Card/Deck Single Card Spotlight
- Thread starter Dom Harvey
- Start date
CML
Contributor
My friend would totally approve of that. He was pissed when they all became instants. I never played the game with that rule set though. The stack seemed so much easier when he explained it to me, but that's the rule set I learned from the get go.
Funny how your first rule set is the one you tend to want to support.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
IIRC Dungeons and Dragons has a similar effect, no?
If I were to ignore one new Wizards rule it'd be the new Legend rule...
Interestingly enough, no. Not for me anyway.
I was introduced to AD&D (1st edition) when I was very young and I played that into high school. But I never liked the ruleset all that much (too much crunch and in the wrong places for my liking) and so I went to other games (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Runequest, some others). Then when 2nd edition came out, I tried it once and just passed completely on it. Then when 3rd edition came out, I read it and thought they did a really nice job with it. That to me is the best version of D&D (well, 3.5). Our group has been playing Pathfinder for years now (D&D 3.75 for all intents and purposes).
Then 4th edition came out and I was like "WTF!!! If I wanted to play WOW, I'd play WOW. This is horrible." To me, 4th is the worst edition of D&D by a country mile. Fingers crossed they did OK with 5th edition (it certainly can't suck more than 4th edition). One of my friends got into the beta and we did some testing with the various rules. So far so good.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
I liked 4e D&D for a while, but it lacked lasting value to me. The problem was the amount of focus and detail on the individual actions was too high for the relative lack of diversity between them. Many 4e enthusiasts are confused by this complaint, because 3e has a much lower diversity of actions! However, 3e "zooms out", so you don't really have to care about that, instead focusing on the larger scale character construction issues that 4e largely de-emphasizes. When in the very first book (4e player's handbook) two couldn't be any more different classes already had IDENTICAL POWERS AT THE SAME LEVEL (Rogue and Cleric Level 1 encounter powers where youdo 1 [w] and daze), it signaled a problem in the making.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
You bunch of old fogeys! 
I started my cube after the big rules change, and my players are by and large familiar with the current rules, so there's no real reason to stick with the old rules. It's not like those rules were better either, just more familiar.
Removing mana burn was 100% the right call from a design perspective. Flavorwise it sounds like a cool mechanic, but it comes up so infrequently, that it is just a rules burden in an already very complex game. It serves no purpose in 99% of the matches, even though it is tied to a core mechanic that comes up in every match (i.e. tapping lands for mana). Axing it made the rules cleaner without sacrificing core gameplay, and I think that it was an admirable move by Wizards.
Conversely, damage on the stack comes up every game, but makes no sense at all flavorwise. Because of that it taxes the ability to fully grasp combat in less experienced players. I heard a lot of detractors arguing that combat damage on the stack gives good (read: experienced) players the opportunity to outplay bad (read: less experienced) players when WotC announced the rules change. I'ld argue that a way to outplay your opponent on a rules knowledge level (because that's what it is) in a crucial part part of the game is not where you want your game to be at. There are already more than enough ways to outplay your opponents, from your deck choice or your draft picks to correctly playing around your opponent's hidden cards and bluffing removal/counterspells. I'ld much rather see the Magic rules foster tactical wins than technical wins.
So, in conclusion: even though I personally liked damage on the stack, I think the game as a whole is better off without it.
I started my cube after the big rules change, and my players are by and large familiar with the current rules, so there's no real reason to stick with the old rules. It's not like those rules were better either, just more familiar.
Removing mana burn was 100% the right call from a design perspective. Flavorwise it sounds like a cool mechanic, but it comes up so infrequently, that it is just a rules burden in an already very complex game. It serves no purpose in 99% of the matches, even though it is tied to a core mechanic that comes up in every match (i.e. tapping lands for mana). Axing it made the rules cleaner without sacrificing core gameplay, and I think that it was an admirable move by Wizards.
Conversely, damage on the stack comes up every game, but makes no sense at all flavorwise. Because of that it taxes the ability to fully grasp combat in less experienced players. I heard a lot of detractors arguing that combat damage on the stack gives good (read: experienced) players the opportunity to outplay bad (read: less experienced) players when WotC announced the rules change. I'ld argue that a way to outplay your opponent on a rules knowledge level (because that's what it is) in a crucial part part of the game is not where you want your game to be at. There are already more than enough ways to outplay your opponents, from your deck choice or your draft picks to correctly playing around your opponent's hidden cards and bluffing removal/counterspells. I'ld much rather see the Magic rules foster tactical wins than technical wins.
So, in conclusion: even though I personally liked damage on the stack, I think the game as a whole is better off without it.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
Anyone remember when damage was always applied last so if I cast giant growth on my kird ape you couldn't bolt it?
Yup. That's the biggest problem with it.
There was (is?) a huge fad where designers believe that an attack needs to be more than an attack. It doesn't. All the fun is already build into a core attack. You have a chance to succeed and the damage you do is variable (with the possibility of a critical). That's all that is required. I don't need an action card telling me I can do a "wreckless cleave". If I hit one guy and killed him and have the cleave feat and hit another guy after, it was a fucking wreckless cleave. Didn't need a card to tell me that.
Edit: And there's a huge buzz kill when you use your "Wreckless cleave" badass ability and roll a 1 for damage (or worse, miss with it).
Edit Edit: There's a new version of Runequest that came out some time ago where they moved these decision points to later in the process. So instead of deciding to do a wreckless cleave first (rolling and missing or doing little damage or whatever), you basically roll and if you succeed well enough, you have choices (did you disarm the guy? impale him with your sword? etc.). It speeds things up and it makes these moments special because when you actually do land a wreckless cleave, it's actually a fucking wreckless cleave.
All the actions do is slow the game down and turn it into an MMO on paper. And who wants to micromanage all that on paper? I like me some World of Warcraft, but that's because the computer is tracking all that BS for me. In a role-playing game I want to ROLE play not ROLL Play.
Yes, I'm old.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I enjoy playing 4e still, but it has some serious issues:
* combats take too long
* there are way too many combat-influencing status effects
* designing level-appropriate challenging encounters for paragon and epic tier is really hard for the DM; if you go by the book it's a total cakewalk for your players (monster's defenses are way too low for example), but if you tweak defenses and monster numbers just a bit it can suddenly result in a TPK
* everyone can be a striker, so being a real striker can feel utterly pointless (I played a wizard once that outdamaged the barbarian in the party while also being able to attack multiple targets instead of just one, not cool for the barbarian)
* daily powers are too strong, it's like playing P9 in sealed deck
E: I do like at-wills, a lot! I think it's an excellent move that Wizards now always can cast some minor magic (read: Magic Missile).
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Without doubt the best "human" in our human decks over here.
VibeBox
Contributor
this has got to be the most baffling part of anti-damage on the stack people's arguments
we can pretend to be wizards and that creatures appear out of thin air and a hundred other things required for the suspension of disbelief to 'buy into' the flavor of magic, but it's somehow a step to far to say "well a wizard can do magic stuff literally as blows are landing and whatnot".
it's pretty transparently a matter of whether you want it to 'make sense' or not
that said i'm definitely not rehashing the damage on the stack argument that we all went round and round in different places back when the change was announced. i'll just leave it at; lol @ the notion that it 'streamlines' the game to have combat resolve in it's own special bs rather than the stack which like 90% of the game runs on
this has got to be the most baffling part of anti-damage on the stack people's arguments
we can pretend to be wizards and that creatures appear out of thin air and a hundred other things required for the suspension of disbelief to 'buy into' the flavor of magic, but it's somehow a step to far to say "well a wizard can do magic stuff literally as blows are landing and whatnot".
it's pretty transparently a matter of whether you want it to 'make sense' or not
that said i'm definitely not rehashing the damage on the stack argument that we all went round and round in different places back when the change was announced. i'll just leave it at; lol @ the notion that it 'streamlines' the game to have combat resolve in it's own special bs rather than the stack which like 90% of the game runs on
I was going to write all this, but I'm glad I waited for your version because it came out better than mine would have.
the game is still the game.
i learned with damage on the stack, but i play the most recent rules. i don't see the appeal of adding an extra burden to new players. i feel pretty neutral about the rulechange itself one way or another. i don't see houseruling it being worth it for all the confusion it can and will cause any new players that never encountered damage on the stack.
i learned with damage on the stack, but i play the most recent rules. i don't see the appeal of adding an extra burden to new players. i feel pretty neutral about the rulechange itself one way or another. i don't see houseruling it being worth it for all the confusion it can and will cause any new players that never encountered damage on the stack.
CML
Contributor
this has got to be the most baffling part of anti-damage on the stack people's arguments
we can pretend to be wizards and that creatures appear out of thin air and a hundred other things required for the suspension of disbelief to 'buy into' the flavor of magic, but it's somehow a step to far to say "well a wizard can do magic stuff literally as blows are landing and whatnot".
it's pretty transparently a matter of whether you want it to 'make sense' or not
that said i'm definitely not rehashing the damage on the stack argument that we all went round and round in different places back when the change was announced. i'll just leave it at; lol @ the notion that it 'streamlines' the game to have combat resolve in it's own special bs rather than the stack which like 90% of the game runs on
eh, either way. i suppose everyone hates change more than they hate either rule set and that dictates all of our opinions on the matter. if i had to pick i think i slightly favor no damage on the stack, as it probably creates bad tournament experiences for newer players, though i'm sure some component of this is narcissism on my part and i'm generally skeptical of that kind of argument. in this vein, playing in new tournaments with the new rules has softened me to the new legend rule too even though i prefer the old and may have just become inured to the new. in any case, i tend to throw rules discussion in with "EDH" but! damned if we didn't lobby for a "damage on the stack night" back at the LGS when old draft formats were more affordable.
the main problem, as i see it, is: how did people ever beat a shambling shell in RGD draft
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I guess you can look at it that way, but to me, it's the creature that's sacrificing itself to do something while still landing a successful blow, not the wizard doing that stuff. How can you land a successful blow, meaning you receive a successful blow as well, and still sacrifice yourself to do something else? Yes, you could reason your way out of that, but I think the flavor synchs a lot better without damage on the stack. The creature either fights to the death, or it uses it's special powers by sacrificing itself, not both.this has got to be the most baffling part of anti-damage on the stack people's arguments
we can pretend to be wizards and that creatures appear out of thin air and a hundred other things required for the suspension of disbelief to 'buy into' the flavor of magic, but it's somehow a step to far to say "well a wizard can do magic stuff literally as blows are landing and whatnot".
it's pretty transparently a matter of whether you want it to 'make sense' or not
that said i'm definitely not rehashing the damage on the stack argument that we all went round and round in different places back when the change was announced. i'll just leave it at; lol @ the notion that it 'streamlines' the game to have combat resolve in it's own special bs rather than the stack which like 90% of the game runs on
I agree the rules change makes a lot of cards much worse (poor Kill-Suit Cultist!), so if you still want to support those cards in your local environment, by all means. I'm not saying everyone should play by the new rules, I am saying WotC (in my opinion) made the right move from a game designer's point of view. Scrapping superfluous rules, unintuitive rules and rules with a negative impact on the game* so that the Magic became a better game for new players was a bold move. I truly think the game is better for it, and much better able to retain new players now that the rules are less arcane.
* E: those would be mana burn, damage on the stack, and the old legend rules respectively. As I said before, mana burn doesn't happen in enough games that you want to burden your rules set with it, and damage on the stack was really difficult for new players to fully grasp. The legend rule gave blue a kill card in clone effects, an unwanted mechanical side effect from the color pie's point of view that was sorted out in the last rules change. I do agree that having the same legend on both sides of the battlefield is awkward flavorwise, but it plays a little bit better. It also makes sure that playing a certain planeswalker isn't the best way to kill that planeswalker, preventing (in the future) the silly Jace conundrum during WWK standard, where playing blue was the best way to combat Jace, the Mind Sculptor, because you could play Jace Beleren first.
CML
Contributor
we're all familiar with the theorycraft behind the legend rule change but even if "two mind sculptor in play is cooler than jace beleren first" is true, which i don't think it is, what about "2 jittes is cooler than 0" etc.? isn't the second polukranos (or any creature) now just a worse answer to the first one?
the only legend i have enjoyed on both sides is Karakas
the only legend i have enjoyed on both sides is Karakas
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I agree with everything you say, but I still think it's better that blue is no longer able to kill legends with clones and color X is no longer the best color to play because it has planeswalker X that you need to legend rule out of the game. The legend rule is still not optimal, but at least it's better than the previous two incarnations.
I still think there should never be two Planeswalkers on the field at the same time (of any subtype). When the second one shows up they should be like "let's peace and get a beer".
Beleren beating JTMS was the only thing that kept my "budget" Caw-Blade viable in Standard, so I probably have some bias here.
Beleren beating JTMS was the only thing that kept my "budget" Caw-Blade viable in Standard, so I probably have some bias here.
CML
Contributor
clones vs. legends rarely comes up in any format but legacy, where Griselbrand and Emrakul are now more annoying than ever before. taking away an answer to these guys is certainly bad development here, and though i can say this only with some uncertainty, i think it's bad design in the abstract. in that vein, i like that clones can trade with legends, which are always undercosted -- maybe not undercosted enough with the new rules, because retconning.
as for wadds' suggestion! I dunno what walkers killing each other would do for balance. my guess is it would buff Liliana, who is terrible against every walker (except for Jace!) beyond that there may be some instances where more expensive walkers would find themselves outclassed by the cheaper ones, who are already intrinsically better -- and more expensive walkers are basically the only spells more expensive than cheaper walkers that are good against cheaper walkers. there is a post somewhere that talks about how cards with cmc n+1 are the natural enemies of cards that cost n (Titans > Baneslayer is the canonical example, or GW aggro over RB or kill their mana dork or whatever) but that post also talks about how this breaks down in the case of walkers, providing a much-needed answer.
anyway, my favorite ramification of this idea is that it makes Biggest Garruk look even dumber.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
whaaaaat that's not true. Phantasmal Image (and to a lesser extent, Phyrexian Metamorph) was the de facto best answer to Thrun for a good year or so. I know this is before the new legend rule came into effect, but it's ironic that for all the anti-blue clauses Thrun had stapled to him to enable him to fight big Jace, the indisputable best answer to him was in blue. Other stuff like Sigarda - who was probably borderline to begin with - was also rendered unplayable by the prevalence of clones in that format.
I almost assumed that the legend rule change was a response to the failure of Thrun, actually, though I'm sure that a lot more went into the decision than that.
CML
Contributor
i keep seeing this cited as the reason and it probably was the reason, but it didn't happen that often. i guess this could have been the case because thrun had been hated out but i don't think so.
i guess i just like removal and interaction. i am glad this thread has gone on long enough that my well-argued reasons have yielded to my real one: "f legends"