EDH mana, draw power, and tutors are completely out of control to the point of making alternate strategies irrelevant.
What other strategies are made irellevant?
Different decks should want different cards.
They do to a certain extend and always be what I want to know is where you would draw the line to what that extent should be and what that would accomplish.
And Rosy also raised a point I'd like to add to and that is if you remove the "Autoincludes" other cards will just take their spot leaving you exactly where you started.
Edit:
A card like three dreams is a good example of a card that will almost certainly never be an auto include, but would likely be used by an aura based strategy.
that sure sounds like an auto include for a given strategy and as I said before even most of the "template" slots are strategy based "autoincludes"
Yes there are some niche commanders like that (Mostly due to direct and unique abilities as those usually build around that effect making it easier to theme stuff around it but also making lists more similar) but even there people don't play carbon copys either due to budgetary or powerlevel reasons. Go to EDH rec or any other site that shows you the percentage of decks that play any given card and you'll find that in most decks the count of cards with more than 50% inclusion is below 20/60 nonland cards leaving 40+ cards usually varying wven with the same commander. And even with most niche commanders that count rarely goes above 40 still leaving 20+ cards varying. And add to the fact that noone forces you to even play your lists like that just like following the templates. Both EDHrec and Templates are a good starting point especially for newer players but you can adjust those to your style of play, playgroup, budget etc.
And as others have stated with the exception of (maybe)mana rocks most slots of the template you used can be filled//are often filled with synergistic versions of such cards making it less staple more synergistic. Making finding those "the interesting part of the deck[building process]"
Look up Pillowfort Decks (forced Attack or politics can also ne an inspiration) on Edhrec.com or as an Tag Swatch in any Decklist Site and start getting inspired.
It works for me I have Decks in variing Powerlevels for my different Playgroups and I am not the only one in one of them who does that. The social contract actually also applies for our casual 60 Card decks as well.
Edit:
Granted this doesn't work as well with often changing playgroups or stuff like MTGO, due to different powerlevel interpretations.
I have heard the social contract spiel a million times, it has never worked [for me]. This game is too expensive for people to do different decks.
There that should be the reason you heard about the social contract a million times it works for people, its just unfortunate that it doesn't work for you.
Yes there is power creep in Magic and they push standard sets to sell packs, and yes they have commander in mind when designing cards (its their cash cow afterall) but besides the Commander product they do rarely if any design cards where the only application is commander. And like other people said you dont have to play them if you don't want if you wanna search for other synergies go ahead.
I also play it in my Greven, Predator Captain Deck and in my casual R/U Prowess deck. It might have been made with Feather(or Zada but I agree that Feather is more likely) in mind but that doesn't mean you can only use it there. And "Must haves" do not only come from being "tailormade" it can come from many things from being just plain powerful (See sol ring) , to being highly synergistic (LikeTel-Jilad Stylus in Grenzo, Dungeon Warden) it can also be the reverse that Commanders seem/are tailormade for certain Archetypes which also leads to Autoincludes (The arrival of Kadena, Slinking Sorcerer made cards like Trail of Mystery an auto-inlclude in it.)
Must-haves will always happen regardless of how they came to be. Finding different synergies is possible as long as the Must-Haves do not exceed a certain treshold. If that happens that particular commander becomes generic.
I don't see that as a Problem as long as there are still nongeneric Commanders or nongeneric Variants of that commander.
And until that happens you can always find/play other synergies.
True it is a different design that way. The original design with Jiyor's addage helps this to somewhat achieve the goal you set up for that card. But as far as instant or abilities are concerned they can still tap and use the mana in response.
I think the original + jiyor design is not that strong so you don't have to fear it being overpowered, I think it will rarely counter anything but it gives you a bit of tempo so maybe playable.
Freezing points version could be a bit on the op side.
I also asked you guys for your thoughts on the four different options I was considering, so you could weigh in on what you think is fixed or reasonable.
This is exactly what the custom card forum is about.
I haven't invented a wholly new card.
Does the card exist in exactly that form if not you made a wholly new card, a card that can be compared to the original easily but still a wholly new card.
Everything concerning cube is custom. Why is it so unreasonable to discuss a fixed version of an otherwise broken staple peasant card here?
Yes most things concerning cube is custom, but this part of the forum is for tips, opinions and expierience of running cards of the common and uncommon rartity that exist officially. The custom card creation forum is not only the better(right) place to post questions like that, It's also the one where more people have the expierience and knowledge to answer your question.
Totem armor is the stronger mechanic in all cases other than 'I have no creatures in play and draw this card' (namely if you have a creature with 3 totem armors vs a creature with 3 bestows, all cards otherwise identical, the totem armor version is stronger). Yet totem armor costs significantly less.
I agree that totem armor is stronger once you get it on your creature, the inherent risk of Auras is that you get two for onned when you target your creature and they kill it. Bestow creatures will still enter the battlefield in that case hence they are safer to play since you they can't get a 2 for 1 out of that, but other than that yeah Totem Armor is better. But due to that I don't think we see a significant drop in Bestow cost at least not in the lower rarieties.
@Salt: I have both actually almost evenly. Technically Krosan Tusker, Elder Pine of Jukai, Yavimaya Elder and Sprouting Vines are not ramp since they don't increase your mana but more fixing both colorwise and landdrop wise. If I include these kinds in the count its more land based.
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.
They do to a certain extend and always be what I want to know is where you would draw the line to what that extent should be and what that would accomplish.
And Rosy also raised a point I'd like to add to and that is if you remove the "Autoincludes" other cards will just take their spot leaving you exactly where you started.
Edit:
that sure sounds like an auto include for a given strategy and as I said before even most of the "template" slots are strategy based "autoincludes"
And as others have stated with the exception of (maybe)mana rocks most slots of the template you used can be filled//are often filled with synergistic versions of such cards making it less staple more synergistic. Making finding those "the interesting part of the deck[building process]"
Edit:
Granted this doesn't work as well with often changing playgroups or stuff like MTGO, due to different powerlevel interpretations.
There that should be the reason you heard about the social contract a million times it works for people, its just unfortunate that it doesn't work for you.
Yes there is power creep in Magic and they push standard sets to sell packs, and yes they have commander in mind when designing cards (its their cash cow afterall) but besides the Commander product they do rarely if any design cards where the only application is commander. And like other people said you dont have to play them if you don't want if you wanna search for other synergies go ahead.
Must-haves will always happen regardless of how they came to be. Finding different synergies is possible as long as the Must-Haves do not exceed a certain treshold. If that happens that particular commander becomes generic.
I don't see that as a Problem as long as there are still nongeneric Commanders or nongeneric Variants of that commander.
And until that happens you can always find/play other synergies.
I think the original + jiyor design is not that strong so you don't have to fear it being overpowered, I think it will rarely counter anything but it gives you a bit of tempo so maybe playable.
Freezing points version could be a bit on the op side.
Seconded.
If you keep the original wording it they are already tapped out they can just pay the cost of tapping all the already tapped lands. Plus
This is exactly what the custom card forum is about.
Does the card exist in exactly that form if not you made a wholly new card, a card that can be compared to the original easily but still a wholly new card.
Yes most things concerning cube is custom, but this part of the forum is for tips, opinions and expierience of running cards of the common and uncommon rartity that exist officially. The custom card creation forum is not only the better(right) place to post questions like that, It's also the one where more people have the expierience and knowledge to answer your question.
I agree that totem armor is stronger once you get it on your creature, the inherent risk of Auras is that you get two for onned when you target your creature and they kill it. Bestow creatures will still enter the battlefield in that case hence they are safer to play since you they can't get a 2 for 1 out of that, but other than that yeah Totem Armor is better. But due to that I don't think we see a significant drop in Bestow cost at least not in the lower rarieties.
If it makes a comeback at all.
@Salt: I have both actually almost evenly. Technically Krosan Tusker, Elder Pine of Jukai, Yavimaya Elder and Sprouting Vines are not ramp since they don't increase your mana but more fixing both colorwise and landdrop wise. If I include these kinds in the count its more land based.
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.