures isnt a downside with the current rules it is though with the premise
This is one of the easier ways to put it where you dont have to write stuff out, that is also a downside to the premise it makes things more convoluted.
If you are playing aggro with the premise this is the way to complete the games objective of killing your opponent, sure you deal only little damage at a time but you prevent your opponent from getting his foot in the game.
Yes this only applies to aggro vs. aggro but you know if you are playing aggro and the field is spread out evenly with 1/3 aggro 1/3 control and 1/3 combo. Then 1/3 games would look like that and that would be detrimental.
EditEdit:
Yeah I'm done It seems like we are talking the same bulletpoints over and over again.
I think Cockatrice has no rules enforcement so you can use it as a testing ground for your premise if you need to test it online with some friends, good luck and have fun.
Lets play through a couple options again:
Legend
TXA = Turn X Player A
TXA(1) = Turn X Player A Outcome 1
(1)TXA = Turn X Player A Starting from Outcome (1) of the previous turn.
Turn Actions
+AX = A plays a X/X for X
A1 -> B1 A attacks B's 1/1 with his 1/1
A1 -> B1 / B A attacks B's 1/1 but B blocks face
A1-> B1 /B2 B blocks with his 2/2
TXA ~ TYA Game States are directly comparable (same options just with different creatures -> leads to same game states -> loop)
A20(1,2,3) B20 ()= Game State after turn A has 20 life a 1/1 a 2/2 and a 3/3 B has 20 life and no creatures.
T1A: +A1
A20(1) B20()
T1B: +B1
A20(1) B20 (1)
T2A(1): +A2
A1 -> B1 / B or A1 -> B
A20 (1,2) B19(1)
T2A(2):+A2
A1 -> B1 or A1 -> B /B1
A20(2) B20() ~ A20(1) B20()
T2A(2)~T1A
(1)T2B: +B2 (No attacks since only worse game state if he does)
A20(2,1) B19(2,1)
T3A(1): +A3
A2 -> B1/B or A2 -> B or A2 -> B
A1 -> B1/B2 A1 -> B/B2 A1 -> B1/B2
A20(3,2) B17 (1,2)
T3A(2): +A3
A2 -> B1/B2 or A2 -> B2 or A2 -> B /B2
A1 -> B1/B A1 -> B1/B A1 -> B
A20(3,1) B18(1)
T3A(3): +A3
A2 -> B2 or at least 4 different attacking/blocking Schemes
A1 -> B1
A20(3)B19() ~ A20(2)B20() ~ A20(1)B20()
T3A(3)~T2A(2)~T1A
T3A(4): +A3
A2 -> B1/B or A2 -> B
A20(3,2,1) B17(2,1) likely ~T2A(2).
(1)T3B: +B3 All Attacks will worsen your game state A20(3,2) B17 (1,2,3)
(2)T3B: +B3 All Attacks will worsen your game state A20(3,1) B18(3,1) ~ T2B
(3)T3B: +B3 No Attacks Possible A20(3)B19(3) ~ T1B
(4)T3B: +B3 All Attacks will worsen your game state A20(3,2,1) B17 (3,2,1) likely~T2B.
I will stop here, not only will many options just lead to the same game states thus not really gaining strategic depth but an illusion of choice. In this Hypothetical Many game states are similar to each other thus bringing B in the similar situations over and over and in this there is just 1 or at most 2 ways that might lead to a player B win. Many that Lead to Player A win even the loop where A doesn't do damage leads to A winning due to decking.
I mean sure this is just a hypothetical situation and there are things like two for ones , I havent tried the go wide strategies fully either but in how far ive simulated that it doesnt seem that much better for player B either.
But overall the things you say it fixes are IMO not worth it for all the things you break while doing so, and all the changes that would be needed to fix it (Evasion, abilities like First strike, deathtouch and haste,Rules Addage, possibly a new type) would make the game into a different game, even moreso than the 6th edition rule changes, planeswalkers and the several legendary rule changes.
That is not to say that if you like playing this way you should stop doing so, but the current premise fixes nothing gameplaywise but introduces a host of problems.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face, and can only block one each combat
4. The new card type can block creatures and the new type
I can not elaborate that in specific sitioations and no its not always attacking. In general you discard options that lead to nothing or even to a loss. You actually provided an example with the 6/6 and the 7 1/1s technically you have multiple options but your only "real" option is to kill it.
With or without premise if you have the biggest creature (without anything else) the best option is to attack in most cases. The thing that changes with premise is that you would almost always attack their biggest creature and almost always they would block with face, because otherwise you can't build up a board presence that easily. The end result would be the same as if you couldn't do that in a lot of cases, and the options added (Face blocking and New type attacking) would more often than not be the only correct option to chose.
Turn 1 Player A Plays a 1/1
Turn 1 Player B Plays a 1/1
Turn 2 A Plays a 2/2 and Attacks B's 1/1 with his own 1/1 B Blocks with face B 19 / A 20
Turn 2 B Plays a 2/2 can't attack with his 1/1 since A has a 2/2 Blocker
Turn 3 A Plays a 3/3 and Attacks B's 1/1 with his 1/1 and his 2/2 B blocks 1/1 with his 2/2 and 2/2 with Face B 17/ A 20 A has a 2/2 and a 3/3 B has a 2/2
Turn 3 B Plays a 3/3 can't attack with his 2/2 since the opponent has a 3/3 blocker.
Rinse and Repeat
In that scenario The second player is more desperate for removal than usual since otherwise he is always on the backfoot.
Lets see what changes if Turn 3 B doesn't Play a 3/3 but removes the opponents 3/3
Turn 3 B Kills A's 3/3 and attacks A's 2/2 with his own A blocks with face A 18 B 17 A has 2/2 B has 2/2.
Turn 4 A Plays a 4/4 and attacks B's 2/2 with his 2/2 B Blocks face A 18 B 15 A has a 4/4 and a 2/2 B has a 2/2.
Turn 4 B Plays a 4/4 And can't attack since A has a 4/4 blocker.
Rinse and repeat.
So even with just removal B is still on the backfoot so he needs removal + creature.
Lets start back with Turn 3 B
Turn 3 B Kills A's 3/3 plays a 1/1 and attacks A's 2/2 with his own A blocks with face A 18 B 17 A has 2/2 and B has a 2/2 and a 1/1.
Turn 4 A Plays a 4/4 and attacks B's 2/2 with his own B blocks with face A 18 B 15 A has a 2/2 and a 4/4 B has a 2/2 and a 1/1.
Turn 4 B Plays a 4/4 and can't attack with his 2/2 or 1/1 since A could just east one up with his 4/4. A has a 4/4 and a 2/2. B has a 4/4 a 2/2 and a 1/1.
Turn 5 A Plays a 5/5 and attacks B's 2/2 with his 2/2 and his 4/4 B blocks 4/4 with his own and either let the 2/2s kill each other or block face.
So either A 18 B 13 With A(5/5 , 2/2) B(2/2, 1/1) or A 18 B 15 A(5/5) B (1/1) In both cases its back to rinse and repeat.
So it becomes more valuable to be on or above curve than before and harder to combe back from if thats the case.
Since I adhere to Gameplay/function > Flavor all the time (since it is a game first and a story/universe second) That discussion for me is largely irellevant at least for now. (In case they can't harmonize always go with function)
The same can be said about Gameplay>Function and intuitiveness by the way. Just because something is more intuitive does not make it better (Gameplaywise) by default.
Why does it not have that we are in a magical world where crows can wield swords?
Menace is just the name of an ability and since there is limited space on a card it is always a benefit of naming common abilities to save space, and it lets that ability be referenced more easily. SeeRayami, First of the Fallen for that.
The game came bevore the novels so technically its the novels which did it wrong :D.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face, and can only block one each combat
4. The new card type can block creatures and the new type
A. More Options also don't neccesairly increase strategic depth, thats what I meant in an earlier post with if you have multiple options but only one is the obvious correct one you technically have more options but realistically only have one. And thats what I think the new type will do even if a player can only block one new type at a time.
B.In addition to that the player being able to block just one creature still doesn't help the with the premise added effect of the player going first gaining another huge advantage, in fact I think it actually increases that advantage more, since there is more incentive in keeping the opponents board small.
C. Not all evasion is created equal, it's true that with the premise flying (probably) becomes way to strong and menace would also get a boost, but trample intimidate and fear would probably be fine, and the not being able to be blocked by players would indeed be good but would also diminish the first player advantage a bit.
What is the difference between the artifact thing and the crow thing though?
And the addage of not figuring out what and what doesnt make sense is rather hard to apply to fiction in general and games especially since you always have to have a certain degree of suspension of belief. As long as the "rules of the (fictional) universe" are uniform, it makes sense within that universe. Also that comparison with technology doesn't sit well with me since games are human made problems, and technology is human made solutions.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face.
A.Consequences from it being a special card type is the need for specialized removal so while it doesn't affect the older cards directly it does so indirektly making regular removal worse with it not being able to target the new card type. Or you need to change the rules so it can target those as well effectively errataing alot of cards (Technically this has been done already with the addition of planeswalkers and spells that target players but that was confusing for newer players which is why they now say specifically if it can target planeswalkers)
(Some removal stays the same though like VindicateBoomerang etc.)
The same is true for Pump spells, Auras, and Equipments.
I think if you wanna implement that an ability would be the preferred way to go.
B.The consequences of it being able to be blocked by face also makes them being able to be attacked useless since you can always block it with your face essentially making it the same as the player being attacked and that player simply not blocking.
So unless some of the new type have something like can't be blocked by players you are not increasing the design space or changing up the gameplay but you add rules nonetheless.
C.What difference does the premise actually make in that decision how does it lower the amount of needed removal (won't go into the theme thing for now)
with premise if you want to save a summon you can always just block with face if it is attacked without you can always just not block with the creature.
In the worst case you need to have more specialised removal in the best case you need the same amount (See A)
D.(Not touching the intuivenes and the actual combat thing thing for now) How is it making it more stategic though since you can block with face so you can actually leave utility units unattended. (See B)
E. This would change the gameplay of Eternal formats since they either wouldn't get new creatures and had to change to the Summons/Battle Units.
F. The things I said in B also apply here, especially the thing that complexity =/= strategic depth. In addition to that having removal and deciding when/if to use it is also a strategic decision sure when you need to draw it to use it that is different but with the premise the same thing happens, even If you remove the blocking with face thing since you still need to draw /have a creature that can actually kill the utility creature.
See B and also try not to be so condescending.
The only time I will adress the flavor intuitivenes for now is to make Perodequeso a bit clearer.
This is the thing Perodequeso is talking about, you want to add realism to an inherently unrealistic game and for him (and me) there are few if any upsides and plenty of downsides. So for us it makes no sense in pressing it into the rules.
I am hesistant to add this to your suggestions list due to the fact that for now it doesn't seem clearly defined as of now.
Can a summon attack a player or planeswalker?
1. You want a new card type that has power and toughnes and that can attack creatures, the new type, players and planeswalkers.
2. The new card type can be blocked by creatures, and the new type.
3. Players can block the new card type with their face.
Is this correct?
Also for now lets just discuss the gameplay consequences (for now) , as the intuivenes and flavor are a different non gameplay related discussion.
No adding more choices is a thing that can lead to diminishing choices, If Choice A is best in any situation why ywould you chose another thing if every creature acts as removal the likelyhood of running removal is lessened because why would you run that when you can run a creature that does that and more?
Hearthstone wasn't the only thing i've mentioned and i comprehend the concept, hearthstone made taunts to get rid of the downsides of the concept of creatures being attackable (Bigger creatures = almost always better) by introducing taunt, Kaijudo by introducing blockers (which comes closer to your implementation as blockers are the only ones that can block attacks), and you want to use magics blocker system to combat the downsides but as i stated before that leads to more downsides and rules changes needed confusing boards. There is a reason not many games use that kind of system, and changing a game to fit a system is usually the wrong approach.
The simple fact that the first player who plays a creature is in that much more of a powerful situation than before the change is the reason why that will rarely be the case.
If Player A plays the first creature player B can't play a smaller creature since Player A will just kill it, so he either needs to A play the bigger creature while Player A can play more creatures and just kill the bigger creature woth more creatures once it's out or player B needs removal. So the only thing a change like this does is limit what people can do during their turns, and making going first into even more of an advantage at worst and being the same that you need removal anyways at best. Thus not solving the removal issue, and having less choice in the process.
How will the scenario I described be resolved?
So it basically leads to stalemates as well if the player with the first creature somehow looses his advantage big time, stalemates where nothing happens is usually a thing you try to avoid in games, since it leads to sloggy games with slow pace and more luck, thing of games where both players are in top deck mode, usually not the most exiting games of magic you've played right?
So you basically want the same game as it is right now but with rules added for what reason?
If you can block with your face anyway what makes it different from the current situation? If you don't want your creature to die you block with your face having the same result of just not blocking it in the first place. Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?
Technically the same is true for lands (and artifacts as you stated) as units can attack those as well.
Planeswalkers being able to be attacked also makes sense flavorwise as you are are planeswalker yourself and when you cast a planeswalker in flavor you basically just ask him to do things for you, hence loyalty. With creatures thats different as they do lorewise nothing and are just copies of some entity you know of.
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.
Technically Hearthstone (taunt) and Kaijudo/Duel masters(blocker) does this, in the most roundabout way pokemon does this as well. But seeing how those are implemented and how few there are like that i assume that there are some big balancing issues with that.
They don't need to be but if you just add another type it wouldn't solve your main Issue now would it? In addition it would be even more unintuitive for the reason of similarity so it would actually increase your problem. Unifying stuff tend to clean up misunderstandings and make it more streamlined (see interrupts becoming instants , combining Poly/Mono/Cont. Artifacts into one).
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.
I also think that board state overview gets more complicated while not getting that much more depth if any.
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.
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?