I don't have a problem with this rule though. It's not like the attacker can make you block and if you choose to block it's not like your defenders would be able to stay out of the way reliably anyway. They're blocking after all. No way of knowing which path the attacker is going to take unless you are in a narrow pass or some such.
For all my nostalgia, Banding sucked big time. It left the non-banding player feeling confused and often rooked when a particularly neat combat trick let the Benalish Hero save the bigger ally he was blocking with.
Speaking of nostalgia and such, there's something special about the old sets. I guess that the D&D inspiration was what resulted in cards like this:
Clearly meant for a really different gaming experience. I imagine a quartet of dudes playing this while drinking red wine and be like "Ok party, move on, lets shuffle the Villain's Deck. Get your fellowship ready: Josh, here's the Runesword you found the last night, Peter, take this powerful Ring of Ma'rûf, and Kenny, summon the Clay Statue. Now, are you prepared for the horrors that lurk in the Dungeon of Xantharthes, the Necromancer?"
Heh. I realize that we are all necessarily nerds to be having this discussion. But do you really have to wear the label with such big letters?I don't see what the fuss is. There IS a limit... None negative Integer...
At any rate, I think that it is excellent that this game does not need an arbitrary limit. It is ugly to see those artificial caps. It tells me that the designers could not find a more elegant solution.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
I don't think introducing an arbitrary creature limit would improve the game.
One of my most memorable games (albeit in playtesting) was against ESG when I had to figure out how to fend off like 40 Worm Harvest tokens with 5 dudes, a Jitte, and a SoFI.
Why are you picking on creatures? Just because you don't like crowded boards? Let's put a limit on lands in play, too. 4 lands max. And cards drawn per turn. 2 per turn beyond your first draw step. Also you can only untap 5 permanents per turn. Also, when you play something as a Morph it first enters the Phantom Zone and must battle General Zod and the other Kryptonian generals before entering the battlefield. Also tokens count as half a creature for these new rules. So you can have 10 tokens or 5 creatures. But since we always round down, you can actually have 11 tokens on the field. Also the battlefield is now called "The Field of Battle", capitalization required. And while playing on The Field of Battle, all stack interactions must be prefaced by "HALT, NECROMANCER. I shalt respond to thine unholy artifice with a magickal rune of mine own!"
Also you aren't allowed to play non-creature spells unless you are wearing a pointy wizard hat while rocking a full beard.
This game actually sounds way more fun than MTG.
Elves Discord Channel: https://discord.gg/2EVsdw2
I'd play the shit out of that game.
I think a creature limit hatebear would be perfectly fine and maybe interesting, though.
WW
2/2 (No sir, Golgari Charm)
"When ~ enters play, choose a number X greater than 2. Each player chooses from the creatures they control up to X creatures and exiles the rest. When a creature would enter the battlefield, if it's controller controls X or more creatures, he/she exiles it instead."
/shrug
So Ward of Bones except fixed number and only for creatures?
Matt Bevenour in real life
Sure, except that it also handles tokens and morphs and reanimated creatures and whatever else WotC comes up with in the future for putting creatures into play without "playing" them.
these machanics are already in the game. Limited Resources for example
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)