All B/R update speculation.

[Lord Seth]

Wow this is a dumb suggestion. Then just play Hearthstone. The whole interaction between lands/other cards, deck building, etc. is what makes magic unique. Take that away and you'll have an awkward mix of no fun probably.

Because losing to mana screw or mana flood is such a "unique" experience and its removal would not be "fun."

Magic's mana system is actually all kinds of messed up in how it leads to non-games. Would've been much better if it had a mana system more like the Force of Will TCG. The problem is, it's so ingrained into the game, with so many cards designed around its implementation, that at this point you can't really fix it. But let's not pretend that it's some kind of positive thing in the game.

[Megadeus]

Because losing to mana screw or mana flood is such a "unique" experience and its removal would not be "fun."

Magic's mana system is actually all kinds of messed up in how it leads to non-games. Would've been much better if it had a mana system more like the Force of Will TCG. The problem is, it's so ingrained into the game, with so many cards designed around its implementation, that at this point you can't really fix it. But let's not pretend that it's some kind of positive thing in the game.

It is though. We can build our deck around how many lands we need, we can build mana sinks in, we can have lands with spell abilities, we can play to different probabilities because of it rather than being sure things, and it's an integral part and an added dimension to deck construction

[Barook]

We can build our deck around how many lands we need, we can build mana sinks in, we can have lands with spell abilities, we can play to different probabilities because of it rather than being sure things, and it's an integral part and an added dimension to deck construction

Or you can just play cantrips.

[Brael]

Or you can just play cantrips.

Cantrips are just a fancy mana sink. They're honestly not even that good. The best part of cantrips is that they pitch to FoW, and they let you cut lands to add more blue cards to pitch to FoW. As far as mana smoothing goes, if you want a reliable land base, you'll use fewer deck slots by simply playing 24 to 26 land (or even 22) than you will by playing 20 land and 8 cantrips. The smoothest manabases come from cards like Baleful Strix and DRS mixed with healthy amounts of land.

You should check out some of the things we do in the Nic Fit thread, it takes some doing but it's totally possible to make good manabases without Brainstorm and Ponder. Then again, I think Brainstorm fueled manabases are poor anyways. If you go back about a year ago in the Burn thread I did A LOT of work on this, building a simulator to play out games of Magic as Burn. Among the many things I tested was the value of cantrips (I used Probe/Preordain, Ponder/Brainstorm are much more complicated) and in every test, the deck ran better with a 1:1 swap of land vs cantrip. Now, that won't hold true for every deck (especially Delver decks), but it holds true for a lot.

[Lord Seth]

It is though. We can build our deck around how many lands we need,

Which is just a matter of choosing whether it's more likely to get a non-game out of mana screw or mana flood.

we can build mana sinks in,

Meh.

we can have lands with spell abilities,

This is really the only valid point you have, but Force of Will's mana system does allow for this whilst removing the problem of mana screw and mana flood.

we can play to different probabilities because of it rather than being sure things,

You don't need lands in their current format to do that.

and it's an integral part and an added dimension to deck construction

Then let's require that all decks in all formats use at least 4 cards from the newest set, because that'd be an integral part and an added dimension to deck construction!

Magic's mana system sucks big time. People are just so used to it that they give it a pass. Hearthstone isn't exactly perfect either in its mana system (I think Force of Will probably has the best mana system), but it's still an improvement.

Like I said, at this point you can't really fix it. It's too embedded into the game. But let's not pretend that, if they had done it differently to begin with, it couldn't be way better than it is now.

[UseLess]

He was being sarcastic.
His point [probably] has to do with the success of Hearthstone causing Wizards to rethink dumb things

I just read his post again and for some reason read that things were too INconsistent across platforms. Rereading it with the actual written text gives the post a whole other meaning ;). My apologies for calling you dumb s&s.

That said, one of my main reasons for defending the magic mana system is that lands do not only function as mana generators and mana is not solely depending on lands to be regenerated. There's a lot of awesome things you can do outside of the standard "one land per turn to increase available mana by one per turn" that makes magic interesting to me. I love lands as a card type and combo as a deck type, which both break that basic rule. I agree that the mana-land system can create non-games and I mostly feel that's the case in the limited format (which I therefore not like so much). Lands are (mostly) just mana generators in limited and standard, and are typically the only real source for mana. There the hearthstone system comes really close to approximating the feeling of such formats. Eternal format types like EDH, casual and legacy do so much more with lands and mana, that I think the non-games part is a small price to pay for a very unique system that allows to go very deep in its mechanics. That said, I don't know Force of Will as a TCG (never heard of it apart from this forum) so maybe that is even better, but I certainly don't mind the way mana and lands work in (proper :p) magic formats.

[Dice_Box]

I am fairly sure that Garfield has come out and said the mana system is the part of the game he dislikes. That other games have done it better since he made Magic. Honestly, I liked the VS system of Mana the best. Giving you access to it at all times while also offering benefits for running "Land" style cards.

[Teluin]

I am fairly sure that Garfield has come out and said the mana system is the part of the game he dislikes. That other games have done it better since he made Magic. Honestly, I liked the VS system of Mana the best. Giving you access to it at all times while also offering benefits for running "Land" style cards.

I actually looked into this a bit and apparently he did in 2001 when talking about Jyhad, stating that he didn't like that 40% of a deck was boring land cards and wanted to demonstrate that there are other options in TCGs. His opinion on the mana system seemed to have changed within the next 10 years after new card games were released, as he thought lands actually helped the game (or at least had some good aspects).

On a different forum I found a post that I thought was pretty interesting:

Garfield did an interview on The Little Metal Dog Show podcast (Episode 23, June 2011) and in that episode he talked about a previously unseen advantage of the mana system. Over time, and in trying out other games, he realized that the lands in Magic made the opening hands (and deck building) easier to evaluate, especially when you're unfamiliar with the cards (such as when learning a new deck style, set, or a whole new game). For example, in Magic, you draw your opening hand of 7 cards and you can immediately recognize what the lands are, what they provide and how fast they come out. That provides the context for evaluating the rest of your hand. Now, on average you only need to evaluate another 4 cards to determine if you need to mulligan.

I think that's a pretty interesting view. Oh, and I enjoy the mana system. Never properly played any other TCG admittedly so I am saying this without comparison.

[Crimhead]

Or you can just play cantrips.

Well, if I had a Tabernacle for every Delver deck I've crushed with mana denial I'd be set to retire early.

Magic's mana system is actually all kinds of messed up in how it leads to non-games.

I'm not worried about the "non-games". And in my experience such games are the exception (despite playing a denial deck myself). Regardless, What I like about Legacy is the wide variety of play-styles - and the drastic change in strategy that results.
It's impossible to have a format that includes LD and all-in combo strategies without having more non-games than you would in a "fair-deck" format.

You are not alone in disliking mana screw as a game element. Ponza was among the first play-style for WotC to cull on account of it being "unfun" to play against. But some of us actually do enjoy the variety we get when the field includes decks (like Pox and Lands) which are tuned prey on the instabilities of our mana system. And for some of us this feature far outweighs the occasional lackluster games.

But let's not pretend that it's some kind of positive thing in the game.

Different strokes for different folks, right?

[Megadeus]

Well, if I had a Tabernacle for every Delver deck I've crushed with mana denial I'd be set to retire early.



I'm not worried about the "non-games". And in my experience such games are the exception (despite playing a denial deck myself). Regardless, What I like about Legacy is the wide variety of play-styles - and the drastic change in strategy that results.
It's impossible to have a format that includes LD and all-in combo strategies without having more non-games than you would in a "fair-deck" format.

You are not alone in disliking mana screw as a game element. Ponza was among the first play-style for WotC to cull on account of it being "unfun" to play against. But some of us actually do enjoy the variety we get when the field includes decks (like Pox and Lands) which are tuned prey on the instabilities of our mana system. And for some of us this feature far outweighs the occasional lackluster games.


Different strokes for different folks, right?

Asmuch as I disagree with most of your posts, I agree here. Lands add an extra element to the game in the form of resource denial. Which is one of my personal favorite play styles.

[Shax]

With Sensei's Top gone could Balance come back and shake things up by offering a control card to fight aggro in a Legacy metagame??

[ramanujan]

With Sensei's Top gone could Balance come back and shake things up by offering a control card to fight aggro in a Legacy metagame??

Balance is one of the few cards that can rival the power 9 in terms of raw strength. This would be a patently bad idea. If you think the card is for creatures, I think you missed why the card is banned.

[Megadeus]

What the fuck is this

[Whitefaces]

lol

[Dice_Box]

Balance should be unbanned yes. Because I want to know how quickly Legacy events can become a Wasteland with no players.

In unrelated news, Balance is unbalanced.

[btm10]

Balance should be unbanned yes. Because I want to know how quickly Legacy events can become a Wasteland with no players.

In unrelated news, Balance is unbalanced.

I'd show up for this for like a month. I haven't Balanced someone since like 2010. Sometimes you've got to scratch that itch. Once a decade seems about right.

[Dice_Box]

I'd show up for this for like a month. I haven't Balanced someone since like 2010. Sometimes you've got to scratch that itch. Once a decade seems about right.

Australian Highlander is available at Vegas. Win a Mox. Balance is only worth one point and well worth it. I run it in my control builds with 3 Moxen taking my remaining points. Give it a look.

[btm10]

Australian Highlander is available at Vegas. Win a Mox. Balance is only worth one point and we'll worth it. I run it in my control builds with 3 Moxen taking my remaining points. Give it a look.

Alas, I won't be at Vegas since I have a work conference that week and tacking a 4 day vacation onto a 6 day work trip doesn't usually fly with other members of my family.

[tescrin]

Asmuch as I disagree with most of your posts, I agree here. Lands add an extra element to the game in the form of resource denial. Which is one of my personal favorite play styles.

This is where I'm at. It takes awhile to get used to, and it can suck pretty bad to have to draw a land in order to do what you need when you're new, but that's the cost of playing big dudes. Also, between being a randomized deck and the possibility of land screw, it keeps players in the game because "they just drew bad and would've totally had that guy if only [..]"

Lord Seth manages to contradict himself multiple times by first stating that lands aren't an issue at all if you're in blue, then states he's wasted out Delver an infinite number of times. Well shit. Time to figure out that Mobius Strip of logic eh?

The fact is, Wasteland/Stifle [of all things] are really cards that fixed the mana system quite well. Do you run basics? Miracles and D&T are often impervious to attempts to slow them down in conventional ways because of resilient manabases; it's a core feature of those decks. Greedier decks are punished for their greed when someone preys on such a thing.

It's an entire extra axis of gameplay that allows for really deep lines of deck creation and strategy; such as "I have a bunch of nic fit players in my area, do I run a 2nd/3rd basic and risk losing when I screw my opening hands, or do I run duals and get punished by Delver/Nic Fit/Burn more often"

LIke.. how many decks would cease to exist if it were guaranteed mana? By all means, other games have done it and done it reasonably well (usually by early cards granting you resources but not being a different card type, meaning that you could still flood if you have too many) but Legacy is a difficult format specifically because not only do you have T1 combos, T2/T3 combos with disruption, aggro stuff going on, and giant complex midrange dudes, but at the same time have Blood Moon, Loam, PriceOP, or Delver decks all looking to screw you out of playing the game.

It *feels* bad, but it's justified. When you could've used basics, which are arguably *very* powerful considering how much nastiness they avoid, Ghost Quarter and other benefits, you actually have a push-pull. People will be experiencing that in the coming couple months as Wasteland becomes more prevalent (it's much worse in a Miracles/D&T meta), as Moon decks seek to punish combo/midrange, and similar.

I feel the same way about Chalice. The push/pull of how it works is agonizing for non-Eldrazi players, and even they have to make concessions to make it work right. Risk/reward and how-big-to-go *includes* the manabase.


I could go for days. Like.. when you're new and you first realize the power of Man-lands is that they are basically CQ and CA because they're two cards in one, when you first play Land destruction or get nipped by a Force Spike. It's on the same level as figuring out instant-speed hexproof/flicker/protection and realizing that you can really screw someone by baiting them into losing their huge play. Vines to kill an enchantment. Stuff like that. The depth is a free fall of deck-building imagination where you start accounting for obscure interactions that you realize matter.

There are the guys who like playing casual Goblins 100% of the time, and anything not aggro is "Lame/Stupid"; but that's life. The Timmy's feel like the Goblins aren't big enough to be "cool" and the Johnny's think you're all dumb for playing cards how they're "intended."

[Lord Seth]

That said, I don't know Force of Will as a TCG (never heard of it apart from this forum) so maybe that is even better, but I certainly don't mind the way mana and lands work in (proper :p) magic formats.

Here's how it works. Now, in Force of Will there are different names for most of these things, but for simplicity's sake I'll use the Magic nomenclature (e.g. mana is called will--hence the name of the game--and lands are called magic stones). Each deck has two separate decks: A lands deck and a nonlands deck, the former 10-20 cards and the latter a minimum of 40 cards. Due to not needing to have lands fill up your main deck, you draw 5 cards at the start of your first turn.

Here's where things get a bit different. You never draw from your lands deck, just your main deck. You get the lands through your Ruler card, which is fairly similar to a Commander. Once during your turn, you can tap your Ruler to put the top card of your lands deck into play. However, if you do this, you can't J-Activate your Ruler (turning it into a J-Ruler and putting it onto the battlefield--it's similar in concept to casting your Commander, though some have costs to do so other than mana). Thus mana screw and mana flood are removed because your lands are separate (color screw remains, but that's okay because there should be a drawback to going into multiple colors), but you can have lands with unique abilities, and there's a disadvantage to just doing nothing but getting a land each turn in that you can't get as much usage out of your Ruler card.

It's a pretty brilliant setup that manages to remove essentially every problem with the mana system but keeping the good parts of it. I have a number of issues with the game's execution but in terms of the base rules I think it's practically a strict upgrade to Magic.

You are not alone in disliking mana screw as a game element. Ponza was among the first play-style for WotC to cull on account of it being "unfun" to play against. But some of us actually do enjoy the variety we get when the field includes decks (like Pox and Lands) which are tuned prey on the instabilities of our mana system. And for some of us this feature far outweighs the occasional lackluster games.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the idea of getting mana screwed due to land destruction, because that's something the opponent is doing. That's an actual strategy. My problem is with getting mana screwed because your deck refuses to give you lands, which is downright stupid.

Lord Seth manages to contradict himself multiple times by first stating that lands aren't an issue at all if you're in blue, then states he's wasted out Delver an infinite number of times. Well shit. Time to figure out that Mobius Strip of logic eh?

Um... where did I say any of that?