Magic: The Gathering

[Antrax]

We saw you say that. Sadly, the flamebait didn't take. Try www.mtgnews.com instead.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[mudbuck]

Lunar, I'll give you 10 creds* if you can throughly describe WHY that game of yours is better than M:tG in 200 words or more and less than 10 grammatical and spelling mistakes. This should be amusing.

_{*not a real unit of currency}

[DrJones]

I thought the thread died, but now I see I was wrong.

The answer to the rules questions are correct. The article is funny, I read from time to time misetings, and sometimes even post in its forum.

About the game being bad, I wouldn't say so. Sure it has some things that could be done better (like the land system, or the rarity/scarcity of the cards), but the game is fun! I tried Yu-Gi-Oh! and I found it great. The only problem it has is that the vast majority of the cards are unplayable due to other cards being much more powerful. I would fire the playtesters and most set designers with no doubt.

About Skullclamp being broken, I don't think so. I had no problems against it. Maybe my opponents were bad, or they didn't exploited it properly, or they didn't expect my detonates (and shocks in reply to the equip ability). It's a nice artifact to recover yourself from mass removal spells, that were dominating type II time ago, though.

Disciple of the Vault and Sharpnel Blast worry me more than Ravager and Skullclamp.

[This message has been edited by DrJones (edited 05-16-2004 05:59 PM).]

[Legend of Tenshi]

~Faints on Shrapnel Blast and Ravager~

Shrapnel blast really isn't that vital a card. And on skull clamp and ravager. Picture this situation. Clamp, Vault ninja and ravager in play. Play ornithopter, clamp ornithopter, sack orni to ravager. Net gain: +1/+1 to ravager, two cards and target player looses one life. All for one card and one colourless mana. At worst that is rediculously powerful. Skullclamp wouldn't show up in 74-78% in groups of four if it wasn't one of the more 'broken' cards in standard.

[edit]If you don't believe me on the numbers, check here.

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[This message has been edited by Legend of Tenshi (edited 05-16-2004 06:36 PM).]

[Lilliputian Hitcher]

What are your thoughts on changing the the whole land/mana system? Not only do lands take up (usually) forty percent of a deck, it also really sucks to be mana screwed or mana flooded. It wouldn't really be that difficult to come up with a new system, just look at the mana system for Duel Masters.

[i_h8_evil_stuff]

I think the land system is very good. It's one of a few ways that allow the game to have a grand number of different outcomes when using the same deck. It does not need to be, and should not be, changed. So what if lands take up 40%? At least there's no ultimate card that beats all others.

If they were to create a new mana system, they might as well change the whole game around and give it a different name. Like what they did with Duel Masters. If you take a look at the game, It's really just a combonation of some elements from Magic (tap cards for mana, tap cratures to attack), Pokémon (prize/shield system), and a new mana system.

[Antrax]

Oh no, that's a grand idea. While you're at it, it really sucks not to draw a key card which you run four copies of, so I think we should abandon the whole "draw random cards" thing and find a new system. Then the only problem would be playing against a deck that happens to really beat yours -- that really sucks -- so we should probably work out some system where people play with balanced cards. Maybe we can call it "chess".
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Legend of Tenshi]

The purpose of land is to complicate deck design. It's what seperates us from the animals... I mean Yu Gi Oh! players But without land you wouldn't have cool decks like landstill aka fish.

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[DrJones]

Originally posted by Lilliputian Hitcher:

---

What are your thoughts on changing the the whole land/mana system? Not only do lands take up (usually) forty percent of a deck, it also really sucks to be mana screwed or mana flooded. It wouldn't really be that difficult to come up with a new system, just look at the mana system for Duel Masters.

---

I have always considered the land/mana system clunky, poorly designed, and in need of change. It discourages decks with more than two colors, adds a random factor to the outcome of the matchs, it discourages decks with expensive spells (more land equals less spells in your deck), also gives too much advantage to the starting player. The problem is that the whole game is designed around that system, so a tiny change would make a huge impact, making tons of cards obsolete and others incrediblingly powerful.

The duel masters solution is not new, Legend of the Five Rings has holdings (lands) which you can search for in your deck, if you didn't draw one in your opening hand. It has a clause that if you search for a card in your deck and you find none, you lose the game. Still, I don't see it as the most elegant solution, they just confirm the fault.

A good mana system has to do two things. One, assure that a player could play any card in his/her deck. And two, make sure that a player won't play powerful spells too soon. Yu-Gi-Oh fails on the second, Magic fails on the first (specially against mana denial strategies). It's not so easy to find a balanced land system, but it could be done. Of course, you should restrict/ban a few cards after that. I have come with one of two that I really liked, but I have reserved them for my own card games.

By the way, Magic doesn't get rid of the lands because a better system could make decks too fast, if I remember correctly. This remember me the clunky "find object" function on Diablo II. Some mod makers designed a much better one, only to find that it was so good that the game became so easy it wasn't fun anymore. They had to come back to the original (and blamed) one.

[This message has been edited by DrJones (edited 05-22-2004 06:39 AM).]

[Legend of Tenshi]

The whole point of 'Timmy' cards is that they are virtually unplayable. Venguer Masque is the only time you will see a dreadnought cast and that is only because it is trixed out into play. And to negating five colour play, have you ever heard of the deck called domain? It is built around all five colours being used and abused. Also, I have played L5R for about a year and I have more or less stopped in favour of magic. Its holdings are the same as land except that you can search for a gift at the start if you have none in play. After that you just pray your draw enough gold producers out to power your war effort.

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[Antrax]

Well, I'm not sure who made more mistakes, DrJones or Tenshi.

Magic is not "clunky" because mana denial strategies exist. It is "elaborate". You can argue theory until you're blue, fact remains winning decks have from as few as 10 lands (stompy) to 30 (Buehler Blue) (and I'm not even mentioning two-land belcher here). Domain is an ass deck, and was never worth anything, but five-color-green and five-color-blue were viable decks in the past.
The existence of colors and high-cost spells in Magic is not coincidental. It is a fundamental aspect of the game. Magic would be dumb if everyone could easily splash for the effects they need. You'd end up with 3 deck types playing Rock-Paper-Scissors. The brilliant bit is the fact you always have to sacrifice something to gain something else. If that's clunky, I suggest you go solve 6-piece jigsaw puzzles.

Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Legend of Tenshi]

I didn't realise that a tier one IBC deck would be considered ass antrax.

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[Antrax]

It was not Tier one. It never won anything.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[DrJones]

Tenshi and Antrax:

I'm talking about the mana system. It, by itself, discourages playing with multiple colors. That doesn't mean you can't play competitive decks with five colors, but they need to use 'mana fixers', as the system (the mere lands) is not friendly with those strategies. Domain is a mechanic balanced exactly because it's so hard to keep five different basic lands on the table.

'Timmy' cards, or cards with big effects/numbers to all those who don't know that definition, don't mean unplayable. It's just that designers don't want those cards getting out of hand, as it's too easy to disrupt the game with them. There are well costed ones like Armageddon and Wrath of God that are heavily played.

Saying that the land system is elaborate is just stupid. Lands waste deck space, and thus decks which needs more lands have a handicap. Mulligan, mana flood/screw and dead draws are terms that are directly related to this, and they don't have equivalent within other card games which use other systems to build your resources.

About everyone splashing the card they want, there are other measures to prevent this. For example, L5R uses only one type of 'mana': gold. But the personalities from your clan could be played by two less gold, or they give you 'honor' (points). Aquarian Age require you to play with a certain number of people of your faction to play your actions, and so.

Even using lands, you could find a better system. You may take out lands from the decks, and play them in other pile (this may, or may not, replace drawing a card). During your turn you may take the top land from that pile and play it. You may argue that it would allow really powerful decks, and that's true. But that's it just because Magic was not designed to be played that way.

[i_h8_evil_stuff]

Go play Duel Masters and stop complaining.

Or, better yet, design and fully test a system that works.

[Antrax]

DrJones, you continue to show a remarkable lack of understanding of the game. You're basically saying two things:

a) Players should be able to easily play spells of any color.
b) Mana should not rely on cards in a deck.

As for a, you obviously lack understanding of the color wheel. The idea is that if you stick to certain colors with certain properties, you will be vulnerable to other strategies. That is to say, if you were to play a fast, aggressive mono-red deck, you will be shut down by any enchantment, as red has no way of dealing with those. If you allow sligh decks to cast Naturalize easily, even if it costs them 2 more, you're breaking the game. And if you're not, you're not solving the "problem" which lands allegedly solve.

As for b, this is just ridiculous. You acknowledge yourself that Magic "was not meant to be played this way", but do nothing to explain why it hsould be redesigned. If decks that rely on having many land cards in the deck are really handicapped, how come they win their fair share of tournaments? Could it be that decks that rely on many lands do so because they run a powerful assortment of spells, so if they can guarentee having a smooth curve they can pretty much own the game? Could this be a strategy? Nah, I guess it really is a flaw in the game. It makes a lot more sense to allow land-light decks to be able to choose to draw exactly enough mana for the perfect rush. Sounds much more fair and enjoyable to me.

While you're at it, I think we should allow players to draw to their Maximum Hand Size at the beginning of their draw step. This way, those decks that empty their hands fast will not be at a disadvantage against the ones with more card drawing and more costly spells. Also, players should be able to summon creatures without dedicating slots in their decks to "creature cards", so as not to make creature-light decks vulnerable to a creature rush. Yep.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[mudbuck]

Oh, and if you truely want to play a card game that doesn't require that many cards that deal with mana, go play Cardmaster Conflict. Its mana system is simple and cards are easily splashable. I haven't play the game, though, in ages, since I don't have enough time to do so recently.

[Legend of Tenshi]

DrJones: You know why dream halls is broken?

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[Antrax]

Answer: Because of degenerate cards like Time Spiral. Dream Halls, on its own, isn't so bad. Pretend it's T2-legal and see if you can break it (should be interesting. Offhand, I can't think of anything useful to do with it, other than play costly creatures, and we all know how great THAT is. Maybe a counter-colossus deck?)
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[DrJones]

Antrax, I suggest you be more polite. Not only I have played this game for years, but I also have studied and analyzed every aspect of it, including the color wheel (and that was long before Mark Rosewater began talking about it in his column). In addition, I know pretty much every card in the game, so I could give examples of cards and decks to back up my points. I also have played about other ten card games besides Magic, including ones I have come up with.

That said, you could disagree with me. It's my opinion, afterall. But you should stop arguing about my lack of knowledge of the game when most of time it's because you take out of context something, or because I didn't explain myself in a way that couldn't be misinterpreted. If you think I'm wrong in one of my statements, point it and I'll try to be more precise.


Now with the questions.

quote:

---

You're basically saying two things:
a) Players should be able to easily play spells of any color.
b) Mana should not rely on cards in a deck.

---

It was more:
a) Playing decks with more than one color shouldn't be at mercy of probabilities. You could play with 14 forests and 3 mountains and being stuck with 3 mountains the rest of the game. Look the prices at stores of dual lands, pain lands, fetch lands, and any one land that give you better choices to avoid color screw. This still doesn't prevent those decks for being vulnerable to selective land denial (as happened during masques block with Rishadan Port, which took out all decks with more than two colors).

b) is more on less the same. I would clarify that I dislike having to include a percentage of cards in a deck that are no more than the resource basis if I could avoid it with other systems that accomplish the same goals. Decks could be smaller and easier to shuffle that way.

[Legend of Tenshi]

DrJones: Side question, do you realise that as far as the game of magic goes, Antrax is probably the most informed and most likely to be correct on these forums?

Antrax: Before I go too wild, can you entwine a card that has been dream halled into play? I know you can entwine things off isochron scepter, but not sure about Dream Halls. I will have a broken type two dream halls deck to you within two weeks

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[DrJones]

Originally posted by Legend of Tenshi:

---

DrJones: Side question, do you realise that as far as the game of magic goes, Antrax is probably the most informed and most likely to be correct on these forums?
Antrax: Before I go too wild, can you entwine a card that has been dream halled into play? I know you can entwine things off isochron scepter, but not sure about Dream Halls. I will have a broken type two dream halls deck to you within two weeks

---

There's no way to weight the knowledge that both Antrax and me would have about the game. I think Antrax has some good points, and this open interesting debates. I also think I'm in position to argue with him, if I feel one of his posts is unaccurate or incomplete.

About Dream Halls, by the way, I was talking with a friend about how broken it would be in type II with Mind's Desire, Trade Secrets, Temporal Cascade, and that blue sorcery that gave you two additional turns. We even built the deck and was crazy, that's why I felt his comment was out of place. I built a Dream Halls deck to a friend who thought it was a crappy rare, and complained about opening three of those in boosters (that was when stronghold was just released, and inquest rated Dream Halls as the worst card of Stronghold). The deck would kill you in 3-4 turns with little problem. Then appeared Urza's saga with Palinchron and his deck was even more crazy. Of course, he still had to play against first turn Verdant Forces.

I visit www.magicthegathering.com, also visit www.brainburst.com, www.starcitygames.com, and www.mtgnews.com. I read the Pojo archives, too. Finally, I was on a judge mailing list until recently, so I think I'm at least as well informed as Antrax.

About paying de entwine with Dream Halls, I'll say you can (furthermore, spells still are considered being played from hand, so Phage wouldn't trigger, for example).



[This message has been edited by DrJones (edited 05-25-2004 08:35 AM).]

[DrJones]

Originally posted by Antrax:

---

While you're at it, I think we should allow players to draw to their Maximum Hand Size at the beginning of their draw step. This way, those decks that empty their hands fast will not be at a disadvantage against the ones with more card drawing and more costly spells. Also, players should be able to summon creatures without dedicating slots in their decks to "creature cards", so as not to make creature-light decks vulnerable to a creature rush. Yep.
Antrax

---

LotR refill your hand at end of turn, once you got decked twice the game ends. Aquarian Age mill you for each point of damage, and play every creature that appears, this system avoids creature rush. (of course, these creatures must be "controlled" or they'll attack you, too.)

Starwars use your deck as 'life points', so drawing cards is both and advantage and a disadvantage.

I'd say that Aquarian Age has the best system I've seen so far in a card game. I suspect it's copied from other game, but that would require additional research.

[Antrax]

Tenshi: yes, you can. Dream Halls basically enables you to *play* spells (it just gives them an alternate cost). When you play them, you do all other actions normally, including declaring additional costs.

[DrJones]

Originally posted by Antrax:

---

Unyaro Bee Sting and Granger Guildmage are old cards, from the period things were less defined. Name a way red has of dealing with enchantments that's not a global destruction/juxtaposition effect. And I daresay gate to phrexia is a bit less good than Naturalise.

---

Well, Desert Twister is from Mercadian Masques, so I would need to ask to you when do you thought the color wheel was re-defined to use examples from that time. In Scourge (three sets from now), you may find a little card called Misguided Rage that may destroy an enchantment (specially after a Jokulhaups).

Originally posted by Antrax:

---

I realise other games use other systems. For example, chess doesn't have probabilities and you're never mana-screwed (though I'm color-screwed half the time ). But they are other games. I don't think there is any way to change Magic's mana/land system without destroying the game completely.
Antrax

---

There are casual formats with other land systems, specially in limited, where the game isn't as unbalanced as you may think. You may add rules like, elfhame sanctuary starts in play, or so. Mental magic let you use any card as a land of that color, and booster draft (y don't remember if that was its name) let you play any card face down as a land of any color. Of course, they don't feel exactly like magic, but they should be mentioned.



[This message has been edited by DrJones (edited 05-25-2004 05:14 PM).]

[Antrax]

Like I said, many games exist on this planet. One of them is called Magic: the Gathering, and it uses lands. The use of lands is as inherent to the game as creature cards and the other rules, and changing it would create a new game.

Both the cards you mentioned destroy permanents. I am at a loss as to why that would break the color wheel. I remember when that stupid red thing came out, everybody were all like "oooh, now red doesn't have to worry about CoP: Red". I believe you know how right they were.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Lilliputian Hitcher]

How do you feel about Fifth Dawn? (A spoiler can be found at www.mtgnew.com, and I am sure a full spoiler with pictures will be released by wizards soon). Personally, I like the combo aspect of the set but I am a little frightened as to what impact this set will have on type 2. R&D almost certainly knew ravager would be the 1337 pwnage, and yet they still think that the combo decks that will come out of Fifth Dawn will stand a chance. Combo decks that can kill on turns 2-3 consistently? Isn't that bad?

[i_h8_evil_stuff]

It can't be TOO bad. I mean, just look at Type 1.

[Legend of Tenshi]

I am sceptical until there is a build of seething desire (or any deck using the most broken card in recent history) that wins cosistantly against ravager. The problem is ravager is that good that unless you get a cosistent turn 3 or 4 win in game, not just goldfishing, it won't cope with the current meta.

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[i_h8_evil_stuff]

Pfft. It's nothing a little green/red artifact kill can't handle.

[Legend of Tenshi]

There is nothing wrong with type 1. Venguer Masque is the biz-bomb!

------------------
I'm looking for a good sig, wanna help?

[Guest]