2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on To mods about previously "Derailed Thread"
    I wanted to express my appalling about the fact that there was a warning issued about flaming/trolling alongside with the locking of the previous thread which prevented me from being able to reply to the new posts.
    I would also like to politely ask the mods to engage in discussion before taking the initiative to lock a thread, so that at least we can have a chance to respond at the very least.
    This is because many of us don't have the luxury of time to be on every time we desire.

    As a side note, I would also want to express my apologies to anyone who might have felt offended. (Which can be assumed by the warning issue about flaming or trolling.) I really want to assure you it was not my intention.

    With that out of the way, I'll be making a continuation to the thread in order to reply to the remaining questions, when I find the time.

    Once more I would like to thank everyone who participated in the previous thread even if that didn't happened in the best possible manner, but hopefully discussion will cease the tide.

    Have a good one in the meantime Smile
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from SavannahLion »
    I personally have ZERO interest invalidating more than half the cards in my collection

    Nothing would actually be "invalidated" as there won't be any change to older cards.
    Creatures will still not being able to attack anything but the player and/or planeswalker even with this concept.
    So even if that were to take play (which most likely won't.) you would still be able to play with your collection exactly the same way you used to be playing.

    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).

    To continue the previous statement, there won't be any change to how the combat works with already existing cards.
    What is being discussed here is the addition of a new card type that will be the only thing that will be affected by the rules in regards to combat.
    This new card type will function similarly to a creature, with the addition of being able to be declared as an attacker to another permanent of the same card type, besides that the game would proceed normally to blockers step just as normal, allowing defending player to block said creature with either himself or with a creature or an object of the same card type.
    Just to clear things out.

    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.

    It's strange how you first claim that you don't want the idea to affect preexisting cards but then complain about not making "use of them".
    It kinda feels contradictory, don't you think?

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    This is why I encouraged the OP to create a new, distinct, format and apply the rules there.

    This is already happening anyway, besides that we try to showcase that to a third party as well so people will get more familiar with it and it's not faced with this much negativity it is faced today.
    There is still a long way to go in that aspect. Hopefully the misunderstandings regarding this concepts would be cleared out.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    That has the best chance for acceptance, not this whole nonsense with new card types and what not.

    The whole idea of the addition of that "new card type" so there won't be any already existing cards being invalidated by this concept.

    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.

    Well, to be honest the format is up and running within our play group so we are already applying the idea somewhere.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    stop calling the imaginary card type "summons".

    This is only used as a scapegoat term which of course will be changed once we find a more suitable name for it.
    You can call it whatever you want, there is not a set name for it nor it might in the near future.

    Just to let you know that when the discussion gets more complicated and no other name has been presented, it will still be referred that way, for simplicity.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    That was already used, it's been obsoleted

    Which is exactly why it is being used since it is no longer used.
    Again it's just a scapegoat term, you are free to call it whatever you want.
    Don't stick to naming.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    I'm not trying to be mean here. Just trying be honest here.

    No offence taken. It's normal to be negativity within a misunderstanding.

    It is nice to see people at the very least getting engaged with the idea, even in a negative way since it helps making the idea clearer.
    Hopefully many misconceptions regarding this concept could be cleared, in the future, due to that engagement.

    So this goes to everyone pretty much, which again, I would like to thank for spending their time, being engaged in discussion which helps though explanation to make a more comprehensive divulge of the concept.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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.

    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.

    Assuming that no other effects were included in this scenario (Because to tell you the truth it was kind of hard to make sense out of it, not to mention that I don't have much time nowadays anyway.)

    But the "illusion of choice" you described is even more detrimental in an actual game without this concept since you have even fewer choices to make.

    Once again I think you might have the wrong impression about this whole thing as it would be a fix to the whole magic, which is not.
    It is not meant to fix the huge advantage player A gets over player B in the first turn in the first place.
    It is only about making battle units being able to directly attack other battle units and nothing more, it only affects that aspect.

    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

    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.
    Many people would choose a much more defensive approach and this is not canceled by this premise or not.

    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.

    Trust me, it is never better for player B either way, premise or not, with or without this concept it doesn't make a difference.
    There are other games that work better in that particular aspect, but magic hasn't done it good up until now, you can blame the R&D team for that.

    Again this thread is about battle units being able to directed towards other battle units. Nothing more, nothing less.

    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

    Besides the rebalancing that this would need after the card type might be introduced there is not much else "broken".
    True though if you are kind of aggro player and you want a more simplistic experience, then strategic enrichment might not be for you.
    And this is not talking condescending but honestly.
    In an actual combat you will have to be faced by more complicated choices than simply "attack the opponent".

    To be honest our approach might actually be kind of simplistic in that aspect itself since in actual war situation you might also have had the choice of sending your troops to act as spies for example.
    Considering that with each turn passing creatures get healed, and the player might traverse a new land, thus gaining it's power in battle, one can assume that there might be some time spacing between each turn which might be the reason why creatures get healed.

    Personally I'm not fan of creatures getting healed after each turn, but I understand that it comes from a time where representing that in board state might have been an issue, and besides this thread not about that to begin with, so I'm digressing.

    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

    I wouldn't be so sure about the "completely different game" but given the additional options players might have this would probably indeed play more strategically than before, so you might be actually be right in that aspect.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    even moreso than the 6th edition rule changes, planeswalkers and the several legendary rule changes.

    Which goes to show you, that magic turning into a "different game" is wouldn't the first time might happen, since there have been a number of rule changes over the years.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    That is not to say that if you like playing this way you should stop doing so

    Well, everyone will play the way he wants, I don't think you are in position to tell others how they should play their own game.
    The moment I'm not telling you how to play, neither should you.
    After all the purpose of the game is to have fun and have a good laugh.

    I understand the simplistic methods of the current but adding more challenge to it with more strategic depth makes it more worth playing, at least for us.
    Again you are free to do whatever you want.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    but the current premise fixes nothing gameplaywise but introduces a host of problems.

    The thing is that it is not about fixing anything, it never was.
    It's purpose was solely the enrichment of strategic value alongside intuitiveness.
    It is neither meant to fix the advantage the first player has not it should. It's simply about making battle units being able to engage in combat directly, and the result of it would be that you would also have to think how to protect your units instead of only how to find an openings so you can attack.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    the missing 1/1 was my mistake.

    It's good you realized because you previously made a whole paragraph showing how the "premise" would be completely broken based on a misrepresented board state.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    But even then it doesnt change much that in most states the first player is at an huge advantage.

    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.)

    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.
    Once we have solved a problem, only then we can go to the next one, this tread is about this specific particular thing not about who has the advantage based on turns.

    If you have problems in this regard you are free to start a new tread discussing that thing and I might as well offer my two cents because I too agree that the advantage that the first player gets over the second is really significant.

    That being said I'll answer the example in a future post as I have to go to work now (Maybe I might be lucky and find some time there.)
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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

    Well after seeing all the negativity and backlash that came out of it, I wouldn't be this sure about that, since most of the people immediately jumped upon lynching the heretic who dared say that blasphemous thing out of his mouth. Oh what about the children! God save the Queen! (Sorry but this was exactly the kind of drama that surrounded it.)

    but are scared to bring up.

    They seemed more annoyed and angered about the idea that was presented rather than silently "scared" of what the designers might say, but alright.

    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…

    If it was that necessary I would have provided, but there wasn't so much demand about the sources, it seemed people were more focused on how this would be a horrible idea because it will make the game like yugioh.
    Still does the quantity of people who brought this up really matters?

    both written by newbies).

    Exactly because there were "newbies" is exactly why this should matter and why this rule would be more intuitive with "newbies" in general.
    We can't simply act like a cult that won't let people in just because they are "newbies".
    After all everyone started as a "newbie".

    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

    Just goes to show your previous statement about people "silently agreeing, but they are too afraid" thing.

    ...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.)

    This is why the one should be named "attacking" and not blocking since, indeed the way you described it seems to complicate things for no good reason rather than the opposite.

    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.

    Just to clarify that adding a new card type is considered as an "addition" rather than change. Just wanted to clarify this as it will come in handy later.

    The introduction of legendary as a creature type with Champions of Kamigawa impacted just over 200 cards.

    And this is why this alleged "addition" should take place instead of "change". Because it will not impact already existing cards.
    Legacy or vintage player would literally see no change in their game unless they decide to willingly insert the new card type to their decks, otherwise their game will remain completely untouched.

    The change to damage spells to specifically call out planeswalkers or “any target” with Dominaria’s release affected about 1,000 cards.

    Understandable, and it has already been noted.
    On this note, new new card type would be able to be targeted by these spells as if it were a creature.
    Warning, this would change it's type, it would make them to be able to be targeted by said spells until the transition finishes.
    Just like the redirection rule has been before the "planeswalker" transition ended by making new damage spells being able to target planeswalker directly as well.

    The “Grand Creature Type Update” that accompanied Lorwyn affected about 1,200 cards.

    Exactly, this indeed affected even older cards since it changed the way they can attack thus modifying them in a way.
    Just to note that we aren't even talking about this concept here but the already existing game as it is.

    Adding a new card type that functions as a creature for most purposes would impact 10,946 cards

    Not entirely true, as spells have already been able to target battle units already.
    Since he are already talking about living battle units and since this would also be considered as a living battle unit as well, it would not divert the way damage spells function to the slightest.
    If they are able to target a creature, they would already do with summons.
    Damage spells won't gain extra abilities or benefits due to that, it won't change how much damage they deal, or behave.
    The end result would still be the same, a lightning bolt can target a battle unit to deal 3 damage, nothing more nothing else.

    So unless the designers themselves decide to change the errata of said cards thing would pretty much function exactly like it did before.

    In fact with the addition of planeswalker cards there was an actual change since planeswalker cards function completely different that other battle units.

    I am 100% serious right now.

    It kinda fells like you are purposely trying to misrepresent the situation in order to make it seem much worse than in reality.

    Whereas the existence of planeswalkers subtly changed the function of a similar number of cards

    You were saying previously that it changed a significant amount of cards but suddenly the complete change to a whole history of card erratas being able to target planeswalkers as well is not that "significant" somehow?

    creating summons would literally change the text (or reminder text) on over half of all cards

    Just to note that just previously mentioned that with the addition of planeswalker cards the change was "subtle" but now it is somehow a significant one?
    Seriously what do you think would happen? Would the older cards change how they function or you want the older cards completely unchanged so they can't target the new card type so you can then say "Hey look! There is a significant advantage with the new card since it can't be targeted by older spells, BROKEN! REJECTED!" Seriously are you purposely trying to go that way? I really hope you don't.

    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”.

    So what? You want summons to have this significant advantage over creatures because they won't be able to be targeted by older spells?
    If they didn't then most removals would be rendered useless against summons as they wouldn't be able to get targeted.
    This would indeed make the new card type broken and the whole concept would be broken.

    Every instance of “noncreature” would need to be replaced with “noncreature, nonsummon”.

    Again, of course, you can't make the new card type overpowered just because you want to, if a rule applies to one battle unit it should also apply to the other.
    Not to mention that this would probably go away once the transition finishes and creature phase out from newer formats.

    You were saying that the change with planeswalker was "subtle" but how was it subtle when you redirected the damage at resolve? Don't you think that many games would have ended differently if defending player knew that the one who was casting the spell, was targeting his planeswalker?
    How come this is subtle?

    And this is why the change was made, and you know what? The change made the game better since it makes more sense now, players could as easily be targeted now as planeswalkers, we don't complain about that, we embrace it because it was a welcome change.

    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.

    Wait a minute, first you complained about how they would change by making them being able to target summons as well, but then you complained about how this would make older cards useless because they won't be able to target..?

    Are you really that serious? Cause it really doesn't seem to be the case.

    (especially when you could convert other card games that already play with similar rules to those you are after,

    Can you name another card game where a player could command an attack on a battle unit and defensing player is able to protect it by blocking?

    The fact that something is fiction doesn't necessarily means that it can't be intuitive.

    That being said a discussion is a good thing to be made when there is a mutual honest ground.

    I hope you realized the contradictions in your posts so we could have a more honest discussion next time.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Heck a single Gideon's Sacrifice and a indestructible creature completely invalidates this whole system.

    How would exactly invalidate it? Don't you think you are exaggerating?
    You are not only defending player would not have any means of defending by blocking but also that creature would break the board because it would be able to attack all of the creatures somehow?

    No the premise was that summons would be able to attack other summons just like a planeswalker, defending player would still have a chance to protect his summons by blocking so it would take more than that.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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

    Strange because from what I heard around here, the majority was complaining about how creature based decks would have the most advantage and no one would even need to play control because of how significant the advantage was supposed to be.

    There were even people saying that no one would even need to play anything else but creatures and even called it "Creatures: The Gathering"...
    Now people saying that control decks would be overpowered, can you make up your mind people?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    I can not elaborate that in specific sitioations and no its not always attacking.

    Which pretty much answers your statement about only being one option.

    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.

    Maybe in that particular situation, maybe not, as you might want to keep your 7 1/1, or he may have a Giant Growth in his hand.
    But let's say there are no other effects involved.
    That would still make the game with the already existing rules leave you with no option as the only thing you can currently attack is the player, so you will be forced to hold back in that situation.
    If you were able to deal the finishing blow, you could still do that within the borders of the concept as it doesn't reduce options but rather increase it.
    Which means that in one case you would have the option to attack the opposing unit and in the other you won't, which leaves you no option but to hold back which you might as well do it within this concept if you are suspecting that the opponent might have a combat trick in his sleeve.

    In short in the actual game you have no option whereas in this concept you have this one option as well as being able to hold back.

    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.

    Which comes to show that you don't necessarily have fewer options but at the worst case the same, if not more in case you want to get rid of an enemy unit.
    Not to mention that you would also have the option even if you don't have the biggest creature but a bunch of smaller creatures.
    So I really fail to see your point about it being "less" options.

    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,

    Well then it wouldn't benefit them to do so, would it? If they were sure that their attack would go in vain they wouldn't do it in the first place right?
    As you said before "In general you discard options that lead to nothing or even to a loss.", so what would change here?

    What if you have a utility unit that you want to ensure it's protection? Why would you leave that opening to the opposite side for example?

    I wouldn't be so sure about the "almost always" part in this particular situation, but even if it was somehow, it wouldn't change the fact that it is already happening since even without the "premise" you would still "almost always" provided no other effects are in place.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    because otherwise you can't build up a board presence that easily.

    But if your attack were to fail, you wouldn't do it in the first place right?

    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.

    I wouldn't be so sure about that, again, this is not yugioh where you can simply attack and always expect your attack to land exactly where you chose.
    There are a lot more things that can go wrong when your opponent has a chance to defend himself.

    The fact that you might personally like army battles doesn't necessarily means that someone who plays a mill deck would be in a more of a disadvantage than you, not to mention that if that were to take place there would be re balancing of the game.
    Most control decks are based on the premise of preventing his opponent creatures from attacking, so it wouldn't be as easy as you think.

    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

    How did player B's 1/1 die exactly? Why doesn't he have a 1/1 and a 2/2?
    He blocked Player A's 1/1 with his 2/2 and the 2/2 with his face, so how come the 1/1 died?
    What is see is player A having a 3/3 and a 2/2 while Player B having his 1/1 and his 2/2.
    So the very next turn player B would have a: 1/1, a 2/2 and a newly 3/3 while player A would only have the 3/3 and the 2/2.
    So where player B has diminished life, player A has diminished board state which could cost him since he made the choice to sacrifice his 1/1 into player B;s 2/2 and all of that for 2 damage..

    There are also a lot of options here:
    First of all player B could have blocked the 2/2 with his 2/2, so things could have gone very differently.
    It's not a linear path.
    He might have done what you described, but you would also have the option to do something else, it's not simply "Rinse and Repeat".

    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.

    Besides the fact that this happens in an actual game, the scenario presented mistakenly presented player B as having diminished board state while in reality he still keeps all of his summons.

    ...The rest is based on that falsely presented board state so it's.

    Still the fact is that more weight was placed on attacking rather than keep blockers for backup, not every player would necessarily have taken that path, so it's not as simple as you presented it, especially when there were a lot of other options so thing could have turned very differently.

    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.

    But besides that this happens already.
    There was a study that conducted by a youtuber that showed that even if you had the same decks with exactly the same deck ordering, the first player has a much more increased chance of wining that the second, premise or not.

    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)

    Just to clarify that it is a game that is based on combat presentation so that should also be taken into accord.

    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

    Depends on what someone defines as "better". Not everyone have the same definitions about all things, just so you know.

    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?

    Because if it did in this particular context, it would have been an artifact creature, makes sense?

    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.

    I wasn't referencing menace about it's gameplay ability though but as flavour.

    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.
    Still WoTC considers it canon right? I mean planeswalker cards weren't even a thing until a set some twelve years ago, but you don't see everyone saying that the whole game "is wrong" because it came "after the game", right?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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

    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?

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    you technically have more options but realistically only have one.

    And that is..?

    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.

    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 »
    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.

    Could you present an example that shows the huge advantage the player has with this concept?

    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.

    This is why it was stated that evasion should be mitigated.
    Second "Menace" doesn't even make sense by itself, meaning that if it is indeed a "menace" it shouldn't be needed to be explicitly written in the card itself but it should be by how threatening the actual card is.
    For example Baneslayer Angel, even if not explicitly stated, is a menace itself.
    In particular, this ability is not needed.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    What is the difference between the artifact thing and the crow thing though?

    That the artifact (unless is a creature in addistion to an artifact aka Artifact Creature) does not have the ability to comprehend commands such as attacking, leaving and/or blocking, in this particular context.
    The similarity between them though is that they are both material things, and as such they can be damaged or even destroyed once they have been dealt lethal damage.
    That of course is not the actual case in the already existing game which concept protests it.

    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

    It is not a case of fiction in this case but rather the intuitiveness with whom one could comprehend that "fiction" more easily without the need of side scriptures that would need to explain each and every little thing like a dictionary to a foreign language.
    So, just because it's a fiction shouldn't mean that it should also be written in another tongue by default.

    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.

    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 »
    Also that comparison with technology doesn't sit well with me since games are human made problems, and technology is human made solutions.

    Indeed, and no where was ever stated that "games" are the same as "technology".
    There may be games that derive from technology, but that doesn't mean that games themselves are technology.

    The argument was made merely to illustrate the negativity that is manifested once someone has presented an idea that is not within the line of already established general idea.
    The longer people attach their minds around an idea the more difficult it becomes to detach from it.

    For example people over the years had so engraved the mindset that within unit battles there can not be any interruptions over the years due to having associated said unit battles with yugioh monster battles, that the association comes almost instantly.
    This mindset that has been set for over two decades won't so easily get rewired by a guy who only just made a post not even two months old.

    That is why the concept is faced with such negativity because the association with yugioh is apparently even stronger than the association with magic the gathering itself which allows a player to defend by blocking said attackers hence, interruption.

    The only thing we can do in this situation is trying to make the picture clearer in hopes that there won't be any longer this false association.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Can the new card type block creatures? Forgot to put that in there but I didn't ask.

    I have to apologize if I haven't been clear by now, but the card type would probably act like the creature card type, with the addition that it would also be able to attack other cards of the same card type as a turn based action in attackers step.

    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.

    Just to let you know that before current removals were able to target planeswalkers directly, there was the redirection rule which applied during the period of transition from pre-planeswalker cards to post-planeswalker cards.
    Since there wasn't any mention of planeswalker cards before, the oracle text had to be updated so it is assumed now that a Lightning Bolt for example could as target a planeswalker, even if many printed Lightning Bolts don't explicitly state that.

    With that in mind this is how this issue could be solved as well during the period of transition.

    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)

    Well I read this part before reading this part, and we pretty much ended up having the same thought about it.
    I understand that during that period of transition it would be kind of confusing but as time passes with newer removal cards essentially replacing the old card who lacked the "planeswalker" in their errata this would eventually be solved.
    That period of transition is what made me think was the purpose of the redirection rule to begin with.

    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.

    Yes, we believe so as well in the play group.

    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.

    Not necessarily true, as just like a creature, the player would be able to block one (Unless stated otherwise by commander card of course.)

    If there is only one creature which is attacking, this would indeed be the case, however if a langer quantity decides to launch an assault on other troops, it would be harder to protect them unless you have an army for yourself.

    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.

    Well, actually evasion is what we are trying to mitigate so, going the opposite way than that would be counter intuitive.
    Hopefully the above part answered your question though.

    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)

    I hope the answer about players by default (just like a creature.) being able to block one creature, answered your question.

    It actually is a good question though since it helps to make things clearer.

    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)

    However it can see seen this question came from the assumption that the player could block any number of creature, which was not a bad assumption especially since there wasn't any explicit mention about not being able to be the case until this reply.

    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.

    Understandable. This thought was made by prioritizing the current stability of the the game, since changing the rulings for all creatures would break the balance of the game.
    There are many new card types who are even taking slots from sets which could have been used for already existing card types, which means that this pretty much is already happening.
    For instance a creature card could have been used instead of the planeswalker card we ended up getting, of course we would never know what this creature would look like because it already got replaced by that planeswalker card in that particular situation.

    Magic is a game we love exactly because it has the ability to evolve and create new and more dynamic experiences which could lead to unpredictable outcomes.
    New card have always been created by having in mind a new interactive experience which enriches the game.
    That being said, the future potential cards weren't put into perspective, since no one can truly know the future unless we had a time capsule.

    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.

    Not necessarily "complexity" but "options".
    More options could indeed lead to more strategic depth due to the amount of choices one can make and could even be able to outplay his opponent despite not having the best cards out of the two.
    Complexity is what happens as the result of this strategic depth, when there are more options, of course the game would be more complex because it would require more strategic skill than that.

    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

    In this particular example it was assumed that there is a big threat on board by opposition and had to be immediately removed since there wouldn't be any other options than that.

    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.

    If you lack the quantity of troops then this would indeed be the case, but if you had an army what would stop you from getting rid of the utility unit besides the current rulings?
    Obviously if his controller would want it to survive he would have though of sending it into a different area, however if the 6/6 utility summon had the ability "At the beginning of your upkeep, you win the game" or something? Why wouldn't you want to send your army of 7 1/1 to gang it up, so you won't lose the game to your opponent who at this time happened to be at 15 life?
    This is of course assuming that there are no other effects or potential blockers in play.

    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.

    You are right, I must apologize. It's just ironic especially after being faced multiple times by the argument that this would diminish it's strategy due to the false assumption that it would turn more like yugioh.

    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.
    The fact that the game such examples of supernatural effects doesn't make it in this particular case more "unrealistic".
    A crow in this situation is magical since it was summoned by a wizard, we can't really tell it's abilities by that.

    There are far more unrealistic things than that, for instance the fact that your army is able to comprehend commands to attack it's opposition directly and/or certain utility units of it's opposition, but it's can't comprehend commands to attack simple troops.
    You can argue all you want, it doesn't make sense, and since you yourself brought the "intuitiveness" into the discussion, it would be appropriate to be answered to.

    But even that, but because doesn't make sense, why should we keep it at that and not try to do something about it?

    I too for example happen to have an issue as to why artifact cards don't have toughness on them.
    I wouldn't though whine to someone who says that a crow bearing a shield and a warhammer, just because this particular thing doesn't make sense, don't you think?

    And to add to that, if people stopped trying to figure out all the things that "didn't make sense" just because other things "don't make sense" then we wouldn't have the technology we have today which was product of understanding electricity which not far ago, "didn't made any sense".

    No one intentionally tries to be condescending, it's just when faced with such arguments and negativity to a matter which shouldn't even have been seen that negative to begin with, is what make people say things that many people would potentially find offensive to their own ideology.

    Magic has been for over 20 years, of course the idea of someone who says that creatures should have been able to attack other creatures would make that person been seen as a lunatic heretic.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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,

    That was originally the plan, from what we have tested in our play group this was pretty much the only way to do it.
    However through discussion people presented valid arguments about how this would make the game unbalanced because certain colors would get advantage over others, since magic wasn't designed in a way that you could directly attack enemies troops.

    Hence the idea of implementing a new card type, that would act similarly to Creature, but with the addition of being able to attack other objects of the same card type, was presented, since this won't affect the rules that applied for older cards, so there wouldn't be balancing issues for older formats as well.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    especially for newer players, and to not have to waste slots on removal.

    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.

    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?

    I think this question has been answered above, but I'll try to explain it once more in case it wasn't understood:
    Indeed when the topic was started, the idea was for creatures to be able to attack other creatures, however, many users expressed their concerns about how this would create an imbalance, especially with some some colors having an advantage over others, and so after considering this view, if this concept were even to be implemented in actual magic without causing imbalances, an addition to rulings should be implemented instead of changes, this was the main reason of the "the new card type".

    If new players started playing with the new card type instead of creatures, then they would assume that you can attack opponent's troops just like normal, and then they would proceed to blockers step as normal.
    With the current system, one needs to explicitly state to new players that creatures can't attack other creatures, which is counter intuitive.
    I hope this answered your question.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    You’re still left with creatures not being able to attack creatures, so no change there.

    Exactly. You can't just simply change the rules of a card type that has been over 20 years, because that would create massive imbalances.
    First of all it would ruin the game for legacy and vintage players or even modern who got used to this battle system.

    The very fact that we are testing it that way in our play group, doesn't necessarily means that this should also be the way that it should be implemented officially.

    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.

    Because once implemented after the period of transition new players should probably use this instead of creatures, so it wouldn't necessarily take up removal space, but more likely creature space.
    If creatures were to slowly phase out from newer formats then after transitioning this would be the new normal, while older formats would still keep playing just like they used to.

    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),

    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.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    and adds yet another complexity to new players(having to explain the vagaries between creatures and summons).

    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 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?

    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.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Your idea of a new card type fails at every level by making combat more complicated,

    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 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.

    Well, deep strategical thinking is not fitted for everyone, I guess.

    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.

    I'm pretty sure that you can do this already in magic since, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can already attack planeswalkers, right?
    But even still, if your Storm Crow is that buffed, why shouldn't it be able to down a Nicol Bolas?
    If it was actually a flavor thing it should have been represented at the card right?
    Besides, I heard that planeswalkers that are called upon are not the actual planeswalkers, but copies of the original, so 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?

    But even besides that, what does this even have to do with the current concept?
    Why should be our fault that R&D didn't explicitly stated what creature types should have been able to wield certain equipment?

    Yeah I mean, thanks a lot, I as well, mentioned that artifacts should also have toughness and you have been attackable as well, should we completely drop the case just because something else didn't happen to make sense?

    If you have this bad view of magic, what are you even doing in these forums?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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.

    I'm sorry you feel that way, I wish there was some better way to understand each other.
    Hopefully we could solve this misunderstanding.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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.

    Indeed, we are using it at a very experimental state since the suggestion was made recently.

    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?

    I'm really sorry, this was a mistake from my part. A summon could attack as normally (Meaning the player and planeswalkers.) and other summons, not creatures.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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.
    2. Yes that is correct.
    3. That is too correct.

    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.
    That being said the effects that this summon is providing, would no longer be available for that 'area' as well as it won't be able to target other permanents that belong to that area, it also wouldn't be able to be affected by effects that were applied to that specific area. (All of these things provided that they are not overridden by each specific card's text.)

    For instance if a Ajani's Pridemade lookalike summon were to be in a different 'area' than the player, then it wouldn't get the bonus of +1/+1 counters if the player gained life.

    Although for now we haven't yet discussed whether the opponent could simply send his troops to that unit's area or there would be a 'tracking' ability required to do so.
    So for now in my play group we assume that all summons have the ability to do so, since again in regular magic there is no concept of 'areas' so there is no tracking ability as of yet.

    Again these would apply to the new card type and only the new card type, so pretty much everything else would stay exactly the same as it should be to prevent any imbalances, what we are doing with my play group is only for testing purposes only which would not apply in a regular game.
    Just to make it clear.

    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.

    Of course, but just to let you know that these also play a big role as to why it is though why this should be implemented.
    But agreed, for now let's only take into account the gameplay implications of that aspect as you suggested.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    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

    Except not every creature has taunt by default your creatures would be left defenseless in most situations unless you happen to have a creature with taunt.

    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)

    I haven't played Kaijudo in order to be able to make the comparison, but from what I've heard you can freely block by default so I don't think how close is that concept to what's being presented here.

    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.

    Well it's not a game for everyone as it would require a deeper strategical thinking than that since there would be the additional layer of having to think how to protect your troops as well.

    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.

    This is kind of misleading as this isn't what's being suggested but the addition of a new card type, so the game won't change to fit the system, so it would be exactly the same for older cards.

    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,

    No it wouldn't work like that since the player would probably block himself thus taking the damage.

    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.

    Now you are just calculating the result based on a false assumption.

    But even if we were talking about late game where player B dropped a big delayed big creature and player A attacked it with smaller ones, what makes you think that the smaller ones would all be left unscathed?
    What makes you think that the big creature wouldn't kill some of them as well before it died, unless you assume that player A only has creature with first strike or something.

    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?

    First of all, that's what a strategy game is, eventually there would be a statemate as attacking won't always be an answer, you can't just simply attack and expect to win, you will need to think better than that.

    Secondly, you suggested that this is why you wouldn't need removal to which is your answer to why you would still need removal as you will soon realize that your creatures wouldn't always be able to be used as the removals you thought they would be.
    And besides that you would also have to hold blockers back in order to protect your creatures so attacking won't always be the answer you suggested.

    I like the game would be diminished of choices since one would simply could attack his way to victory but then started whinning about how this wouldn't be the option.
    So, I would suggest you make up your mind about what you want before start pointlessly whinning about the supposed "diminishing" strategy but when start whinning about "stalemates" due to you not having removals in your deck to deal with this situation.

    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?

    Seriously? Maybe the fact that you would have more options does it say something to you, instead of waiting to either draw the removal or a bigger creature to deal with this situation?

    First you started talking about the diminishing strategy, then you started the opposite since you realized that it would be as easy as simply attacking your way to victory and then you were wondering what would be the difference between that and a regular game of magic?

    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.

    No it doesn't because if he attacks you with a horde it wouldn't had the same result as it wouldn't in an actual war.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Still leading to needing removal anyways. What exactly did you gain except for more rules?

    First of all consistency, secondly intuition, third you are able to get out of situations even if you don't necessarily have the biggest creature, it wouldn't be as easy, but at least you would still have the option that it lacks in the game right now.

    Finally, that is why you would still need removal, because you will soon realize that attacking all the way will lose you most of your games in this format. You would have to got more strategical thinking than that if you want to survive.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.