Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2017-Jun-22 12:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-16 4:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
niheloim wrote:
Being able to play the Myojins, Phage, Haakon would be cool. I do feel Skullbriar takes a hit, but that just means it needs to jump through hoops instead of Phage.

The option, though more complicated, is to allow casting from the Command zone by paying the tax together with mana cost, or paying tax to move to hand.

I should have mentioned, it's not just Skullbriar who would be hurt by the change, that was just the first printed (and currently the one who would be most negatively impacted). It is also a slight bummer for Prossh, Skyraider of Kher and others with that mechanic. As soon as WotC started designing around "what we can do based on the rules of EDH" they were almost guaranteed to reinforce the importance of those rules.

As for creating extra options for the sake of making it all-upside, I am really not in favor of that. One of the biggest reasons this change appealed to me so much was that it did not add any extra complexity.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-16 10:20 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Hmmm.. Prossh not getting tons of tokens? Maybe thats a good thing.

EDIT: I'm kinda intrigued at the idea of making the Ruby Leech and friends more playable.

But yeah, making the format more complicated is not.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-17 7:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
I totally get this sentiment, but it isn't quite the same. At that time, The Stack itself was a super nebulous concept, that even at the highest level of play hadn't been worked out. Today, it's a solid architecture, where a change like this (much like removing Damage from the stack) would just make it behave in a more intuitive and (frankly) functional way.

No - the stack has always been fairly well defined. Just the "batch processing" method didn't end up being played that way. If people inherently don't think it works that way, trying to set the rules to work that way is just an uphill battle. Why would you want that?


This is entirely mischaracterizing my suggestion and absolutely false. I'm not suggesting Batches. Also, THIS is what existed before the stack. There's nothing intuitive about it.

Image

Carthain wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
Actually, it's simplifying how the stack works quite a bit.
I wasn't talking about just the stack. :)

Triggers: Currently triggers trigger whenever, but aren't placed on the stack until someone has priority. You either have to change that to put triggers on the stack immediately (and then deal with any other strange scenario fall-out) or you have a unique situation where triggers are put onto the stack even though somebody isn't about to get priority.


How do triggers work when Split Second is involved? Really, this isn't unexplored territory. Do we have to give players phantom priority so that they can choose the only option they have (to pass it?)

Carthain wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
Under the current system, climbing down the stack gives players ample time to stall or abuse instant-speed recursion/draw/wheeling.

Stall? I did ask about this before, and I still have no idea what you're referring. Or, for that matter, what "abuse" you are talking about.


I'll be crystal clear with this.

At high REL events, sometimes players use effects that juggle the stack, especially with spells that take time to make decisions, to bleed the clock- whether malicious, or because they are indecisive. This is abuse of the current way that the stack behaves. If you ever played an Esper Dragons mirror in DTK standard, or a Counterbalance mirror in an eternal format, you would know why this is a categorical problem. Judge calls tend to be lengthy, involve creating time extensions, and still don't compensate for the rate of play being unsatisfactory to finishing a match. In a casual space, this still impacts the quality of gaming, and either occurs because a player is indecisive because they don't quite understand all of the interactions (which is forgivable), or malicious (to get a rise out of the other players.)

Carthain wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
Morphing is a special action. So Morph doesn't actually change (similar to how Morphing interacts with Split Second.)
Right... so can you do special actions as a "batch" (I'm gonna start calling it that from now on) is resolving? You kind of need to be able to - but you can't unmorph a card unless you have priority ... so... how does it work in the world of the batch-stack?


Batch-stack is exceedingly misleading.
Functionally, nothing changes about morphing. Players don't get priority as the stack resolves, but they have all of the same information to morph before all players involved pass priority. Triggers that come from morphing are put onto the stack after the creature is morphed.

What I don't understand, is how you think this doesn't simplify the rules in the least.In my own experience, everytime I cast Snapcaster Mage, I have to explain the stack to a player who has probably been playing for less than a year- and I also have to explain why I can juggle the stack when the model given to them from non CR is akin to a jenga tower, where you remove the pieces from top to bottom.

This aspect of the game does little but frustrate new players, or enable other new players to screw themselves with spells and abilities they overvalue for the function of specifically freezing the stack- not realizing that the the sequencing they are using by trying to juggle the top of the stack means they are playing spells too late, too early, in a sequence that doesn't get them the best value, or in a sequence that is functionally no different than several other plays, but just irritates new players who also don't understand the stack.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-17 7:37 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
I'm still not convinced the rule change is remotely necessary.

it really sounds like a solution to a problem that does not exist. So someone brainstorms to find a counterspell every now and then. If we're running into issues of slow-play that sounds like a tournament problem not a rules problem. Ban the offending card, punish the offending player.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-17 7:51 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Mr Degradation wrote:

Carthain wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
Actually, it's simplifying how the stack works quite a bit.
I wasn't talking about just the stack. :)

Triggers: Currently triggers trigger whenever, but aren't placed on the stack until someone has priority. You either have to change that to put triggers on the stack immediately (and then deal with any other strange scenario fall-out) or you have a unique situation where triggers are put onto the stack even though somebody isn't about to get priority.


How do triggers work when Split Second is involved? Really, this isn't unexplored territory. Do we have to give players phantom priority so that they can choose the only option they have (to pass it?)
If you want to allow triggers to resolve mid batch yes.

Suppose in response to a dangerous spell I sacrifice a Reveillark to Carnage Altar with relevant creatures in the yard (say a Mystic Snake), would I not get to place and resolve the triggers involved with bringing dudes back before having to see said dangerous spell resolve because we all passed on a batch?

Morph- Things absolutely are different. if I see that a particular effect on the stack would make my morph more appealling to turn face how it resolves the batch process means I either choose to morph after seeing the effect on the stack- at which point morph will happen before this neat effect occurs. If I wait until after the batch resolves the potential exists that the morph will no longer be viable.

The functional changes may seem minor, but they exist and are myriad.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-17 9:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
How do triggers work when Split Second is involved? Really, this isn't unexplored territory. Do we have to give players phantom priority so that they can choose the only option they have (to pass it?)

Erg... you just hit upon a pet peeve of mine. How can you suggest a change to something is better if you don't fully understand how it currently works?

To answer your question: With a split second spell on the stack, players still receive priority, only they are unable to cast spells or activate non-mana abilities.

Mr Degradation wrote:
Batch-stack is exceedingly misleading.
Functionally, nothing changes about morphing. Players don't get priority as the stack resolves, but they have all of the same information to morph before all players involved pass priority. Triggers that come from morphing are put onto the stack after the creature is morphed.

First - I'm using the term because that does describe what you are doing (I'd forgotten that it was also called that in the old days). I don't mean any offense by it, but because it's a very apt description of it, I'm going to continue to use that term.

Secondly - if a player doesn't receive priority, then they cannot unmorph a creature. You're apparently messing with something you don't understand. Very notable when I bring up issues that you'll have and your response is "oh, it's still the same" when it very clearly (to those who know the rules fully) won't be.

Unmorphing a creature is rule 702.36e. It begins with: "Any time you have priority ..." So while unmorphing a creature doesn't use the stack (you can't respond to a player paying the morph cost) it does still interact with the stack, and primarily, priority; the latter you are messing around with.

So, I'll re-iterate: You're creating more complexity. Not in the stack, but elsewhere in the rules.

You're not simplifying the rules, as all the parts required to use the stack are still there (passing priority, putting items on one at a time, multiple triggers triggering and then being placed on the stack in APNAP order.) But then you're removing a simple part ("When the top object of the stack resolves, priority is given back to active player, and all players will need to pass priority again before the next object resolves.") to something that has more rules to it. You have "phantom priority." How is adding in something new to the rules really simplifying it?

It may accomplish the goal you would like -- but don't kid yourself that it's simplifying the rules. Especially since you're going to have to touch the priority rules (which do a lot of heavy lifting in the rules, but are still quite simple/elegant on their own.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 3:03 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
If I may, I think the goal of Batches is to cut out overly-complicated gameplay involving the stack and facilitate moving gamestates forward in tournaments. Simplification of the rules wasnt a stated goal.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 4:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
No disagreement with you there; nothing I say says that. But, he has said that he is simplifying the rules -- which is not correct.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 6:51 am 

Joined: 2016-Aug-15 1:21 pm
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
No disagreement with you there; nothing I say says that. But, he has said that he is simplifying the rules -- which is not correct.


I'm of the mind that 'simplifying' is a situational(?) term. Some play groups might do a lot of juggling the stack. Mine doesn't even try, and blue is either in the deck because the commander is multicolored, or because it's an artifact-related deck where Esper colors offer too much to pass up.

The only deck in my entire play group that would clearly get hit by changing how the stack works would be my Zedruu deck. I'm not against that kind of change because the amount of change that it would bring to my play group is pretty much nonexistent.

For play groups that do interact heavily with how the stack rules currently are, I'd agree it probably wouldn't simplify anything. The question I'm thinking of is if, ignoring all bias, would changing the stack rules bring more positive change then negative change? I don't have much input, because I only run blue when I'm building an artifact deck or if it's in my commander's color identity, and my play group is pretty much the same way. They would rather have the option of running Overwhelming Stampede and friends then run strategies that require more finesse to actually work.

_________________
Commanders:
-Atraxa, Praetors' Voice-Under Construction
-Nekusar, the Mindrazer-Hardcore Mill Deck
-Nahiri, the Lithomancer-Monowhite Soldier/Equipment Deck
-Sharuum the Hegemon-Esper Artifact Themed Deck
-Karador, Ghost Chieftain-Kamigawa Spirit Reanimator Tribal Deck
-Zedruu the Greathearted-Predictability is Weakness Themed Deck
-Nissa, Vastwood Seer/Nissa, Sage Animist-Monogreen Land Based Deck
-Scion of the Ur-Dragon-Five Color Dragon Tribal Deck


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 2:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
Erg... you just hit upon a pet peeve of mine. How can you suggest a change to something is better if you don't fully understand how it currently works?

To answer your question: With a split second spell on the stack, players still receive priority, only they are unable to cast spells or activate non-mana abilities.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Carthain wrote:
First - I'm using the term because that does describe what you are doing (I'd forgotten that it was also called that in the old days). I don't mean any offense by it, but because it's a very apt description of it, I'm going to continue to use that term.

Secondly - if a player doesn't receive priority, then they cannot unmorph a creature. You're apparently messing with something you don't understand. Very notable when I bring up issues that you'll have and your response is "oh, it's still the same" when it very clearly (to those who know the rules fully) won't be.

Unmorphing a creature is rule 702.36e. It begins with: "Any time you have priority ..." So while unmorphing a creature doesn't use the stack (you can't respond to a player paying the morph cost) it does still interact with the stack, and primarily, priority; the latter you are messing around with.

So, I'll re-iterate: You're creating more complexity. Not in the stack, but elsewhere in the rules.

You're not simplifying the rules, as all the parts required to use the stack are still there (passing priority, putting items on one at a time, multiple triggers triggering and then being placed on the stack in APNAP order.) But then you're removing a simple part ("When the top object of the stack resolves, priority is given back to active player, and all players will need to pass priority again before the next object resolves.") to something that has more rules to it. You have "phantom priority." How is adding in something new to the rules really simplifying it?

It may accomplish the goal you would like -- but don't kid yourself that it's simplifying the rules. Especially since you're going to have to touch the priority rules (which do a lot of heavy lifting in the rules, but are still quite simple/elegant on their own.)


It ISN'T what I'm describing- because batches are entirely different device which completely changes how spells resolve and damage functions. Batches change the interaction between a Grizzly Bear, a Giant Growth and Lightning Bolt so that Lightning Bolt never beats Giant Growth. But, by all means, don't look for real argumentation about a hypothetical rules idea, continue obfuscating any point at all to what I'm describing by conflating it with an obsoleted stack precursor.

Also, with just a little bit of critical thinking about how morph triggers work, there's functionally no reason to need priority on the way down the stack- which make the entire morph thing moot. You have all of the same information available to you as other players, you still get to morph, and put the morph trigger on the stack- you just don't get the unmorph after the stack has begun clearing. No matter how many mental gymnastics you do about it, morph still functions in a stack where the stack clears before it builds up again.

As for simplifying the rules- How does it not? Like really, maybe to someone whose been playing for a long time, it's more on the complex side because it's a change to something already grokked. But seriously, how does it poorly effect a newer players understanding of the stack? You can literally just say "Goes up APNAP, comes down reverse-APNAP until it clears"- and so long as you define APNAP order, it's fairly easy to grok.

@niheloim-
Damnit man, I read your first post after my last one and was all like "cool, we hit the agree to disagree point". I'm going to not reply, because calling a stack with a shotgun clause "batches" is all kinds of stupid if you've ever read about how batches actually work.

I don't want either of you to get the wrong idea, I'm glad that we can discuss things like this. I just can't even with the batches thing xD. I kindof get what Carthain means, but the reason I'm calling it a "shotgun clause" is specifically because batches both change how damage works, and are predicated on a card type called "Interrupt" to stop them. A stack with a shotgun clause gets stopped by Split Second, but then morphs can still happen, morph triggers can be applied etc. Batches are made to interact with an actual card type to inform their clearing- a shotgun clause requires all players to pass priority to clear.

http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Batch

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-18 4:36 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Its not exactly how pre 6th edition rules work... But its a batch of spells you stack up that resolve top down. Sure, no interrupts and such, but its a batch that once prepped goes off. But if you want to imply stupidity for using a term in the mtg parlance I'm fine putting you onto ignore.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 1:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
It ISN'T what I'm describing- because batches are entirely different device which completely changes how spells resolve and damage functions. Batches change the interaction between a Grizzly Bear, a Giant Growth and Lightning Bolt so that Lightning Bolt never beats Giant Growth.

You're stuck on the old magic term. I did say it describes what you're doing -- but I didn't mean in the old magic term (I probably should have been more explicit on that.) "Batch processing" is used in (for example) ERP Financial Software -- where you group a bunch of things together, and then process them all as a single batch. And that does describe what you are saying (I'm not saying you want to bring back damage prevention windows or anything like that.)

Mr Degradation wrote:
As for simplifying the rules- How does it not? Like really, maybe to someone whose been playing for a long time, it's more on the complex side because it's a change to something already grokked. But seriously, how does it poorly effect a newer players understanding of the stack? You can literally just say "Goes up APNAP, comes down reverse-APNAP until it clears"- and so long as you define APNAP order, it's fairly easy to grok.

Ummm because you're not removing anything in the rules, and are merely adding stuff. That's kind of a textbook application of increasing complexity.

If you add in a new law for driving -- do the rules for driving become simpler?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 1:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
It ISN'T what I'm describing- because batches are entirely different device which completely changes how spells resolve and damage functions. Batches change the interaction between a Grizzly Bear, a Giant Growth and Lightning Bolt so that Lightning Bolt never beats Giant Growth.

You're stuck on the old magic term. I did say it describes what you're doing -- but I didn't mean in the old magic term (I probably should have been more explicit on that.) "Batch processing" is used in (for example) ERP Financial Software -- where you group a bunch of things together, and then process them all as a single batch. And that does describe what you are saying (I'm not saying you want to bring back damage prevention windows or anything like that.)


Then, please accept my apology. Had I known it was in reference to another analogous system, I would have not been under the impression that it was an attempt at obfuscation- but rather that is was merely an overlap in two different fields of terminology. My mathematic understanding mostly applies to geometry, probability and physics/chemistry, so I appreciate the clarification.

Mr Degradation wrote:
As for simplifying the rules- How does it not? Like really, maybe to someone whose been playing for a long time, it's more on the complex side because it's a change to something already grokked. But seriously, how does it poorly effect a newer players understanding of the stack? You can literally just say "Goes up APNAP, comes down reverse-APNAP until it clears"- and so long as you define APNAP order, it's fairly easy to grok.

Ummm because you're not removing anything in the rules, and are merely adding stuff. That's kind of a textbook application of increasing complexity.

If you add in a new law for driving -- do the rules for driving become simpler?[/quote]

It depends. If the single rule obsoletes many other rules as a guideline to improve traffic flow, then significantly. There are also supplemental rules that help to reinforce safe traffic (like double lines painted onto streets, most often on shoulders or other points where passing has an increased risk.)

In this respect, it's more of an amendment to 405.2 & 405.5 which reinforces the stack's function of being a device which drives the game forward- and consequently makes the stack concept easier to describe in shorthand. I view that as a form of simplification, since many Magic players don't crack the CR for years, and learn the game through models made by their peers, spoken descriptions and examples.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 2:44 am 

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
You know, this whole idea of adding to the stack with abilities and instants and then letting it all resolve without letting more things back on the stack in the middle of the resolution (except for triggers) is nice. I also think it works better in digital versions of the game. I don't think it is as simple a fix as going from, say, damage on the stack to not having damage on the stack, but I like it as an idea and as an alternative way of handling the stack. I could imagine it being done like that back in 6th edition instead of the way they wrote it.

Just for the way that it simplifies digital games (of passing priority back and forth while resolving a stack), I'd go for the change, but describing it in the exhaustive detail that the comprehensive rules describes things would probably take more words than the current rules.

As for the general topic, of what Commander-specific rule I would get rid of or change, I would get rid of Commander damage. There are plenty of Commanders where dealing 21 damage is unrealistic, such as most commanders with 0, 1, or 2 power, and there are those that take too much advantage of their abilities to deal that damage too quickly, like Uril, the Miststalker. I understand this gets rid of an interesting style of deck (Voltron decks), which is why I don't actively advocate for it to change, but if I had to change a rule, I'm pretty sure this is the one I would go after.

(Ahem, and I would, of course, allow planeswalkers as Commanders, but that is a topic for a different thread and doesn't really fit the idea behind this topic)

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 4:10 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
No commander damage? That would really change the way I played some of my decks. Thraximundar is generally winning games for me by hitting for 21 damage, same with Uril.

But I definitely hate when you start losing to commander damage from some incidental attacks. Or have to track multiple commanders in the same game.

I wonder what the loss of the win condition would do to voltron and aggro style decks. My first though it Poison might be a replacement. If I'm not winning with Commander damage with my Lord of Tresserhorn maybe I need to give him infect more reliably.

But speaking of Tresserhorn... I might change commander damage to 20 instead of 21.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Online Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: papa_funk and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron