Obviously the rules would have to change to make First Strike and Double Strike work in a fight, don't be simple. My explanations don't reference the game rules, they reference common sense.
How would you reword some of the current Comprehensive Rules entries regarding fighting, first strike, and double strike so that they would work according to the way you want them to work?
First, let me state that I don't really agree with the idea of making First Strike and Double Strike work with Fight. That being said, I think the rules could be modified to make it work without playing with how SBEs are checked. Feel free to improve on the wording, but the general premise involves breaking it apart with new effects on the stack.
Without further ado...
701.10. Fight
701.10a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.
701.10b If a creature instructed to fight is no longer on the battlefield or is no longer a creature, no damage is dealt. If a creature is an illegal target for a resolving spell or ability that instructs it to fight, no damage is dealt.
701.10c If a creature fights itself, it deals damage equal to its power to itself twice.
701.10d The damage dealt when a creature fights isn’t combat damage.
701.10e If only a single creature instructed to fight has first strike, instead of dealing damage, the player who controls the fighting creature without first strike puts an effect on the stack stating, "this creature deals damage equal to its power to the other creature". Then, the player who controls the fighting creature with first strike puts the same effect on the stack.
701.10f If both creatures instructed to fight have first strike and neither have double strike, proceed as normal.
701.10g If only a single creature instructed to fight has double strike, instead of dealing damage, the player controlling the fight effect puts an effect on the stack stating, "each of these creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature". Then, the player who controls the fighting creature with double strike puts an effect on the stack stating, "this creature deals damage equal to its power to the other creature".
701.10h If both creatures instructed to fight have double strike, instead of dealing damage, the player controlling the fight effect puts two copies of an effect on the stack stating, "each of these creatures deal damage equal to its power to the other creature".
...additional rules would be needed to deal with one creature having Double Strike and one having First Strike as well as creatures having both First Strike and Double Strike (even though the First Strike is redundant).
We've tried 3 things in our playgroup that have worked well on this issue.
1. Try an off the wall format (like Rainbow Stairwell - http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/sf/142).
2. Put in a budget cap on decks using tcgplayer low or similar.
3. Create a league. Start off with some boosters or a precon depending on your preference. You can add a booster or even several per week (or whenever you get together). Also try it using singles with a budget cap per week instead of boosters.
Personally, 180 unique unplayable cards would be fun.
This is exactly what I was thinking. If you have a binder with 180 different cards, people will continue to look through it before they realize what is actually going on. If you have all of one card, you might get a chuckle, but the binder certainly won't be open very long. The more you can make it look like a real trade binder, the better the ruse.
Here's a few suggestions to get you started. While some of them may be almost playable, certainly you're not likely to come across someone looking for these.
I'd say that the holiday cards only really loosely reference magic cards in most cases. They appear to be more about capturing the flavor of the holidays mechanically on a card.
Fruitcake Elemental -> Maybe a play on Wood Elemental, one of the worst cards in magic history?
Season's Beatings -> Name reference to Savage Beatings?
Yule Ooze -> Mechanically similar to Capricious Efreet?
Dont ask for advice about your Channel deck that includes Pyro Ascension and Lightning Bolt.
The obvious advice is to just use the obviously broken interaction that you are already using and throw out the rest.
I would certainly agree with Taldier. Here's a rough draft without too much thought keeping the original requirements of Channel-> Banefire wincon and no format restrictions.
You'll get the most value for your cards on eBay or here in the Market Street. The downside is certainly the time you'll have to invest.
Take for example, the Academy Rector you mentioned.
Recent eBay auctions show a value of $15 including shipping.
eBay fees, $1.50
PayPal fees, $0.75
Shipping costs: $2.00
Net Value: $10.75
Maybe they deserve a fair trial to determine what their real impact would be, rather than just deeming them automatically broken. Now, they could be overpowered, but I really question their use with the obvious culprits.
When these cards were printed, they worked exactly as they do now. Prior to 6th edition, you could not tap Lotus Vale before sacrificing the lands. These cards are getting the fair treatment they deserve (and would be totally bonkers otherwise).
This bothers me (a lot). What is the difference twixt artifacts and enchantments? Is it that artifacts are colorless? Baleful Stryx shakes his head as he examines a Bident of Thassa. "Why do the god weapons even need to be artifacts?" he Ponders. "What is the difference between creatures and artifact creatures?" Emrakul, the Aeons Torn asks him.
Discuss.
According to MW, the difference is that an artifact is constructed, but an enchantment is created through magic.
ar·ti·fact
noun \ˈär-ti-ˌfakt\
: a simple object (such as a tool or weapon) that was made by people in the past
Many promos aren't listed on gatherer, so I don't know if you have plans to implement them. I was referring to cards such as Judge or FNM promos that have unique art.
Market inefficiencies lead to arbitrage. Doom Blade is in shorter supply locally and therefore commands a higher price. You can get the cheaper Doom Blades from the global supply, but you'll need to spend more in terms of time to get them. Doom Blade isn't a "23 cent card". Its price whatever the market it's in decides it is. Not all markets are global.
Quote from abcabcabc339 »
The reason onlines are cheaper is because the government is raping the economy and environment by taxing local business while giving HUGE subsidies to "las technology innovationz" websites and shipping companies.
You should feel lucky that your LGS is even in business, you should feel lucky you don't have cancer from breathing the corrupted air, drinking the poisonous water produced by the cartel of the corporations who rule indefinitely hiding behind the tyranny of corrupt governments who would rather see you sent to jail and get sexually assaulted for the rest of your life then see you pirate a movie.
These look quite amazing next to each other. On the one hand, a rational supply/demand argument. On the other, a crazy conspiracy theory.
I love the site Sembiance and I'm now using it for my playgroup's internal site. Thanks for all your hard work, the image quality is way better than the gatherer images I was pulling before.
Do you have any plans for adding promo cards? I couldn't seem to find high res images in the CCGHQ, but they do appear on magiccards.info. Using Gatherer Extractor, the promos do have IDs that are unique like multiverse IDs except non-numeric.
http://mtgtop8.com/search
First, let me state that I don't really agree with the idea of making First Strike and Double Strike work with Fight. That being said, I think the rules could be modified to make it work without playing with how SBEs are checked. Feel free to improve on the wording, but the general premise involves breaking it apart with new effects on the stack.
Without further ado...
701.10. Fight
701.10a A spell or ability may instruct a creature to fight another creature or it may instruct two creatures to fight each other. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.
701.10b If a creature instructed to fight is no longer on the battlefield or is no longer a creature, no damage is dealt. If a creature is an illegal target for a resolving spell or ability that instructs it to fight, no damage is dealt.
701.10c If a creature fights itself, it deals damage equal to its power to itself twice.
701.10d The damage dealt when a creature fights isn’t combat damage.
701.10e If only a single creature instructed to fight has first strike, instead of dealing damage, the player who controls the fighting creature without first strike puts an effect on the stack stating, "this creature deals damage equal to its power to the other creature". Then, the player who controls the fighting creature with first strike puts the same effect on the stack.
701.10f If both creatures instructed to fight have first strike and neither have double strike, proceed as normal.
701.10g If only a single creature instructed to fight has double strike, instead of dealing damage, the player controlling the fight effect puts an effect on the stack stating, "each of these creatures deals damage equal to its power to the other creature". Then, the player who controls the fighting creature with double strike puts an effect on the stack stating, "this creature deals damage equal to its power to the other creature".
701.10h If both creatures instructed to fight have double strike, instead of dealing damage, the player controlling the fight effect puts two copies of an effect on the stack stating, "each of these creatures deal damage equal to its power to the other creature".
...additional rules would be needed to deal with one creature having Double Strike and one having First Strike as well as creatures having both First Strike and Double Strike (even though the First Strike is redundant).
1. Try an off the wall format (like Rainbow Stairwell - http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/sf/142).
2. Put in a budget cap on decks using tcgplayer low or similar.
3. Create a league. Start off with some boosters or a precon depending on your preference. You can add a booster or even several per week (or whenever you get together). Also try it using singles with a budget cap per week instead of boosters.
This is exactly what I was thinking. If you have a binder with 180 different cards, people will continue to look through it before they realize what is actually going on. If you have all of one card, you might get a chuckle, but the binder certainly won't be open very long. The more you can make it look like a real trade binder, the better the ruse.
Here's a few suggestions to get you started. While some of them may be almost playable, certainly you're not likely to come across someone looking for these.
1 Alabaster Leech
1 Purelace
1 Security Detail
1 Chronosavant
1 Ancestral Tribute
1 Elite Archers
Blue
1 Sapphire Leech
1 Thoughtlace
1 Pale Moon
1 Moonlace
1 Vizzerdrix
1 Denying Wind
1 Domestication
Black
1 Andradite Leech
1 Deathlace
1 Hint of Insanity
1 Mold Demon
1 Tombfire
1 Warp Artifact
1 Ruby Leech
1 Chaoslace
1 Mudhole
1 Trained Orgg
1 Molten Sentry
1 Dwarven Pony
1 Anaba Ancestor
1 Five-Alarm Fire
Green
1 Jade Leech
1 Lifelace
1 Wood Elemental
1 Snowblind
1 Rebuking Ceremony
1 Trail of Mystery
Artifact
1 Balm of Restoration
1 Aladdin's Ring
1 Obelisk of Undoing
1 Delif's Cube
1 Stabilizer
1 Jandor's Saddlebags
1 Scrying Glass
1 Emmara Tandris
1 Warping Wurm
1 Mountain Titan
1 Sawback Manticore
Land
1 Sorrow's Path
Fruitcake Elemental -> Maybe a play on Wood Elemental, one of the worst cards in magic history?
Season's Beatings -> Name reference to Savage Beatings?
Yule Ooze -> Mechanically similar to Capricious Efreet?
http://www.bcwsupplies.com/cat/trading-card/card-accessories/trading-card-dividers
I would certainly agree with Taldier. Here's a rough draft without too much thought keeping the original requirements of Channel-> Banefire wincon and no format restrictions.
4 Lotus Petal
4 Burning Wish
3 Channel
3 Banefire
4 Simian Spirit Guide
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Rite of Flame
2 Overmaster
4 Manamorphose
4 Pyretic Ritual
4 Seething Song
16 Land
1 Channel
1 Banefire
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Grapeshot
Take for example, the Academy Rector you mentioned.
Recent eBay auctions show a value of $15 including shipping.
eBay fees, $1.50
PayPal fees, $0.75
Shipping costs: $2.00
Net Value: $10.75
When these cards were printed, they worked exactly as they do now. Prior to 6th edition, you could not tap Lotus Vale before sacrificing the lands. These cards are getting the fair treatment they deserve (and would be totally bonkers otherwise).
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10597032&postcount=12
According to MW, the difference is that an artifact is constructed, but an enchantment is created through magic.
ar·ti·fact
noun \ˈär-ti-ˌfakt\
: a simple object (such as a tool or weapon) that was made by people in the past
en·chant·ment
noun \in-ˈchant-mənt, en-\
: a magic spell
Many promos aren't listed on gatherer, so I don't know if you have plans to implement them. I was referring to cards such as Judge or FNM promos that have unique art.
i.e.
Judge Maze of Ith http://magiccards.info/jr/en/39.html
FNM Sin Collector: http://magiccards.info/fnmp/en/163.html
These look quite amazing next to each other. On the one hand, a rational supply/demand argument. On the other, a crazy conspiracy theory.
Do you have any plans for adding promo cards? I couldn't seem to find high res images in the CCGHQ, but they do appear on magiccards.info. Using Gatherer Extractor, the promos do have IDs that are unique like multiverse IDs except non-numeric.