Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-18 6:53 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 4:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
niheloim wrote:
Or have to track multiple commanders in the same game.

Hey, there we go, how about a change that just has players track Commander damage like they track poison counters. Instead of a separate track for each commander that is hitting you, all commander damage you take from any commander is just pooled together. You deal 20 damage in one attack from your Uril, but then I sneak in a deal 1 damage with my commander for the kill.

That would simplify the tracking of things nicely during the game without needing to fully remove Commander damage as an entire thing.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 5:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
Then, please accept my apology.
No problem. As I said, I could have been more explicit in what I was referring to - and I also just assumed that other people knew that term in other aspects. So, my bad there :)

Mr Degradation wrote:
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.)

Right .. .but, obsolescence isn't the same as removing them. There may be a rule about not allowing horses to be ridden through main street after sundown on the books somewhere -- and while it's pretty obsolete - it's still there creating more complexity to the rules in that town/county/wherever.

My point is, you're adding in new rules, and not really removing much of anything. Thus, more complexity. It may end up being easier for people to understand ... but that doesn't mean it's less complex, it means it's more understandable. Don't think I'm combining complexity with how easy or hard it is to teach/understand a rule (or series of rules.)

I also don't see yours as a "simplification" either. Here's how I see the comparison:

Now:
  1. a player casts a spell or uses an ability
  2. With it on the top of the stack, both players have the opportunity to "respond" to it (to put something further on top of the stack.
  3. If someone does, then go to step 1. If not, then resolve the top item of the stack, and then if there is anything else remaining go to step 2.

With your suggestion:
  1. a player casts a spell or uses an ability
  2. With it on the top of the stack, both players have the opportunity to "respond" to it (to put something further on top of the stack.
  3. If someone does, then go to step 1. If not, then go to step 4
  4. Resolve the top item of the stack. If anything triggers, put it on the stack (even though players aren't getting priority.*)
  5. If anything remains on the stack, go to step 4.

So you can see that I'm seeing that your method has additional steps/processes compared to the current way (as the current way can be somewhat recursive so it can just repeat the same ol' parts over and over without any new bits that yours requires; steps 4 & 5.) Then there's also the part that I put the '*' beside -- as this would be new rules you'd require to support your change .. adding complexity in another part of the rules beyond just how the stack works.

Hopefully you can see why I keep calling yours more complex.
cheethorne wrote:
That would simplify the tracking of things nicely during the game without needing to fully remove Commander damage as an entire thing.
I could go for that -- as I tend to make anyone who wants to track commander damage do the tracking. But... please also increase the value above 21. If any commander can combine (which adds a bit more power to the "Partner" commanders I think) then it would increase the overall power of commanders dealing damage.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 9:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Now:
  1. a player casts a spell or uses an ability
  2. With it on the top of the stack, both players have the opportunity to "respond" to it (to put something further on top of the stack.
  3. If someone does, then go to step 1. If not, then resolve the top item of the stack, and then if there is anything else remaining go to step 2.

With your suggestion:
  1. a player casts a spell or uses an ability
  2. With it on the top of the stack, both players have the opportunity to "respond" to it (to put something further on top of the stack.
  3. If someone does, then go to step 1. If not, then go to step 4
  4. Resolve the top item of the stack. If anything triggers, put it on the stack (even though players aren't getting priority.*)
  5. If anything remains on the stack, go to step 4.

How come your "now" list doesn't include triggers? That should be a separate entry that is not covered by the other three entries.

Also, the simplicity of the rule would likely come from how it is handled most times in play, where there are generally not too many triggers that would intercede in the middle of resolving a bunch of items on the stack. And, of course, this is generally for exceptional cases anyway since most times there is not a lot of new entries in the middle of a stack resolution in the first place.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-19 10:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cheethorne wrote:
How come your "now" list doesn't include triggers? That should be a separate entry that is not covered by the other three entries.

Hrm, I did miss it. But, it would be done at the same step as in the second situation, not a separate entry.

cheethorne wrote:
Also, the simplicity of the rule would likely come from how it is handled most times in play
I'm not worried about simplicity through play ... I can see the argument for it, and while I don't agree with it, I don't see it being a big sticking point.

No, I'm saying that he is adding complexity in the rules. I've not seen anything to actually address this point.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 12:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
I'm saying that he is adding complexity in the rules. I've not seen anything to actually address this point.

What is there to address? It is more complex. Are you waiting for an acknowledgement of that fact, because I think the poster did say it was more "complex" than just leaving the rules alone. Are you waiting for someone to convince you that it is not more complex? I don't understand what you are expecting to see other people do.

As a side note, I wonder if this idea for a rule change is not really about the stack per se and how you would describe the stack, but is instead about when players do and do not have priority. You do not have priority during the act of untapping permanents. So I cannot do something, and do not have priority, after you untap one of your tapped lands but before you untap everything.

Abilities that are triggered when objects are untapped are put on the stack after everything has untapped instead of in the middle of untapping things, just like triggers that occur when a player draws a card happen after everyone would draw a card (like if I tapped Temple Bell) instead of each player drawing a card one after another in turn order. You could do the same thing for the Stack, once things start to resolve, no triggers go onto the stack until it is empty and no one gets priority while things are resolving off of the stack.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 5:18 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
What is being described is a lot like a batch (which is why that term was used originally, you put a bunch cookies in the oven and cook them all at once- called a batch).

I think the issue of priority arose because it was said that Morphing was functionally the same, when in reality much stemming from this change would be functionally different.

Having the stack clear fully once it starts to resolve might sound great, but I don't think its as streamlined as suspected. My experience is that the stack does empty fully once its started to resolve. Relatively rare is the instance of casting a spell in response to another and using the resolution to respond again- the old Brainstorm for a counter spell play.

What the change does is reduce the amount of interaction that is possible when there are multiple triggers and effects going on. And again, in my experience, these more complex interactions are the things that make a lot of games great.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 5:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cheethorne wrote:
you waiting for an acknowledgement of that fact, because I think the poster did say it was more "complex" than just leaving the rules alone.

Interesting -- because that's part what I was looking for, but I've not seen it. Instead, he's arguing that its simpler and asking "how is it more complex?" The other part - is, is this extra complexity worth the benefit? As I haven't seen the acknowledgement that there is increased complexity -- we haven't even broached that part yet.

As for the "don't worry bout triggers, and change so that they don't go onto the stack until it clears..." That would definitely change how the game plays out - no clue if it'd be for better or worse. But, I wonder if it might confuse people more ... as spells and abilities resolve independently while untapping people tend to assume just happens all at once, not as separate discrete actions.

You might be able to use the untap step & triggers as a good teaching tool/example though.
niheloim wrote:
What the change does is reduce the amount of interaction that is possible when there are multiple triggers and effects going on. And again, in my experience, these more complex interactions are the things that make a lot of games great.
I agree with this part.


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

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
niheloim wrote:
Having the stack clear fully once it starts to resolve might sound great, but I don't think its as streamlined as suspected. My experience is that the stack does empty fully once its started to resolve.

It feels like there is a contradiction in those two sentences. The only times it gets "complicated" is when there are triggers, but the game already has ways of handling that and explaining how that is supposed to be handled, like when you and I both have effects that trigger when a player draws a card. The rules even cover what happens in a multiplayer game where neither of us is the active player when our triggers occur. What is the thing that is not streamlined?

niheloim wrote:
What the change does is reduce the amount of interaction that is possible when there are multiple triggers and effects going on. And again, in my experience, these more complex interactions are the things that make a lot of games great.

It does reduce that type of interaction, but it gets replaced with strategic choices. If I know I can always Brainstorm to dig for a counter in response to you doing something, I don't have to plan for that and weigh the benefit of showing you that I have that mana available vs. not actually having the counter in my hand when I could use it. It is not to the same degree as removing damage from the stack for creatures that could be sacrificed for a benefit, but you can see the parallel between the two things.

Carthain wrote:
he's arguing that its simpler and asking "how is it more complex?" The other part - is, is this extra complexity worth the benefit? As I haven't seen the acknowledgement that there is increased complexity -- we haven't even broached that part yet.

A rule can be simple to explain between people, but complex to describe in the exacting language used in the comprehensive rules. The fact that you cannot cast more spells or activate more abilities when the stack is resolving is "simpler" compared to when you could do those things, but takes more words to describe in the rules and is thus more "complex" in word count.

Carthain wrote:
But, I wonder if it might confuse people more ... as spells and abilities resolve independently while untapping people tend to assume just happens all at once, not as separate discrete actions.

Not really sure from the perspective of a new player, but I am sure that it would work better with for a digital game since you wouldn't need to go back and forth with priority every time something on the stack resolves.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-20 10:53 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
The rule change sounds simple and straight to the point, aiming to cut out unecessary gameplay complications. I'm not saying its not going to work, or that is cant work... maybe its that its too streamlined. I dunno. But having to clear the stack of stuff and wait to put all triggers onto a then-empty stack seems like an errand in keeping track of stuff, rather than go one-by-one and deal with triggers as the occur.

My experience has been that the stack will often fill up with some stuff, then those things resolve. Thats with current rules. No changes needed.

On occasion, things get tricky, and interactive. Strategy is required, and skill. These are moments that might not happen if the stack is required to empty. We would lose moments if cool interaction. Strategy changes are a zero sum.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-21 12:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cheethorne wrote:
A rule can be simple to explain between people, but complex to describe in the exacting language used in the comprehensive rules. The fact that you cannot cast more spells or activate more abilities when the stack is resolving is "simpler" compared to when you could do those things, but takes more words to describe in the rules and is thus more "complex" in word count.
I never said that wasn't the case.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-21 12:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
Simply, on a technical level it does add complexity to the rules. That really isn't a point I've ever wanted to contest- because it's utterly fair to point out. Even if it makes groking the rules easier, it does add a few sentences to amend the pertinent rules. I think Carthain made the very important distinction about how it might make the stack easier to understand, but the rules still involve an extra step.

Like any suggestion, it's open to (and should recieve) dissent from as many angles as possible, to either prove that it's a functional suggestion, or if there are glaring holes in it, which require reconsideration- and possibly refurbish it in a clearer, more thoughtful way for future discussion. In this respect, I feel like Carthain and Niheloim have provided some very good counterpoints- and it comes back to the subjective analysis of whether or not this improves the game's engine in a way that agrees with our outlook on how the game should flow.

My own bias is informed mostly by several years of playing DrawGo decks, or similar types of "Flash" decks in various REL of tournament (a type of deck, I consider to be most effected by this change for the better health of the game.) As I developed as a player, I've found myself swinging more towards Cuneo-style control shells, which are trickier, because they emphasize attacking the game from multiple angles - and in my experience have just led to better results, more interactive games etc.

Thanks for what I'd consider a fairly ample and productive discussion about that rules change :)

Subjectively, it is a suggestion which I feel would benefit the game as a whole (and was presented to me over discussion about online TCGs, and both the things they remove from Magic that enhance the play experience, and things removed that hinder the game experience.) But, the other point of view is valid, and should always be considered (which, if/when this sort of change is likely to come, I hope it takes those into consideration for the sake of successful and less-abrasive implementation.)

_________________
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
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-21 8:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
Simply, on a technical level it does add complexity to the rules. That really isn't a point I've ever wanted to contest- because it's utterly fair to point out. Even if it makes groking the rules easier, it does add a few sentences to amend the pertinent rules. I think Carthain made the very important distinction about how it might make the stack easier to understand, but the rules still involve an extra step.

You have to keep in mind - there are two (in this overwhelmingly simple example) types of people: Those who get taught by friends/shopkeepers; and those who want to delve into the rules to find out exactly how things work.

Now, the majority of people are probably in the first. But, to ignore the second ... seems like an oversight. These are the people that the first group turns to whenever they aren't sure about how something works.

So now my question is: Would this change be worth the extra complexity it adds? I don't think so -- but then, I've not seen a "problem" with what Mr. Degradation described as the root for making the change :)


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-22 7:29 am 

Joined: 2011-Feb-15 7:09 am
Age: Drake
I'm thinking a rule to stop Mindslaver exile could be really simple i.e. "if a commander would be exiled send it to the command zone instead".

I grant you that would change a bunch of other stuff people like to do, but is not complex at all.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-23 4:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
OldVig wrote:
I'm thinking a rule to stop Mindslaver exile could be really simple i.e. "if a commander would be exiled send it to the command zone instead".

If you were going to make a change like that, and it's one I would be fine with as well, it would probably better to say that when someone else takes control of your turn, they cannot choose which zone that Commander goes into, just like they cannot concede for you.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules that shaped the Format- remove one!
AgePosted: 2017-Jun-23 5:26 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Originally mindslaver didn't allow the controlled player to take mana burn. I suppose that was a really lame way to get in damage. I can see a parallel of lame-ness with exiling a commander permanently.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Carthain, Dee123 and 32 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: