would repeat what I said. Changing the combat system would turn this entirely into a different game -- a lot of people would not be pleased.
First of all it's not about changing as older cards will not be affected, since the rullings will apply only on the new card type, not creatures.
But yes the combat would probably kind of different as it would require more strategic skill than that since you would also have to think of how to protect your summons as well.
well, then goodluck convincing wizards to implement the changes you're planning. And I'm out of this thread.
Well as long as people have this negative view of it we are far from even being able to even come in contact with them, so the only thing we can do for now is explain the situation and detach the false association this has with other games.
We can't simply go and "convince" them when the moment we leave the very first thought they would have would be "They want to make it more like yugioh", as it falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else.
I want to thank you though for spending your time reading and replying to this thread.
Every bit of interaction helps to make the picture of it more clear, no matter how small it is.
Provoke is an ability everyone claims to want at one point or another in their MtG experience, but everyone hates it when it's on the other side of the table.
Provoke isn't the same thing, nor is Fight. Both of them are different than what TC wants the rules to turn in to.
This is the first comment that isn't addressed at me and yes you are correct, it's totally different.
Provoke is an ability everyone claims to want at one point or another in their MtG experience, but everyone hates it when it's on the other side of the table.
It's still far away from what is being suggested here still, as it simply forced a creature to block, thus there is no way to protect that creatures through other blockers.
Provoke makes the combat system resembles more like yugioh, than this concept.
What is being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else. If you are able to still block to protect your planeswalker, the same should apply to summons as well.
1. I'll try to be even more explicit so that I can make sure it's understood, as you seem to go on kind of random paths from my intent.
I'm really sorry if it seems that way to you, I can assure you that it is not my intent, all I'm trying to do is kind of make a clear picture of the concept.
What I said was that reading the opening post the primary issue/problem is that Creatures with Enchantments create a strong presence in the game.
Of course they do, just like in a regular game, as a creature gets more and more strong, it becomes more and more of a threat.
In a regular game your main two options are either removal or an equally big creature.
The rest of the reasons for this suggestion, to me, are ultimately unimportant, because intuition/lore/whatever other justifications used are unimportant,
Understandable, you should know though that this concept is not directed towards you specifically but only those who wish to explore this new concept.
but the one that Creatures that are basically fancy Enchantments to boot does have merit.
I'm afraid that you kind of misunderstood the concept as it's not about replacing the horde with a creature that has the sum of the power equal to the number of creatures that are attacking, but rather having all the creatures being able to attack individual units.
That being said, if combat shennanigans were to come into play such as Giant Growth for example, it doesn't mean that your attacking horde would completely leave intact as your opponent's creature might still have a chance to kill some of the creatures that are attacking it.
4. I'm clarifying this point before I continue, to make sure that it is obvious. You replied to a person named Xcric. I scrolled back and forth between my reply and your post, and at one point mixed up your reply to Xcric with me, Xeruh. So I started replying to that as well, and stopped when I realized what happened, though I left my original comments intact.
I can't speak about others in my group, but I can only speak for myself.
I simply try to answer questions so that the picture of the concept could be clearer.
That being said it doesn't specifically mean that I pay that much attention to nicknames, so if you found something offensive it doesn't mean that I specifically target you, so I'm sorry if it seemed that way, it was not my intention.
2. I don't think Deathtouch would break this perceived format especially badly, though I do think that it gives a lot more options than it currently has. Being able to chump block a Deathtouch Creature is an important part of how it currently works, and while you can still do that in the new rules
First of all they are not "new rules" and they will probably never will, it's really not that good for the concept to be perceived as "chainging the rules" as magic has a huge history behind it which can't simply change, especially since the game wasn't designed this way as it would creature a huge balancing problem.
you're suggesting you can't go with the option of simply taking the damage, which is an important way to deal with Deathtouch I feel.
There must be some misunderstanding, no one ever said that you "can't simply take the damage" as your player would be able to block himself so he there would still be that option.
Let me know what made you think any different so we could clear this up.
3. I misunderstood the point you were making, but given that you made a similar kind of point I'll address it. Trying to mess with the mechanics as far as how you can attack and block only makes the combat math more complex, and it isn't for much of a benefit. This game already has a lot going on, and adding even more things to keep track of would likely cause people to get frustrated with it.
I understand and you actually have a point, it really makes it much more complex as there would be the additional strategic layer of having to think how you can protect your creatures as well.
This would require more strategical thinking and would make the game a bit less about luck and more about skill if that's what you mean.
Many people don't wish that and it's understandable, after all not all formats are for everyone.
Side A has a 2/2 Creature. Side B has two 1/1 Creatures. This is a stalemate for both sides, as you're not going to be able to attack or block really without trading. This doesn't change in your proposed ruleset. Both sides are still at a stalemate. Adding the option to attack Creatures this way would still result in a trade, and you need something new to break it.
Let me explain what would happen in this particular scenario under this format:
We are with side A having a 2/2 creature and side B having two 1/1 creatures as you suggested.
If side B were to attack side A's 2/2 creature with the two 1/1 creature then side A's player would probably block one 1/1 creature himself and the other one could either be blocked by the 2/2 or simply go unblocked, doesn't really make a difference if there are no other effects involved.
What would happen is that the player A would take 1 damage from the first 1/1 and the other 1/1 would die from the 2/2.
So assuming we are talking about this particular case it still doesn't benefit player B to attack the 2/2 with his two 1/1s.
Again all we are talking about here is this particular situation and nothing else.
If he wanted to actually get rid of the 2/2 he would need one more 1/1.
At best all you're doing is giving Side B the option to trade instead of only Side A, and in so doing adding a lot of complexity.
Let's make an example again but this time side B has three 1/1 creatures while side A still having the 2/2.
In this situation yes, you are indeed correct, this would probably result in a trade (again assuming no other effects are involved.)
So what happens is pretty much side B's horde is attacking side A's creature which would indeed result in a trade since side A will probably not block as it wouldn't make a difference.
What pretty much happened was that side A's 2/2 creature got ganged by the three 1/1 creatures, so after the combat only one 1/1 creature would still be left on board.
Now if you want to argue about complexity then you are free to do so.
Personally I've seen far more complex situations in this format to even consider this as "complex".
5b. The proposed rule does not remotely mean this game plays like Magic. Anyone who is suggesting that has a very limited understanding of Magic and Yugioh, plain and simple.
The very fact that yugioh is even suggested here, pretty much goes to show the misunderstanding that revolves around the concept.
Furthermore people have different opinions as to what one considers as "playing like magic", if you made a suggestion about a card that could be attacked 15 years ago before Lorwyn you would pretty much have everyone tell you the same things you are telling me today.
Yet 15 years later planeswalker cards pretty much have been implemented to regular magic.
Of course there are as one requires far more strategical thinking than that.
That's why if it even were to be a thing, it would probably be a entirely different format.
It feels more like an insult as Yugioh is seen as shallow/bad mechanically,
Maybe to others might seem like a good idea, I just personally didn't liked the combat system of yugioh, as I found it extremely unappealing, this is a personal opinion, not everyone likes the same things obviously.
so by calling an idea like Yugioh you paint it in a negative light.
I would just skip that as even comparing that with yugioh means that you haven't completely got grasp of the concept.
So, even though it's being stated so many times, I'd have to say once more that what it's being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
Let me know if you want me to repeat that again since there is no telling on how many times this has to be stated.
Even the suggested game, Kaijudo, still has noteworthy differences with regards to how attacks and blocks work, but attacking Creatures is in it. That's why I brought it up,
I don't happen to have knowledge of it as I haven't played that game so I'll leave it up to you to decide what's being said here is even remotely close to that combat system.
as it has a decent number of similarities to Magic, being designed by WotC after all. It's probably the closest to what you're suggesting but I think the fact they didn't let Creatures freely block and attack is probably suggestive of the fact that it's not a great design.
Well, blocking makes all the difference here, so if there is no free block is not even remotely close to magic since there is no "freely" to block in order to protect your creatures.
If you have to reduce all factors to try and justify something as being simple then you're innately acknowledging it's more complex than you want for your comparison
The only thing that has ever been stated is that the concept is simple, not it's appliance.
but you don't want to try and compare the two things properly.
That's because there is nothing to compare it to at the moment since there is nothing even remotely close to it yet.
The closest thing that even remotely resembles it is, attacking planeswalkers, that's all.
This isn't even getting into the fact that even minus combat tricks the functions between Creatures and Monsters,
Well, if there are still misunderstandings you are always free to present examples that involve combat tricks, I'd be happy to explain what might happen in that situation.
Proper analysis requires length discussions, and honestly this is kind of short for all there is that could be covered.
I agree and this is why I'm currently doing, trying to explain the situation as best I can.
Also I want to thank you for spending your time reading and replying to these as it means a lot to me and the progress of this concept.
Hopefully lengthy discussion might make the picture clearer but we are still far away from it, so the only thing we can do for now is try to explain the situation in hopes that it becomes understood and isn't faced with so much negativity as it is faced now.
Cards like Moat, camouflage, reverance, brainwash, false orders, raging river basically anything that alters combat in any way harm this system. heck even just protection mskes this system a mess. Basically mother of runes is the best creature for combat ever. There would need to be a banning of thousands of cards due to the unintended consequences of this system.
Well, in my group we pretty much play with the cards we own for now so, our pool is kinda limited, so there is no reason for us to start digging the whole mtg history to find card.
If someone shows up with such a card, then there would probably be a playtest to determine that.
Since the game wasn't designed for it, it's pretty safe to assume that there would be a lot of cards which would break this format.
For now, the general rule is to stay cautious mainly to things that involve evasion, it's not that we have the luxury of having so much free time that we can't think of anything else, our jobs for one for example.
All that was suggested was the presentation of this idea.
Admittedly at first I too thought that changing the rulings for all creature cards would be the way, but people here presented valid arguments which explained why that would be a bad idea since it would totally break the balance of the game, which made me change my mind as well.
Still I was hopping that the idea wouldn't be faced with so much negativity, but the unfortunate association with combat mechanics such as yugioh, made the concept even harder to be communicated since understandable people due to their experience tend to mistakenly associate that with yugioh, which makes it even harder to properly express the exact situation as the conversation becomes diverted.
Because of that it seems that the only thing one can do for now is repeat himself over and over until the association with games such as yugioh isn't so prevalent.
So that eventually we could go to the next step of actually talk about it after people (Or at least people who have interest in it.) have kind of comprehend the basic concept instead of immediately associating it with combat mechanics from other games.
I wish there was some way of showing what it's actually being said clearer so people won't immediately just to make the wrong assumptions.
Until it's kind of understood, there is not much that can be done for now either way.
I have no idea why you're repeating the main point I was making, that Creatures with Enchantment like effects are pretty strong. As I said, that's the big thing that I feel is the issue.
Creatures with enchantment effects are pretty strong anyway, besides being able to have your smaller creatures being able to down that creature actually diminished that effect instead of the opposite, which means that it's pretty much the opposite than what you think because you would still have the chance to advance without the need to rely only on removals.
So this will do the complete opposite than making the issue even worse if that's your issue.
I... also have no idea what you're talking about as far as Deathtouch and Spirits go.
It was just a mere example, you suggested that deathtouch will totally break the game, and an counter argument was presented about many other abilities which could counter it, evasion being one of them, another is first strike.
Say one attacks one of your creatures with a deathtouch, if you block with a first striker he would be in trouble of course cause he would only lose it, so attacking will not always be an option.
If I do understand what you're suggesting it's that Spirits, being non-living/generally dead can't be impacted by Deathtouch
No, what has been said in that particular example was that a creature could only attack what it can block, many spirits have the ability to be able to only be able to block other spirits, so the creature with deathtouch wouldn't be able to attack it in that particular situation.
Again this was just an example from many many others, I don't know why you are focusing on that one so much.
As far as the bit on attacking with creatures when you have one big or many small it ultimately becomes a stalemate for both sides, not just one, where the trick to breaking through is dependent on other cards. That doesn't mean it's not tactical, nor do I think your claim that being able to attack creatures directly would make it more tactical. I've played Kaijudo, which works somewhat like you suggest, and it didn't really result in more tactical gameplay.
That's why it's a strategy game, if you could attack any time you had a big creature, since defending player would have no options whatsoever, this wouldn't be as interactive.
Many people accused the concept of being more like yugioh, but totally overlooking the fact that when defending player has the option to block as well, attacking won't always be an option as it would require more strategic skill than that.
I don't know about Kaijudo, but many people have claimed that this was similar to many games they played but have fallen of the mark because of that assumption.
Again, what is being said here, falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than nothing else, defending player would still have a chance to block in order to protect his creatures even by himself (being a creature as well as the player.)
I'd let you figure out whether that falls in line with that game you suggested.
With regards to your comment on Yugioh, that isn't at all how it works. Having the bigger creature alone is not the only thing that matters, and the presence of Trap cards means that it's very possible to run into issues if you attack recklessly.
Same could be said about magic since there are combat tricks such as instants for example.
But when there aren't any involved or any effects as well, there is no reason not to attack, which pretty much makes it so whoever has the bigger creature wins the battle, which not only is not interactive but there is no strategic thinking involved.
Yugioh also has a lot tighter synergy with how decks are built due to archetypes, which means that you're not always just looking for the biggest monsters you can stuff into a deck.
I really never liked the combat of yugioh to be honest, cause if there aren't any combat shenanigans involved it simply ends up to who has the biggest creature wins, especially since defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature against a bigger one.
Again this applies assuming there are no other combat tricks involved.
I'm really sorry if it kind of offended you but, me and most people here can agree that yugioh has really poor combat mechanics.
Totally disagree here. huge part of the games strategy happens not on your turn with ho9w you block or use instant speed removal which would completely warp the game. You wouldn't be able to play utility creatures that may not be as big cause they die. Couldn't block with expendable creatures. Messing with token decks or any green deck with mana dorks. An more decks but those are some obvious ones. Also death touch blockers and walls would be useless. Would really crush a lot of decks.
Well, different formats require different strategies and thus different decks, you can't expect a regular tier 1 deck that would work on a standard game to work here and you shouldn't expect it to.
Furthermore combat tricks play even bigger role here since you will find that you can't just simply leave your creature unattended and expect it to survive, you will have to look after your utility creatures if you don't want them to die and still give that +1/+1 bonus, this is what makes the game requiring more deep strategic thinking, since you have to also look after your creatures if you want them to survive, you can't just simply call them and then forget about them by simply not attacking with them, the enemy will of course try to go after them as he should be, and so you could as well if the roles were to be reversed.
Of course it wouldn't be as easy to get rid of them since your player could also block to protect them so it really won't be that easy, but at least you would have still the option to if you want to instead of waiting to draw the removal.
Of course that doesn't mean that you wouldn't still have the option of removal which would be the easy way to get rid of them, but you will also have this as well.
Also even if you view removal as a "tax" cause it snot part of the strategy. maybe that's a good thing that rewards interactive games of magic instead of linear decks that go all in on there strategy. Which already can be a problem. And would make creature decks imbalanced cause there wincon would also be there answers.
What part of "waiting to draw the removal because I have no other way to get rid of that utility" speaks about strategy?
If nothing else, that seems even less of interactivity than also having the option to engage in combat which of course would involve more strategic thinking from your part since you would also have to think who you should keep back so they can protect your utility creatures from retaliation.
Lastly it's too early to talk about balance since the game wasn't designed for it to begin with, so until it does (if it ever.) we have to think about making it more balanced ourselves for now.
To put it this way i think it build around g/x creature or enchantment maybe that let creatures fight on etb or some other condition like ayula. But changing the mechanics to allow it would be a bad idea.
The fact that you talk about 'fight' means that you haven't completely comprehended the concept as in magic you could also block in order to protect your creratures, which is not the case with fight mechanic where defending player doesn't have a chance whatsoever.
What we are talking here, falls more in like with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
i feel one of the things that sets magic apart is not being able to target creatures with attacking creatures directly, that inability to say my dude attacks your dude adds more complexity to the game
death touch would pretty much be the gold standard for every creature if you could pick and choose what you swing in to
griping about having to run removal for walkers is also a little silly because welcome to magic, where you should be running removal.
You will need more strategical thinking than simply putting deathtouch, what if your opponent has first strike? Your whole point about deathtouch would be completely ruined, there are more and there would be even more ways of playing magic than you assume there are.
Secondly, you wouldn't still be able to attack creatures that you can't block, so a creature with deathtouch would still not be able to attack a spirit for example.
It really is not as simple as you might think.
Besides a different format would require a different strategy in order to attain it.
But even still you will run into surprise when your opponent blocks with another creature and you end up trading your deathtouch with something else than what you wanted, so it's really not as simple as you think.
Even with a change to being able to target Creatures it wouldn't turn MtG into "quasi Yugioh". There are far too many radical differences for a change, even one as broad as target Creatures, to make it Yugioh. You're vastly diminishing the differences between the two card games to make a poor comparison, and it doesn't make your rhetoric look good.
In yugioh, however has the biggest creature, pretty much has the upper hand, when you have to think of ways to protect your troops as well, then it becomes even less from a yugioh than even now, in yugioh there is no reason not to attack once you have the bigger creature, in this there would be plenty as you would leave your creatures unprotected in future attack.
The fact that in magic you can block, makes the whole difference and you will realize that if you attempt attacking other creatures once you have the biggest creature under this, you will probably lose most of your games, as this you will soon realize that it would require even more deep strategical thinking than yugioh, not even close in the slightest.
banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
First of all, every format has a ban list, this is to keep sure that the game won't break due to specific format rules.
Secondly if you still think that we are talking about yugioh then you clearly still haven't comprehended the basic concept.
In yugioh defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature by putting another in the way of attacker.
If you detach your mindset from that yugioh mentality then you would realize that your point is really far off the mark.
Furthermore, there really wouldn't be any changes in the combat since this would only apply to summons, not creatures, so if don't wish to transition then you won't.
This would only be for people who want to try this, not those who don't.
And I know mechanically what you want to implement, I feel like it isn't a great idea nor is it the only way to solve the original problem, which as I said seems more like it's about Creatures being able to have a strong impact on the board without attacking, making removal of them difficult.
First of all removal of them is already difficult as it is since the only practical way to get rid of them in a standard game would be, well, removals, making them able to attack one another would add even more options as you won't be limited to only one choice.
Again it's more about making the game intuitive than nothing else, it won't necessarily make them neither more "impactful" nor less.
The thing is that when you have more choices then the game becomes more about strategy and skill, rather than luck.
If you have a bunch of smaller creatures and the opponent has a big one, you simply either wait for him to attack (Which he probably won't unless it benefits his or has some combat shenanigan.) so as it currently stands, whoever has the bigger creature pretty much has the upper hand.
So, you can't pretty much do anything until you draw the removal.
And that's the difference, if it was actually implemented then you could still advance even if you had smaller creatures so you wouldn't have to rely only on removals or getting an even bigger creature as it currently stands.
In short, you need to see it for yourself, just make sure to not play with unblockables and add reach to certain creature types and you will realize that the game will become more like strategy and skill rather than luck as it stands right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
First of all it's not about changing as older cards will not be affected, since the rullings will apply only on the new card type, not creatures.
But yes the combat would probably kind of different as it would require more strategic skill than that since you would also have to think of how to protect your summons as well.
Well as long as people have this negative view of it we are far from even being able to even come in contact with them, so the only thing we can do for now is explain the situation and detach the false association this has with other games.
We can't simply go and "convince" them when the moment we leave the very first thought they would have would be "They want to make it more like yugioh", as it falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else.
I want to thank you though for spending your time reading and replying to this thread.
Every bit of interaction helps to make the picture of it more clear, no matter how small it is.
This is the first comment that isn't addressed at me and yes you are correct, it's totally different.
It's still far away from what is being suggested here still, as it simply forced a creature to block, thus there is no way to protect that creatures through other blockers.
Provoke makes the combat system resembles more like yugioh, than this concept.
What is being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than anything else. If you are able to still block to protect your planeswalker, the same should apply to summons as well.
Alright, I'll keep things in quotes as well so you won't have to keep scrolling all the time to keep track of what has been said.
I'm really sorry if it seems that way to you, I can assure you that it is not my intent, all I'm trying to do is kind of make a clear picture of the concept.
Of course they do, just like in a regular game, as a creature gets more and more strong, it becomes more and more of a threat.
In a regular game your main two options are either removal or an equally big creature.
Understandable, you should know though that this concept is not directed towards you specifically but only those who wish to explore this new concept.
I'm afraid that you kind of misunderstood the concept as it's not about replacing the horde with a creature that has the sum of the power equal to the number of creatures that are attacking, but rather having all the creatures being able to attack individual units.
That being said, if combat shennanigans were to come into play such as Giant Growth for example, it doesn't mean that your attacking horde would completely leave intact as your opponent's creature might still have a chance to kill some of the creatures that are attacking it.
That being said, I don't think you have quite still got grasp of the picture in order to jump onto conclusions.
I can't speak about others in my group, but I can only speak for myself.
I simply try to answer questions so that the picture of the concept could be clearer.
That being said it doesn't specifically mean that I pay that much attention to nicknames, so if you found something offensive it doesn't mean that I specifically target you, so I'm sorry if it seemed that way, it was not my intention.
First of all they are not "new rules" and they will probably never will, it's really not that good for the concept to be perceived as "chainging the rules" as magic has a huge history behind it which can't simply change, especially since the game wasn't designed this way as it would creature a huge balancing problem.
There must be some misunderstanding, no one ever said that you "can't simply take the damage" as your player would be able to block himself so he there would still be that option.
Let me know what made you think any different so we could clear this up.
I understand and you actually have a point, it really makes it much more complex as there would be the additional strategic layer of having to think how you can protect your creatures as well.
This would require more strategical thinking and would make the game a bit less about luck and more about skill if that's what you mean.
Many people don't wish that and it's understandable, after all not all formats are for everyone.
That's a good way of thinking as it spiting big tasks into smaller ones makes it easier to organize.
Yes this is a really good way to go as providing examples is a good way to understand a concept.
Let me explain what would happen in this particular scenario under this format:
We are with side A having a 2/2 creature and side B having two 1/1 creatures as you suggested.
If side B were to attack side A's 2/2 creature with the two 1/1 creature then side A's player would probably block one 1/1 creature himself and the other one could either be blocked by the 2/2 or simply go unblocked, doesn't really make a difference if there are no other effects involved.
What would happen is that the player A would take 1 damage from the first 1/1 and the other 1/1 would die from the 2/2.
So assuming we are talking about this particular case it still doesn't benefit player B to attack the 2/2 with his two 1/1s.
Again all we are talking about here is this particular situation and nothing else.
If he wanted to actually get rid of the 2/2 he would need one more 1/1.
Let's make an example again but this time side B has three 1/1 creatures while side A still having the 2/2.
In this situation yes, you are indeed correct, this would probably result in a trade (again assuming no other effects are involved.)
So what happens is pretty much side B's horde is attacking side A's creature which would indeed result in a trade since side A will probably not block as it wouldn't make a difference.
What pretty much happened was that side A's 2/2 creature got ganged by the three 1/1 creatures, so after the combat only one 1/1 creature would still be left on board.
Now if you want to argue about complexity then you are free to do so.
Personally I've seen far more complex situations in this format to even consider this as "complex".
The very fact that yugioh is even suggested here, pretty much goes to show the misunderstanding that revolves around the concept.
Furthermore people have different opinions as to what one considers as "playing like magic", if you made a suggestion about a card that could be attacked 15 years ago before Lorwyn you would pretty much have everyone tell you the same things you are telling me today.
Yet 15 years later planeswalker cards pretty much have been implemented to regular magic.
Of course there are as one requires far more strategical thinking than that.
That's why if it even were to be a thing, it would probably be a entirely different format.
Maybe to others might seem like a good idea, I just personally didn't liked the combat system of yugioh, as I found it extremely unappealing, this is a personal opinion, not everyone likes the same things obviously.
I would just skip that as even comparing that with yugioh means that you haven't completely got grasp of the concept.
So, even though it's being stated so many times, I'd have to say once more that what it's being suggested here falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
Let me know if you want me to repeat that again since there is no telling on how many times this has to be stated.
I don't happen to have knowledge of it as I haven't played that game so I'll leave it up to you to decide what's being said here is even remotely close to that combat system.
Well, blocking makes all the difference here, so if there is no free block is not even remotely close to magic since there is no "freely" to block in order to protect your creatures.
The only thing that has ever been stated is that the concept is simple, not it's appliance.
That's because there is nothing to compare it to at the moment since there is nothing even remotely close to it yet.
The closest thing that even remotely resembles it is, attacking planeswalkers, that's all.
Well, if there are still misunderstandings you are always free to present examples that involve combat tricks, I'd be happy to explain what might happen in that situation.
I agree and this is why I'm currently doing, trying to explain the situation as best I can.
Also I want to thank you for spending your time reading and replying to these as it means a lot to me and the progress of this concept.
Hopefully lengthy discussion might make the picture clearer but we are still far away from it, so the only thing we can do for now is try to explain the situation in hopes that it becomes understood and isn't faced with so much negativity as it is faced now.
Thank you again.
Well, in my group we pretty much play with the cards we own for now so, our pool is kinda limited, so there is no reason for us to start digging the whole mtg history to find card.
If someone shows up with such a card, then there would probably be a playtest to determine that.
Since the game wasn't designed for it, it's pretty safe to assume that there would be a lot of cards which would break this format.
For now, the general rule is to stay cautious mainly to things that involve evasion, it's not that we have the luxury of having so much free time that we can't think of anything else, our jobs for one for example.
All that was suggested was the presentation of this idea.
Admittedly at first I too thought that changing the rulings for all creature cards would be the way, but people here presented valid arguments which explained why that would be a bad idea since it would totally break the balance of the game, which made me change my mind as well.
Still I was hopping that the idea wouldn't be faced with so much negativity, but the unfortunate association with combat mechanics such as yugioh, made the concept even harder to be communicated since understandable people due to their experience tend to mistakenly associate that with yugioh, which makes it even harder to properly express the exact situation as the conversation becomes diverted.
Because of that it seems that the only thing one can do for now is repeat himself over and over until the association with games such as yugioh isn't so prevalent.
So that eventually we could go to the next step of actually talk about it after people (Or at least people who have interest in it.) have kind of comprehend the basic concept instead of immediately associating it with combat mechanics from other games.
I wish there was some way of showing what it's actually being said clearer so people won't immediately just to make the wrong assumptions.
Until it's kind of understood, there is not much that can be done for now either way.
Creatures with enchantment effects are pretty strong anyway, besides being able to have your smaller creatures being able to down that creature actually diminished that effect instead of the opposite, which means that it's pretty much the opposite than what you think because you would still have the chance to advance without the need to rely only on removals.
So this will do the complete opposite than making the issue even worse if that's your issue.
It was just a mere example, you suggested that deathtouch will totally break the game, and an counter argument was presented about many other abilities which could counter it, evasion being one of them, another is first strike.
Say one attacks one of your creatures with a deathtouch, if you block with a first striker he would be in trouble of course cause he would only lose it, so attacking will not always be an option.
No, what has been said in that particular example was that a creature could only attack what it can block, many spirits have the ability to be able to only be able to block other spirits, so the creature with deathtouch wouldn't be able to attack it in that particular situation.
Again this was just an example from many many others, I don't know why you are focusing on that one so much.
Could you elaborate on that?
That's why it's a strategy game, if you could attack any time you had a big creature, since defending player would have no options whatsoever, this wouldn't be as interactive.
Many people accused the concept of being more like yugioh, but totally overlooking the fact that when defending player has the option to block as well, attacking won't always be an option as it would require more strategic skill than that.
I don't know about Kaijudo, but many people have claimed that this was similar to many games they played but have fallen of the mark because of that assumption.
Again, what is being said here, falls more in line with attacking planeswalkers than nothing else, defending player would still have a chance to block in order to protect his creatures even by himself (being a creature as well as the player.)
I'd let you figure out whether that falls in line with that game you suggested.
Same could be said about magic since there are combat tricks such as instants for example.
But when there aren't any involved or any effects as well, there is no reason not to attack, which pretty much makes it so whoever has the bigger creature wins the battle, which not only is not interactive but there is no strategic thinking involved.
I really never liked the combat of yugioh to be honest, cause if there aren't any combat shenanigans involved it simply ends up to who has the biggest creature wins, especially since defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature against a bigger one.
Again this applies assuming there are no other combat tricks involved.
I'm really sorry if it kind of offended you but, me and most people here can agree that yugioh has really poor combat mechanics.
Well, different formats require different strategies and thus different decks, you can't expect a regular tier 1 deck that would work on a standard game to work here and you shouldn't expect it to.
Furthermore combat tricks play even bigger role here since you will find that you can't just simply leave your creature unattended and expect it to survive, you will have to look after your utility creatures if you don't want them to die and still give that +1/+1 bonus, this is what makes the game requiring more deep strategic thinking, since you have to also look after your creatures if you want them to survive, you can't just simply call them and then forget about them by simply not attacking with them, the enemy will of course try to go after them as he should be, and so you could as well if the roles were to be reversed.
Of course it wouldn't be as easy to get rid of them since your player could also block to protect them so it really won't be that easy, but at least you would have still the option to if you want to instead of waiting to draw the removal.
Of course that doesn't mean that you wouldn't still have the option of removal which would be the easy way to get rid of them, but you will also have this as well.
What part of "waiting to draw the removal because I have no other way to get rid of that utility" speaks about strategy?
If nothing else, that seems even less of interactivity than also having the option to engage in combat which of course would involve more strategic thinking from your part since you would also have to think who you should keep back so they can protect your utility creatures from retaliation.
Lastly it's too early to talk about balance since the game wasn't designed for it to begin with, so until it does (if it ever.) we have to think about making it more balanced ourselves for now.
The fact that you talk about 'fight' means that you haven't completely comprehended the concept as in magic you could also block in order to protect your creratures, which is not the case with fight mechanic where defending player doesn't have a chance whatsoever.
What we are talking here, falls more in like with attacking planeswalkers than yugioh.
You will need more strategical thinking than simply putting deathtouch, what if your opponent has first strike? Your whole point about deathtouch would be completely ruined, there are more and there would be even more ways of playing magic than you assume there are.
Secondly, you wouldn't still be able to attack creatures that you can't block, so a creature with deathtouch would still not be able to attack a spirit for example.
It really is not as simple as you might think.
Besides a different format would require a different strategy in order to attain it.
But even still you will run into surprise when your opponent blocks with another creature and you end up trading your deathtouch with something else than what you wanted, so it's really not as simple as you think.
In yugioh, however has the biggest creature, pretty much has the upper hand, when you have to think of ways to protect your troops as well, then it becomes even less from a yugioh than even now, in yugioh there is no reason not to attack once you have the bigger creature, in this there would be plenty as you would leave your creatures unprotected in future attack.
The fact that in magic you can block, makes the whole difference and you will realize that if you attempt attacking other creatures once you have the biggest creature under this, you will probably lose most of your games, as this you will soon realize that it would require even more deep strategical thinking than yugioh, not even close in the slightest.
First of all, every format has a ban list, this is to keep sure that the game won't break due to specific format rules.
Secondly if you still think that we are talking about yugioh then you clearly still haven't comprehended the basic concept.
In yugioh defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature by putting another in the way of attacker.
If you detach your mindset from that yugioh mentality then you would realize that your point is really far off the mark.
Furthermore, there really wouldn't be any changes in the combat since this would only apply to summons, not creatures, so if don't wish to transition then you won't.
This would only be for people who want to try this, not those who don't.
First of all removal of them is already difficult as it is since the only practical way to get rid of them in a standard game would be, well, removals, making them able to attack one another would add even more options as you won't be limited to only one choice.
Again it's more about making the game intuitive than nothing else, it won't necessarily make them neither more "impactful" nor less.
The thing is that when you have more choices then the game becomes more about strategy and skill, rather than luck.
If you have a bunch of smaller creatures and the opponent has a big one, you simply either wait for him to attack (Which he probably won't unless it benefits his or has some combat shenanigan.) so as it currently stands, whoever has the bigger creature pretty much has the upper hand.
So, you can't pretty much do anything until you draw the removal.
And that's the difference, if it was actually implemented then you could still advance even if you had smaller creatures so you wouldn't have to rely only on removals or getting an even bigger creature as it currently stands.
In short, you need to see it for yourself, just make sure to not play with unblockables and add reach to certain creature types and you will realize that the game will become more like strategy and skill rather than luck as it stands right now.
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.
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.
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.
Of course
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.
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.
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.