A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Colt47 »
    I've actually played a game that has creature combat and has a lot of similarities to MTG called Force of Will. The problem with simply allowing creatures to be attacked is that it changes the dynamic entirely on how combat works. It also drags games out and makes them last longer by making match ups against other types of decks outside of control last longer.


    I don't really know much about force of will, but from what I have experienced thus far from creature combat is that it kinda drags the game longer since more often than not you will both be forced to hold back so that you would have blockers available for your other creatures, in these situations combat shenanigans play even bigger role than original magic.
    It indeed makes the game requiring even more strategic thinking, because simply holding back is just not enough.
    In regular mtg when you find yourself at disadvantage you simply have to hold back since you know that your creatures aren't in immediate dangers if left unattended, but in this format, there is really huge tension, especially when you don't know if your opponent has a shenanigan in hard, since they play even bigger role than before.
    You really have to be more focused so you won't lose an important piece.
    So you can't simply attack cause if you have a utility creature, you would have to keep blockers aside to protect it.
    It is really not for the faint of heart but for those who seek bigger challenges and are willing to delve into deep mind games.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Xeruh »
    I don't think Planeswalkers are remotely the same either because you can attack them if you need to.

    well, the whole concept was to make troops being able to attack other troops the same way they would attack a planeswalker, which gives defending player a chance to protect him by blocking.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Soltari Guerrillas could "attack" other creatures, provided the opponent has no shadow creatures to block it.

    However, every creature attacking other creatures becoming the norm would totally wreck the established combat sytem of the game. This would turn into another game entirely.


    I don't think this is actually attacking, but redirecting damage as it doesn't give a chance for the defending player to block in order to protect his creature.

    Of course it would wreck the game if defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creatures, that is why we suggested for this format to have unblockables banned and mitigating the evasion in general.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from HugSeal »
    Could you please explain this notion further?

    Of course Smile Happy to explain.

    Quote from HugSeal »
    Having the rules set up so you have to house-ban a bunch of cards makes the game more intuitive?

    This pretty much happens to every format, in order for the game to work well, under it's different rules.
    In this particular case, since we have set that creatures can attack creatutes, unblockables have pretty much a huge advantage as nothing can stop the controller from attacking over and over thus using it as a one turn removal, this pretty much forces everyone to use unblockables which ends up ruining the whole concept, and that is why unblockables were banned and evasion mitigated through making creature types having reach for example so they can deal with flyers since otherwise they wouldn't.
    Again since the game wasn't designer for it extra measures need to be taken care of as well.
    Still banning of cards pretty much happens to every format.

    Quote from HugSeal »
    I just don't see how it is intuitive to play the game in a way that makes it very unbalanced and where you have to look to another set of bans for it to be playable?

    Firstly "intuitive" and "balance" are two completely seperate topics that are not intertwined.
    If you want to learn about the concept of intuitive design, you can see a lot of articles, I would like to give you links, but I'm not sure if that is permitted by the forum rules.
    Now about balancing we stated that this is why we do the bans, so the game won't break due to imbalance.
    Again since the game wasn't actually designed for it a lot of extra factors should be taken into consideration for that.

    Quote from HugSeal »
    I also thought you advocated for having a new kind of creature and keep the opld ones working as they already do? How does that make the game more intuitive?

    Making a new card type is just that, adding a new card type, it doesn't have anything to do with making the game more "intuitive"
    However veteran players who play old formats like legacy or vintage won't have to adjust as the game will remain exactly the same for them since the function of the creature card type won't change in the slightest.
    The game will only go through the transition for new players who either way constantly changing their decks due to formats banning older cards for example, those are the only people who would see their game change in a more intuitive way".
    If it even happens which will probably not happen.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Technically the same is true for lands (and artifacts as you stated) as units can attack those as well.

    Although I agree about lands, they are used mainly as mana source so, I wouldn't recommend going in that direction.
    As for artifacts however I will 100% definitely agree that they should have toughness as well, since they are material things on the battlefield, hence it would make sense that they could break, unfortunately though as long as they don't have toughness there is no way of determining how much it takes for each one to get destroyed by an attack.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Planeswalkers being able to be attacked also makes sense flavorwise as you are are planeswalker yourself

    True, but so is true that you are a creature as well above being a planeswalker.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    and when you cast a planeswalker in flavor you basically just ask him to do things for you, hence loyalty.

    Same can be said for creatures as you are basically summon them in order to do things for you.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    With creatures thats different as they do lorewise nothing and are just copies of some entity you know of.

    I really don't think that really matters, and secondly planeswalkers themselves are just copies of famous wizards when you call upon them.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Thats how good design works if you only explain it once it should be understood intuitive design works without the need for an explanation and on that part both systems the real and the proposed are technically unintuitive.

    Which is exactly that, most new players won't need an explanation since they already assume it.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Technically Hearthstone (taunt) and Kaijudo/Duel masters(blocker) does this

    It's not the same, as you are not able to block in order to protect your creatures at will but have to rely on the choices your opponent makes.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    They don't need to be but if you just add another type it wouldn't solve your main Issue now would it?

    We don't see why not, it's a new card type that functions similarly yet different from creatures.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    In addition it would be even more unintuitive for the reason of similarity so it would actually increase your problem.

    During the period of transition that indeed might be the problem, but that was the problem with redirection rule since planeswalker cards were a new thing back then and older cards didn't have an errata that specifically targeted planeswalkers as well, so they decided to make the 'redirection rule' until the transition ended.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Unifying stuff tend to clean up misunderstandings and make it more streamlined (see interrupts becoming instants , combining Poly/Mono/Cont. Artifacts into one).

    I agree, but changing the rules like this will cause a huge balance problems as the games wasn't designed so that creatures could attack one another hence it will pretty much break the game if it were for them to suddenly change, not to mention that most veteran players won't be happy since they have got used to this all these decades.
    What you are proposing about changing the rules for creatures can't even happen logically.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    I also believe it would diminish choices since it would lead to the answer to any problem being play the better creature/summon which would also lead to less different cards being played.

    Firstly is the reason why the rulings can't change for older cards and the only plausible way is to make a new card type.
    Admittedly it will never happen of course, just saying that it would be the only way.

    Secondly, adding more choices leading to "diminishing" choices is kind of an oximoron don't you think?
    The very fact that you think that in heartstone you can protect your creatures, means that you haven't completely comprehend the concept.
    There will be a lot of situations where attacking won't be an answer as there would be a blockers in your way, just like regular magic, not at best a couple of creatures with taunt.
    So having to think of ways to protect your underlings also adds a strategic value, because simply holding back will not only be enough, but you would also have to hold back in order have blockers to protect your other troops.
    Attacking is not an answer to everything in magic games, especially when faced with even more options, if nothing else, you would see players holding of creatures in order to protect others, so pretty much the exact opposite actually happens from what you predicted.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    I also think that board state overview gets more complicated while not getting that much more depth if any.

    What do you do when you have multiple planeswalkers who get attacked? You stop the game because you find it too complicated or your opponent simply moves the pieces to make it clear who attacks who, why you think there would be any different than that?

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    Also I have some questions about how you resolve certain scenarios.
    Like Player 1 Attacks Player 2'a Creature A with his Creature X and 2's B with his Z. Now can Player 2 Just block X with B and Z with A? Or does a creature being attacked count as blocking creature even though it's not blocking it's just beeing attacked.

    No it isn't considered blocking, and yes they can, block each other, to swap combat situations, and this is why you would more often that not players holding back since they will soon realize that attacking is not the answer to everything as they though it is.
    When one has to think how to protect your creatures on top of all others, he realized that he has to think even more strategically than that.
    So most of the times removals are still the only option, as attacking will not be an answer.

    Quote from Kamino_Taka »
    P.s. If thats flavor/intuitive wise the logical thing wouldn't it also be logical that the player can block creatures as well? As every commander has the ability to take a hit if its for the greater good?

    Exactly, and that's why it was stated that players could block as well in order to take the damage instead.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Perodequeso »
    The lesson we all learned it that- for some people certain things will be un-intuitive no matter what

    You have a point, despite this however, the number of new players who assume that being able to attack to one unit just like the other, should be taken into consideration, which up until now (and probably never.) it hasn't.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    when you make a correction for one group a different group is then in the same position.

    This is why it's no correction, but addition just like the addition of planeswalker cards, so veteran players won't have to adjust but only the new players.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    The best answer is to make it so that the most amount of people can comprehend what you're trying to put forth and for the rest you just have to use baby steps.

    And exactly for that reason this needs to be implemented.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Not all new players want to attack creatures with creatures, but yes many do.

    I'd argue that most new players assume that you can attack creatures, especially when they see that you can do the same with planeswalkers, why? Because it makes sense, right?
    If a unit can comprehend the command to attack on a certain piece, why it wouldn't comprehend it for another?

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Once you explain the simple rule that that's not how Magic works you move on.

    And here is the thing, once that's implemented you won't even have to explain it anymore. That's how intuitive design works.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    The game action of taking cards off the top of your deck and putting them into your discard pile is referred to as "Milling" or being "Milled", that's not very intuitive terminology

    This has nothing to do with intuitive design at all, we are talking about two completely different things, one relates to how players learn a term, whereas the second is already being used by new players since it makes sense to them, until they learn that they are doing it wrong by the rules.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Magic is a game space, not real life, not every thing needs to function like a perfect analog in the real world.

    Yet when it does function, is easier for new players to understand and thus transition from other games.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    You explain the rule to people and after a time they get it

    And here is the magic of intuitive design, that you don't even have to tell them because they already apply it most likely since it makes more sense.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Magic is the most complex game(from a rules perspective) and it can be overwhelming for new players but, that's why we're patient and try to teach them at every opportunity we have.

    Once more, once a rule that makes sense from a common sense perspective is implemented, you won't even have to "teach" them because they would most likely already apply for themselves.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    You purposed fix would add more issues that it would solve

    First of all, one can't say the addition of an extra card type as "fix" but more like an "addition" just like the planeswalker card type.
    Secondly, of course if it were to just pop, it would create balancing issues because the game wasn't designed for that, balancing wise.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    the game is too old and too deep to make the kind of changes you're asking

    That is why they are not "changes" but additions, players who play vintage legacy or even modern, won't even get affected, so speaking about "history" really falls of the mark here.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    You cannot turn the game into something it's not, especially if the proprietors have no desire to do such.

    I like how you are acting as if I have the power to do so, despite this would never probably happen since people immediately associate it with yugioh, completely disregarding the fact that in magic you can also block, just like you block to protect your planeswalker from losing loyalty.

    Trust me, you really have nothing to be afraid, the idea will never get implemented as the amount of negativity surrounding it is too big for just one person with his silly idea, there is really no reason to get all patriotic.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    When people have said that Pokemon and Yugio systems have the ability for creatures to attack creatures you counter with "but in those systems you cannot block the attack, Magic has a system of being able to block the attack"

    Of course we do because indeed in pokemon and yugioh you have no ability to block in order to protect your units.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    so you have no desire to change those systems to include blocking.

    Have you ever considered that I'm not interested in such games to begin with? From what I saw, yugioh, doen't even have an actual combat but comparing numbers that's all.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Different games have different rules, if a game isn't your bag play another one.

    Then tell me a game where you can attack units but are also able to protect them by using your other units?

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Do you really think, if we use your concept of a new card type that can attack each other, that behave like a creature but isn't a creature

    "That behaves like a creature but isn't a creature" wait? How can it behave like a creature the moment it can attack other pieces of the same card type?
    Creatures can't do that, right? You may say 'similarly' but not 'like' a, because 'similarly' implies a certain amount of difference.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    will n ot be confusing for new players?

    New players already apply this as it would makes more sense, you, yourself said that you have to explain to them, not to do that, rather than the opposite, so what you are saying it's kind contradictory don't you think?

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    "We have these creatures, they can attack players and planeswalkers, and they can block. We have these summons that can attack players, planes walkers, and each other and they can block"-new player "why aren't they just the same thing?"

    Because it will mess up the balance of older cards maybe? Why would they need to be the same thing?
    If it were to go well, and the old type slowly phased out, then new players would only have to deal with summons, not creatures, that's why.
    While veteran players could still enjoy the game exactly the way they were used to while newer player would have more option in regards to their troops.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    "Let me explain 25 years of Magic design to you" new player"ZZZZZZZZZZ".

    Except they wouldn't even need to because by then, it would just be summons.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    You claim to have play tested your idea, fine. But I'll wager you play tested with kid gloves on. You and your play group tested it in a manner to make it work, to prove it's feasible. But did you propose it to a third party?

    You think with this much negativity and false association with yugioh mechanics it's an easy thing to do?
    When it can't even been comprehended to a forum and it is immediately faced as an absurd concept, how do you expect it to go forward?
    People have got used to their ways and despise additions, maybe there have been a lot lately and people grew tired of them, the 'Saga' cards are pretty new themselves for example, even for a subtype.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    but WOTC will never implement such a sweeping change to the game

    Again, one can't pretty much consider this as a "change" but rather as an "addition" but I agree, this would never be implemented, there is too much negativity and association with other games mechanic mistakenly assumed for it to go forward.
    To tell you the truth, no one expect it to change.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    at this point because you'd literally turn Magic into another game altogether.

    I wouldn't say that giving the player more control over his units would turn mtg into a totally different game altogether, but admittedly it would be a huge change in the way the player would now have to also think how they would protect their troops as well, giving an additional layer of strategic thinking.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    I have a friend(been playing since 2001) who thinks Planeswalkers do damage to the creatures that attack them.

    I can't understand how much damage exactly he thinks they do since they don't really have an 'attack' number, but I can understand why he might think so, I mean when creatures enter combat they deal damage to one another, so that would probably should apply to planeswalkers as well, because it would make sense, but apparently it doesn't, which is a shame.
    However there is an exception with certain planeswalkers who have the ability to turn into creatures, but that shouldn't normally apply only to exceptions.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    ...and was even more confused when Magic had the old PLaneswalker rule.

    Maybe because the redirection rule was indeed a stupid thing? Thankfully they changed the rule so it makes much more sense now, hopefully they would keep walking on that path.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    I have yet another friend who couldn't grasp that Equipment were not Auras and would get infinitely frustrated that they stayed on the battlefield, he's still bitter about it to this day.

    This is a totally unrelated issue, but personally I think that Artifacts should be attacked as well, since they are things on the battlefield, it would make sense to be able to send your unit to attack it, unfortunately they don't have toughness (Which they should, because an item has toughness, just like any material thing, creatures for one.)

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Instead of trying to convince "us" that WOTC needs to implement your idea why not just create a new format(in the appropriate threads) and see how it goes. I do that a lot, I love creating new formats, but I don't desire to change the basic game.

    If I see that there is a demand, of course I would like to, even though (I don't know exactly how to do that on this forum.)
    So if people would indeed want to test out I'm all up for it.

    Unfortunately there are no 'summon' cards yet, so if we were to try, we would have to stick to 'creatures' for now.

    So if anyone is interested let me know the process of creation so I can test this with a third party as you suggested, I'm all up for it as long as there is not much negativity surrounding the idea.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Sepulcra »
    On the other hand, it saddens me that "Creatures: The Gathering" is a more fitting name for the game nowadays. I wish I had more options for my instants and sorceries, generic "1R Sorcery Deal 3 + expansion mechanic" and "3U Draw 2 + expansion mechanic" got old pretty quick. Frown

    And this is exactly why one can't simply put this ruling into existing game, since the game wasn't designed for it.
    There would need to be a lot of rebalancing even after something like this were to be put to use, for example making instant or sorceries stronger as to give players a reason still be using them in the same quantity.
    That is still not an excuse not to make the game more intuitive.

    Again it's too early to talk about the specifics of rebalancing when the very concept sounds absurd to most veteran mtg players.
    Of course the game would need to be rebalanced, because of course it wasn't designed this way to begin with but we can talk about the specifics after the initial proposition isn't faced with such negativity because the notion of sending your troops against your opponent's horde sounds absurd.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    The part in my post about planeswalkers is related because you can attack planeswalkers with creatures to kill them. Which is the subject of your thread.

    You however spend a good chunk of space talking about balancing issues that WoTC won't fix because of money, which is in itself, unrelated, but that's beside the point.

    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    Other games you can attack creatures. In this game you can't.

    Even still, in other games you don't have a chance to protect what is being attacked by blocking it.
    That's what yugioh does for example. So, attacking in yugioh, compared to attacking players/planeswalkers, is a completely different thing.

    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    Your asking for a huge game modification.

    That is indeed correct, as there needs to be a huge revamp in order to make the game more intuitive.
    Though by presenting the idea of a new card type, will make older cards not being affected by that so, this won't affect legacy, vintage or even modern players. So they could still enjoy it exactly the way they were used to, still.


    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    You can try creating a sub-variant of the game. Where you attack creatures with creatures. See if you can get people to play with you.

    Besides my play group, there are a lot of balancing issues that prevent players from doing so in a legal manner since the game by itself wasn't designed this way.
    The biggest problem one can think of is creatures with evasion which would essentially get turned into one turn removals since they will usually go by unblocked, not even mentioning unblockables.

    Now in my play group, we indeed apply a certain set of rules so the game the game won't break.

    Still, the point is not this, it's the negativity that surrounds the very notion because people immediately assume yugioh it terms of battle, completely disregarding the fact that in magic you can also block in order to protect your permanent just like you do with planeswalkers.
    We still got a long way to go until this notion is vanished and people detach their mindset from yugioh mentality, until then the only thing we can do is just clearing the picture.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    No, attacking other creatures does not make sense. You would need to restructure the whole game. Or play Pokemon or Yughio.

    This pretty much sums up the whole experience trying to explain to people over and over that in yugioh and pokemon you don't have a chance to protect your troops because in magic there is something called blocking which allows you to protect your troops.
    As long as people have their mindset attached to yugioh, this simple concept will always be faced with negativity because people immediately assume that the game will be dunbed down instead of getting more deep strategy-wise.

    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    If you want to fix the issue that you see then you would need to get rid of planeswalkers.

    Seems like you are way of topic, we were discussing about making the game more intuitive, new players already assume that your underlings are able to be commanded to attack other underlings, when we were discussing about planeswalkers, we weren't talking about them gameplay wise, but as a unit that is able to be attacked, which is a good step towards making the game make more sense in that regard.

    Now our personal distaste of this card type due to ability reasons is a complete separate matter.
    I too have personally happened to quit many MTGA games when I see a planeswalker as a free to play player, but that still has nothing to do with the current conversation about making the game more intuitive.

    Quote from SpeedGrapher »
    Planeswalkers are the imbalance in the game. They are sorcery's plus enchantments with a bonus spell as the ultimate. But they aren't going away. They put a marketing face on the company that can sell more supplemental products such as card sleeves, binders and T-shirts. There is too much money to be made to get rid of planeswalkers.

    There is no point in commenting further as the post starts to go way of track.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    I think you have completely misunderstood the whole topic.
    This is not some personal issue, this is about making the game more intuitive.
    New players already assume that if you can command your underling to attack one entity, then it would make sense to be able to command it to attack another entity as well.
    Planeswalker cards when they were created, made the game walk towards that direction.
    Besides it's not only a 'creature' matter, as artifacts should normally have been able to be attacked as well, since they are 'things' on the battlefield.

    I'll admit that being able to choose along with your opponent which creatures attack (thus exposed to defensing player.) would be the closest thing that has ever been stated here, but it still far away from making the game more intuitive.

    Edit: Besides that, there are also several probelsm with the card you presented as, there is still no way for the "attacking" player to protect his creature once it has been declared as an attacker, so he can't put blockers to protect it from creature that would be blocking it.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from italofoca »
    If creatures could attack each other, the players with the biggest creature can attack and convert the board advantage into a bigget board advantage.[/qute]
    Still there is a thing in magic which called blocking, being able to protect your creatures by blocking the attacking creature.

    [quote from="italofoca »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=55"]Magic combat is designed so that board advantage only lets you attack the opponent life total which is most of the time is inconsequential to combat.

    Not entirely true as there have been for quite some time some cards which are called 'Planeswalkers', so there is still board advantage change.


    Quote from italofoca »
    This allow the player who is behind to catch up.

    Actually not because as things stand right now, whoever has the biggest creature can win, but if there was an option to send your smaller creatures to the big one, you could still gain board advantage without having to rely either on a big creature or a removal.

    Quote from italofoca »
    The scenario of beign far behind on board, getting attacked until you are one turn away from losing and eventually turning the game around is far more common in mtg then in any other CG for this reason.

    This is exactly why this should be applied.

    Quote from italofoca »
    PWs are exceptional high risk, high reward cards. By allowing creatures to be attacked like pws you would actually remove options from the game by forcing all cards to behave like this.

    A little vague argument, but we weren't discussing about creatures themselves, but for a new card type so that it wouldn't affect older cards.
    Giving more options to the player increases depth and strategy because there would be the additional layer or having to think how you can protect your troops as well.

    Quote from italofoca »
    I understand that allowing you to block for your creatures would limit this snow ballness. But the scenario where you block for your creature is exactly like choosing to not block a attack, this is inconsequential.

    Not quite since if you don't block (either with another creature or with your player.) then the creature obviously gets... well.. attacked. Makes sense?
    So there would be consequences and that would be part of the additional strategy depth.

    Quote from italofoca »
    This change would only impact the game when one player is so ahead he decides to attack with two creatures - and all this change would do is give a advantage to the player who is ahead.

    I never said that it would should be a change just for the sake of chaning, the only thing that was being said was making the game more intuitive.
    Secondly even with two creature you would still have problems as the player would probably block himself thus taking the damage so it wouldn't benefit the player in advance to attack just like that.
    Not to mention that as things already stand the player who has the advantage gets the benefit because he doesn't have to think whether he should protect his big creature from a swarm of smaller creatures.
    This pretty much gives a huge advantage to the player that has the big creature since he won't have to worry whether his underling is gonna be attacked.

    Quote from italofoca »
    I think a game like this, where you can target creatures and act as blocker could be very interesting but the whole combat mechanics would be redesigned to accomodate this. It would be a totally different game.

    Remember that before planeswalker cards came into being, the only thing one could attack was the player.
    So with a new card type being added, the old cards wouldn't need to be affected thus the 'redesign' would only apply to the new cards.
    I agree that if the new card comes into being and the old creatures slowly phase out from future's standard the future standards would be a totally different game from say 'Vintage' but I don't think that is necessarily a bad result, since the only thing that actually done, was the creation of that new card type, so players could still play magic exactly as it was while those who want intuitive innovation could enjoy the game as well.
    So it's a win for both.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from runecrow »
    But it also makes sense that that creature should be able to run away from your attackers thus evading the attackers.

    Of course it should, it would also be awesome to have different 'locations' for the player to command his creatures to go so they would evade their attackers. Up to now, players can only give up to three commands to their creatures 'attack player', 'attack planeswalker' and 'block' it would be awesome to have another command saying 'leave area' of course that creature shouldn't be able to target other creatures with it's abilities since it's no longer in that specific area, neither should +1/+1 be applies to creatures since they are not in the same area to receive the buff.

    This is still a specific matter in a problem, when there hasn't even been a positive perspective to the base concept.
    When most people find the idea of creatures attacking other creatures as absurd, how can we even be able to discuss the details of that matter?
    To most veteran mtg players this basic concept comes from the sphere of "doesn't make sense"
    So until there can be a comprehension of the basic premise, it's pointless to try and delve into the details for now.

    Quote from runecrow »
    But then, what if your attackers are cats attacking a dinosaur? That doesn't make sense.

    What if there are many cats? Why wouldn't a pack of sabretooth's be able to down a T-Rex?
    Even small bugs invisible to the eye could make a dent to a huge creature if they all decide to attack together as a swarm, especially when they are commanded to.

    Quote from runecrow »
    How does a wolf even do damage to a Phyrexian Dreadnaught? Doesn't make sense.

    Well if they are indestructible it doesn't matter by how many they get attacked, it still won't die due to lethal damage, if they are not, then why wouldn't it?


    Quote from runecrow »
    And once my creature has hit your planeswalker, why is it having to go through defenders on the next turn all over again? Shouldn't he be right there on the planeswalker, trashing him continually? It makes no sense.

    It actually makes sense because there is something called "Calling backup" if you see your planeswalker get hit by a swarm of creatures, wouldn't you want to call back up before he loses faith in you?
    Blockers are for that reason: To block. If you have killed the first wave, defending player should send the next if he has one available.

    Quote from runecrow »
    But it makes perfect sense in the context of the rules themselves. That is the only "sense" that can be reasonably applied to form a meaningful argument. As for creatures, it makes sense they can't attack other creatures because the rules don't allow it.

    Well rules of the game were created as means to represent the combat, that is why there are terms such as 'attacking' or 'blocking'.
    It isn't just a game of poker where a pair of two's somehow of better than the King (Which is well beyond the two's combined.)
    The rules were meant to represent the current battle as it was unfolding to the current battlefield.


    Quote from runecrow »
    I have no idea why Garfield decided that in his game creatures can't attack other creatures, but it made sense to him from a mechanical point of view, and so it makes sense if you want to play the game he designed.

    There are a lot of factors one might be forced to take an action they might not want, I don't know Mr.Garfield personally and magic had been the best tcg there ever was, but we shouldn't lose our common sense just because of something that happened to be or what the end result of something was.
    We should always strive to think for ourselves, that is not saying that we shouldn't compromise when needed, but no one should have to in that particular case. MTG is a really great game that we enjoy and love, but at the same time is not that bad to agree that it has flaws.

    To be honest I would personally want to ask him as well, but I'm suspecting that the answer would be for balancing reasons, maybe there was some card back then that might completely broke the game and they made that decision because they figured it was the best decision they could make at that particular moment.
    Probably if the game was designed today from the scratch all over, they might have made it completely different.
    To be honest I wouldn't as well, cause it would probably end up like another hearthstone clone where you don't even have a chance to protect your creatures and the board is a complete cluster**** from the way it constantly changes from turn to turn.

    Magic is probably the best tgc that was created, but it could be better, it got an upgrade when planeswalker cards came into being, giving a deeper flavor to the game that made it more intuitive since you were able to do thing that should make sense like being able to command an attack a living being besides the player on the battlefield where it wasn't previously available.

    At the same time magic has something that other tcgs don't have: The ability to protect something when it gets attacked, like you should be able to.
    Other games I assume they took that feature out due to simplicity but they missed the chance to make their games have a deeper sense of strategy due to that foolish decision.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Being able to attack Planeswalkers with creatures makes sense from a mechanical and lore perspective.


    I would like to apologize in advance for sounding kind of heretic, but we believe that being able to attack any living entity with your troops makes sense as well.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    In a ground based war, you send in the troops.


    But you can also give them specific order to attempt to attack a specific threatening captain before you go for the overlord, as well, right?

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    The defensive position chooses to either engage or retreat.


    Completely understandable.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Magic’s combat system captures this perfectly well. If you are the attacking force and you wish to stop a retreating force, you need ranged weapons, hence removal spells.


    Well there are also troops that might have ranged weapons, no? Plus defending player should always have a chance to block in order to protect something, this doesn't happen with removal.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    When an army amasses on the battlefield to attack, they don’t attack individual combatants


    Which has been proven in the history of wars to not be an efficient way to victory.
    Maybe for you going straight to the overlord might seem the only option but for the rest of the people they usually attack his bodyguards or even using spies, that is how war is actually done.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    in that moment the defending army decides how to respond.


    Yes, defending player will always have a chance to protect his troops against the enemy horde, we can agree on that.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Active player yells “charge” and sends in the troops(attacking)


    I have to apologize but this is not how wars are actually fought, this is more like a caricature of how a person who was never witnessed a war in his life, thinks what war is actually like.
    Usually actual wars happen in a long period of time and magic has a good way of representing that with healing the troops at the end of turns and even placing lands which gives a hint that the player might have actually traversed a new land in the process and acquired it's power.

    But even if it was actually how you described it, by your own logic, you shouldn't be able to attack planeswalkers as well, since you would have already yelled "charge!!!!" at this point.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    If you want your predator drone to drop a bomb on my general, that’s not a massive, infantry attack


    It's good to not be absolute about anything as in magic there is the existence of huge creatures who might need more manpower in order to be taken down.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Watch any movie depicting a bronze age, iron age, medieval, or Napoleonic battle. You’ll never see an amassed force targeting individual soldiers in a charge


    And this is the issue, the notion of how a war is fought throughout movies, not the actual combat itself.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    except for high value targets.


    We can agree on that.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    But the targeting of high value targets is easily represented by either spells or activated abilities. Even archers and infantry gunners(smooth bore musket types) don’t target, they engage in volley fire. Artillery pieces don’t target individuals, they target areas or fortifications.


    Which is why no actual war is fought this way.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Either way I’ll leave you be, WOTC will not likely go in the direction you’re suggesting so this entire discussion just idle banter.


    Of course it probably won't, here even regular people see even the notion of being able to individually decide who to attack with disgust, imagine how R&D will especially if they would have to create the rulling for the supposed new card type.

    To tell you the truth, no one is expecting WoTC to actually implement that, we just wanted to see if the magic community feels, and of course the result was negative, but one would never guess it would be such negative as to have people try to defend an absurd system to this extend.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    So if your idea, or one like it, could work, without breaking the game, WOTC designers would explore it.


    I don't think so, since it's something that would have had implemented already. Besides we don't think that WoTC actually sees feedback even less from a forum such as this, they are most likely talking about balancing issues to upcomming sets rather than fundamentals.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    If you want people to be less negative about your idea spent dozens of hours play-testing it in multiple formats. Work out odd and troublesome interactions. Have a third party play-test it to find stuff you may have missed, take notes and then present your findings. Science it out then get back to us.


    Well as a matter of fact we have been doing this for over 5 years, since it made most sense to my fellow pupils, and were negative on the idea of using the actual rules since they claim that it doesn't make sense.
    As a result we had to ban several cards (Especially cards who dealt with evasion, for example ublockability was banned since it was used as one turn free removal.)
    Still the amount of time doesn't matter, what matters is that by making the game more intuitive, it becomes more friendly to newcomers, not to mention that having to think what underlings you have to protect adds an additional layer of strategy.
    Now I won't get into the specifics as it doesn't seem to have the magic community interested.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    People come to these forums all they time with their purposed “fixes” for the game, most of which stem from either a newness to the game or a lack of understanding of the game’s design rules.


    This is exactly why mtg needs intuitive design so it won't have to teach as much to newcomers who are making assumptions based on what would make most sense.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Most often these ideas are not well received. A large part of the Salvation community is very well versed in the game’s design, rules, and complexity nuance.


    True that, and it's kind of apparent as they have gotten so much used to it, that even mention something that may come out of the box is very negatively received.

    Quote from Perodequeso »
    Magic rules are like scientific peer review, better to be cautious and not screw it up than it is to accept something that needs retroactive fixing(WOTC already screws this up enough as it is).


    We are just kind of finding sad that this matter has become so convoluted to begin with, it really should have been a really simple concept, with admittedly a good chunk of additional rules for the supposed new card type.
    It's just kind of sad that it hasn't been implemented still. even after the arrival of planeswalker cards which are nearing almost ten years since their creation back at Lorwyn block.

    Anyway I digress, I want to thank you though for spending your time reading and replying to this, maybe even if the magic community is negative in this regard at least some members are willing to discuss the issue and not completely disregard it.
    Thank you again and have an awesome week Smile
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Yeah, not being able to attack an opposing "army" with most of your "army"(creatures), but with some of them (your new creatures, but not really) should be much less confusing than the current, consistent way of dealing with combat. Rolleyes


    You do realize that the only reason we decided not to apply them to creatures is so it won't create an imbalance to the game, right?
    Not to mention that new player do it anyway even though it's wrong according to the current rules, maybe?

    We're either completely talking past each other, or you're trolling hard. Either way, I'm out of this, since I don' see this discussion coming to any constructive result.


    It's really unfortunate that you have this negative view about this matter. I would like to thank you though for spending your time reading and replying.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Planeswalkers were a completely new cardtype. Of course they had to come with a bunch of new rules and adjustments to the game, but this was all in the realm of additions, not revamping something that has been an integral part of the game since it's beginning.


    Except that this would be a new card type as well, and for that exact purpose.

    Now you're talking about introducing a new card type, but frankly that doesn't make much sense to me. You basically want to change how creatures can attack or block, but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?


    No we don't want to change how creatures attack or block, we are saying how this new card type would work.
    Maybe to you the notion of being able to send your troops against the opponent's might sound absurd, but really it doesn't sound that absurd, especially to new players, also let us not forget that in mtg you can also block.

    but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?


    Were creatures able to attack other creatures? I think not, so this is definitely a new card type that would function similarly, indeed, but different in that aspect, as to make the game more intuitive.

    This would not really fundamentally change what you seem to be dissatisfied with, but just open a very narrow niche of alternative combat mechanics


    We never said that this would be a huge change anyway, so here's that.

    making things more complicated and less clear (and especially confusing for newer players)


    Actually new players who haven't got good grasp of the game, already doing this without even knowing that they are doing it wrong, since I've seem many new players saying that their creature is going to attack this creature and then proceed to blockers.
    Trust me it's rather the opposite as it makes it clearer to new players that they can attack any living entity (which they should have been in my humble opinion from the beginning.)

    Slapping additional utility onto cards you want to run anyway does not really provide more options though. If the cards that advance your game plan can just double as answers to opposing threads, you remove the need to consider how many/what answers you might need.


    First of all this won't always be the case since, once more, defending player will always have chance to block and you wouldn't simply just send your troops to the opposite side if the opponent has an answer, so they wouldn't be used as answers to threats as well so casually as you might think.
    Secondly, you won't have unlimited answers anyway, in any situation.

    Granted, this adds an additional layer of strategy to combat, but in return it makes deck building more trivial.


    It's the opposite rather since as things stand you don't have to think that much of deckbuilding when you simply have to fill the rest of the gap with random removals since there is no other way to get rid of bigger threats, but if you weren't force to cause of this reason, then you would have to double-think the cards you should be putting in your deck, which would rather make deck building more deep than it already is.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.