Cantrips are powerful and fun. "Mystery Box" ones are merely reasonable, but we do have some of those in the form of cycling cards. Ones that let you choose the card, like ponder, are extremely dangerous. In general though, we've kept most of the card draw in our auction block at moderate power level - or require jumping through hoops (like Ordeal of Thassa). This is because we like to mostly have control over the auction, so that each player has a chance to buy the game-winning cards. With a lot of card draw, you get fun surprises that can feel awesome - but you lose control over the skill-based experience.
That said, we love the card draw effects and always try to snap them up. It just depends on the experience you're looking for. I have a hunch we'll be making a second auction block that plays very differently from the one in the article too.
As for going to 0, yes - it's super dangerous. You can afford to do it when bidding on a creature (because the auction ends after a creature is purchased and you'll get 3 gold at the start of the next turn, before the next auction) but if you do it while it's not your turn and bidding on a non-creature, your opponent can pick free cards off the top of the deck. If you do it while it's your turn, they only have to pay 1 gold per card (because they still have to raise your bid of zero). It's an added layer of risk/reward strategy.
-
- Stairc
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 1 month, and 1 day
Last active Mon, Feb, 5 2018 10:18:16
- 8 Followers
- 5,231 Total Posts
- 222 Thanks
-
May 6, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to Play15% means that answers are rather rare. You usually only get 1 or 2 each game. Our auction block is built around that, with few creatures being must-kill targets. If you run a higher power block, or just one with higher variance of power (more must-kill creatures compared to the other ones in the block), 25% could absolutely be the correct number.Posted in: Articles
Also, yes, if you run out of cards in the auction block you shuffle both graveyards in and use them as the new pile. -
May 6, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to PlayWhy don'y you give it a try and let us know how it goes? I'd be interested to find out.Posted in: Articles
-
May 5, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to PlayYou're correct. I'll see if I can get an editor to change it.Posted in: Articles
-
May 4, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to PlayAbsolutely, there are lots of great things to discuss here.Posted in: Articles
The situation where all players have 0 gold while the auction is continuing has not ever showed up in testing but it does need an answer. The reason it almost never happens is because when one player is at 0 gold, the other player only has to spend 1 gold to buy each card that shows up. The auction is probably going to end before one player runs out of gold.
The current rules about neither player bidding, which say to auction again, are designed as a safety valve so that if a designer includes a useless card in his block - players have an inbuilt way to say "let's not play with this card". However, it does create problems when both players have 0 gold. I'd either suggest either immediately ending the auction if both players are at 0 gold, or change the rules so that bidding "0" is a legitimate first bid - and that if no one raises the bid the player that bid "0" gold gets the card for free. Both would solve the problem, though the second is more elegant (since it just tweaks an existing rule rather than adds a brand new rule).
For constructing an auction block, there are no limits whatsoever. You can build a block however you like. You can build it singleton, like Commander, or you can put in 10 copies of a card you like. You can also shuffle several booster packs together and try playing with their contents. The only limits are what you think will make the best experience for your players. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is that true Typho0nn? In that case, if I choose to violently resist your argument and am killed because of it - you're threatening my disagreement with DEATH?! That makes you sound like quite the big brother police state dictator. Sure you want to stick to that argument?
Nope. We're counting people executed by the government in modern times for tax evasion. Not people that chose on their own to wage rebellion because of (insert reason here). Environmental terrorists that are killed during their own attacks aren't executed for supporting the environment. They're killed in action, or executed in places with the death penalty, because they're trying to murder people.
If you tell someone to come to work on time, or else they'll be fired... And they retaliate by coming in with a gun and trying to kill you, but security takes them down first... They weren't threatened with *death* for failing to come in late. They were threatened with being fired.
So yes, I'm looking for a list of the executions the government has carried out as punishment for tax evasion.
It's hard to get more arbitrary than that. Being kicked out of your home is bad for clear reasons, none of which having to do with a sacred right of dibs being violated.
List the number of people that have been executed in America for failing to pay taxes please.
Oh, you're going full on anarchy? Cool, it's easy to prove than Anarchy doesn't work. We know this because anarchy is what we all started with. Humanity didn't evolve with pre-existing governments. The whole world started in perfect anarchy. In the process people chose to do awful things to each other. We already know what anarchy looks like. And you're in a catch-22, because you think government is a bad thing. Clearly nothing in anarchy prevents governments from being created, because the whole world started with anarchy everywhere and now there's governments basically everywhere.
The problem with it is that it ignores people who don't work for the government telling you what to do. Which is how you get these absurdities of "it's only bad if it's the government doing it".
Rich jerks using their money and power to force other people to do what they want is how you get kings in the first place.
Honestly, that's not a bad plan. How about we gather together and pool our money to pay for a shared private security force for all citizens? But of course, people won't want to pay if they don't have to... So let's agree to impose a mandatory fee on everyone to pay for this security force. That way we can ensure it's the biggest one around, and can't be out-muscled by competing private companies. After all, we're the ones paying them. We can make the decisions about what they do.
Spot any holes in this MTGTCG?
And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?
Okay. So you want to abolish all taxes and government-funded services?
No I wasn't. And I've clarified this numerous times in my last two posts. It seems unproductive to continue this discussion, since I'm not interested in continually re-explaining what I said. If I haven't made it clear by now, I doubt I will.
This is ignoring my argument entirely. My entire argument is policy-based, because I believe that looking just at the costs incurred as misleading when discussing libertarianism (more on this later). My argument is that it's very possible to create a policy which imposes a tax in order to create services which increase the total opportunities available for the pursuit of happiness (compared to what would be available without that policy). Ignoring the service side of the equation is talking past me. It's the same as demanding a health-based valence for "cutting" instead of a valence for an entire medical procedure, and using that to claim that "cutting is always unhealthy, but it can lead to other benefits that don't involve health". If you want to say "taxes always limit freedom on their own, but the revenue can be spent on services which result in net increase in personal freedom" I'm with you.
Otherwise we can just end the discussion there, because there's nothing more to talk about.
Glad you agree. Cutting someone is not healthy, but there are many surgical procedures that result in a net increase in health. Likewise, there are many public policies which can impose taxes to then result in a net increase in personal freedom. If you agree with this, we're straight.
Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. If I was, it would invalidate my entire argument.
No, I'm not conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation. I just find it utterly meaningless to separate them in this context. Libertarianism is all about maximizing personal freedom (broadly speaking). Therefore, many libertarians (it's a diverse ideology) oppose taxes because they view a world without taxes as a world with more personal freedom. This is akin, as I have mentioned, to a group all about maximizing health being against surgery because they think any form of cutting someone is bad for their health.
The point I raise is that it's easy to propose circumstances in which a world with certain taxes in order to pay for certain services offers its citizens more personal freedom than the same world in which those taxes were not present, resulting in the loss of the services they funded. These two outcomes are what I'm comparing. Similar to a world where no one is ever allowed to cut anyone under any circumstance is going to be less healthy than a world where doctors are allowed to perform certain surgical procedures.
This is why saying taxes are always a reduction in personal freedom is misleading. It's not incorrect when viewed in a vacuum, but you don't have to be incorrect to be misleading. At least, statements like that have misled many libertarians I've engaged with.