Quote from SavannahLion »I personally have ZERO interest invalidating more than half the cards in my collection
Quote from Kamino_Taka »because of some nonsense change to combat that offers me astonishingly little advantage to my one goal in Magic, killing the opponent(s).
Quote from Kamino_Taka »To put it succinctly, if the idea can't make use of the existing myriad of cards all the way back to year dot, then the idea has no merit. Period.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »This is why I encouraged the OP to create a new, distinct, format and apply the rules there.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »That has the best chance for acceptance, not this whole nonsense with new card types and what not.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »New formats with it's own rules makes sense. It is is far easier to have a working format as a model than trying to convince everyone of a change that is clearly, at this point in time, not very well thought out or tested.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »stop calling the imaginary card type "summons".
Quote from Kamino_Taka »That was already used, it's been obsoleted
Quote from Kamino_Taka »I'm not trying to be mean here. Just trying be honest here.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »
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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »In this Hypothetical Many game states are similar to each other thus bringing B in the similar situations over and over
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »But overall the things you say it fixes are IMO not worth it for all the things you break while doing so
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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
Quote from Kamino_Taka »even moreso than the 6th edition rule changes, planeswalkers and the several legendary rule changes.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »That is not to say that if you like playing this way you should stop doing so
Quote from Kamino_Taka »but the current premise fixes nothing gameplaywise but introduces a host of problems.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »the missing 1/1 was my mistake.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »But even then it doesnt change much that in most states the first player is at an huge advantage.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Okay... finally posting here. I was tempted to post on this thread several times but didn't think that there was anything I could add that others haven't. After seeing how long this thread has been going, however, I feel the need to speak up.
[quote from="Rosy Dumplings »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=118"]The title of your thread presents this idea as if it’s one of the big design complaints that everyone silently has with the game
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »but are scared to bring up.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Your opening post reinforces this idea by asserting that you have seen other people bringing up this idea in the past before getting shut down (without linking to sources… even though googling “mtg creatures attacking creatures” gets only seems to get two real results in the first five pages…
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »both written by newbies).
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »In the course of the past 5 pages, 28 different users (myself included) have unanimously agreed that applying this system to mtg at large would be a bad idea
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »...Creating complicated game states where a single permanent is blocking one permanent and is being blocked by another or where two permanents are blocking for each other.)
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »8. The sheer madness involved in making a new card type. I am going to stay here for a moment because I am unsure if you are aware of exactly how big this change is.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »The introduction of legendary as a creature type with Champions of Kamigawa impacted just over 200 cards.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »The change to damage spells to specifically call out planeswalkers or “any target” with Dominaria’s release affected about 1,000 cards.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »The “Grand Creature Type Update” that accompanied Lorwyn affected about 1,200 cards.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Adding a new card type that functions as a creature for most purposes would impact 10,946 cards
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »I am 100% serious right now.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Whereas the existence of planeswalkers subtly changed the function of a similar number of cards
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »creating summons would literally change the text (or reminder text) on over half of all cards
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Every incidence of the word “creature” (on auras, burn, combat tricks, revival, bounce, flicker, counterspells, tap effects, untap effects, doesn’t untap effects, when creatures etb triggers, when creatures die triggers, beast of burden effects, sacrifice effects, fight effects, threaten effects, the reminder text for abilities like equip/intimidate/battlecry, etc. would be changed to “creature or summon”.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Every instance of “noncreature” would need to be replaced with “noncreature, nonsummon”.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »This one change would alter the text of more cards than any other shift in the history of magic by nearly an order of magnitude and not making these changes (making all of those old cards useless in the “new world order” of summons) would frankly be suicide for this game.
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »(especially when you could convert other card games that already play with similar rules to those you are after,
Quote from VoidTimeWalker »Heck a single Gideon's Sacrifice and a indestructible creature completely invalidates this whole system.
Quote from VoidTimeWalker »This also really makes control decks and turbo fog decks ridiculously over powered, using mass removal, giving a creature indestrucable or Protection often used in these types oc decks are trump or recycling fog effects to basically turn off your attacking removal effects. In fact nearly 90% of White, Blue and Greens color pie either breaks or becomes completely game dominating
Quote from Kamino_Taka »I can not elaborate that in specific sitioations and no its not always attacking.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »With or without premise if you have the biggest creature (without anything else) the best option is to attack in most cases.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »The thing that changes with premise is that you would almost always attack their biggest creature and almost always they would block with face,
Quote from Kamino_Taka »because otherwise you can't build up a board presence that easily.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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
Could you present an example that shows the huge advantage the player has with this concept?
Quote from Kamino_Taka »In that scenario The second player is more desperate for removal than usual since otherwise he is always on the backfoot.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »So it becomes more valuable to be on or above curve than before and harder to combe back from if thats the case.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Since I adhere to Gameplay/function > Flavor all the time (since it is a game first and a story/universe second)
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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
Quote from Kamino_Taka »(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?
That the artifact does not have the ability to comprehend commands such as attacking, leaving and/or blocking, in this particular context.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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. [quote from="Kamino_Taka »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=112"]if you have multiple options but only one is the obvious correct one
Quote from Kamino_Taka »you technically have more options but realistically only have one.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »And thats what I think the new type will do even if a player can only block one new type at a time.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »What is the difference between the artifact thing and the crow thing though?
Quote from Kamino_Taka »And the addage of not figuring out what and what doesnt make sense is rather hard to apply to fiction in general
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Also that comparison with technology doesn't sit well with me since games are human made problems, and technology is human made solutions.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Can the new card type block creatures? Forgot to put that in there but I didn't ask.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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)
Quote from Kamino_Taka »(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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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 Kamino_Taka »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 Kamino_Taka »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 Kamino_Taka »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 »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.)
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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 Kamino_Taka »Quote from SwordSkill" »Well, deep strategical thinking is not fitted for everyone, I guess.
See B and also try not to be so condescending.
Quote from SwordSkill" »Well, deep strategical thinking is not fitted for everyone, I guess.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
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.
Quote from Perodequeso »@SwordSkill, I was under the impression, from your opening post, that you wanted to implement a system where creatures could attack other creatures, to make the game more intuitive,
Quote from Perodequeso »especially for newer players, and to not have to waste slots on removal.
Quote from Perodequeso »You’re now proposing a new card type, that uses combat to attack other permanents of the same type on the battlefield.
How does this make the game more intuitive for new players?
Quote from Perodequeso »You’re still left with creatures not being able to attack creatures, so no change there.
Quote from Perodequeso »You now are including a new card type that sort of acts like creatures but not really. How the hell is that more intuitive to newer players? Also, this new card type takes up slots that could be used for removal.
Quote from Perodequeso »Your proposal changes nothing that exists, adds a new card type that just convolutes combat(all so you can capture the flavor of troops attacking troops),
Quote from Perodequeso »and adds yet another complexity to new players(having to explain the vagaries between creatures and summons).
Quote from Perodequeso »And other than capturing the flavor of troops attacking troops, what exactly does your new card type add to the game? How exactly does it help achieve victory?
Quote from Perodequeso »Your idea of a new card type fails at every level by making combat more complicated,
Quote from Perodequeso »adding another thing new players need to distinguish and ultimately not changing how creatures work. And all for what, some need you have for combat to be more realistic.
Quote from Perodequeso »When I can send a crow wearing a shield, wielding a sledgehammer to slay a dragon god, realism is the last thing on my mind.
Quote from Xeruh »Honestly reading your replies to what I don't feel you're really getting what I mean, and the amount to clear up looks to be rather excessive to boot.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Can a summon attack a player or planeswalker?
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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Also for now lets just discuss the gameplay consequences (for now) , as the intuivenes and flavor are a different non gameplay related discussion.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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?[quote]
Because in magic there is something that is called blocking, you can't just simply attack and expect your attack to always land of the creature you aimed at.
Many times you will find a wall of blockers that you have to deal before you even come near your destination.
If you think that you can simply attack on any given situation in order to take out an opponent's utility creature, you will lose most of your games in this format, it would require more strategical thinking than that, so it's not as simple as you might think.
The concept might be simple, but not it's appliance.
[quote from="Kamino_Taka »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=95"]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
Quote from Kamino_Taka »(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)
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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,
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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?
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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?
Quote from Kamino_Taka »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.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?
Quote from The Fluff »would repeat what I said. Changing the combat system would turn this entirely into a different game -- a lot of people would not be pleased.
Quote from The Fluff »well, then goodluck convincing wizards to implement the changes you're planning. And I'm out of this thread.