even more so than it already is in formats filled with removal spells ; if a creature can just kill other creatures, you need less removal and simply bigger and better creatures (especially first strike and deathtouch become really brutal).
Or if you could actually attack other creatures with your creatures then you could just put cards that have something to do with the theme of your deck instead of filling it with random removals just because it's the only way to actually get rid of annoyances, which by the way, cannot be protected from removals.
Creatures able to attack other creatures directly, makes First Strike, Haste and Protection from even more powerful and allow these abilites to snowball wven more. In addition direct damage spells even become more powerful allowing you to interact with attackers and blockers while still having the versatility of being able to target players and planeswalkers.
Also desthtouch becomes completely overpowered on 1 mana creatures.
Well, I'll start off by stating this is a imo a horrible idea and would break the entire game.
But I honestly dont see how attacking creatures would make sense in a lore way at all.
You are a planeswalker, you can call for planeswalker friends, that is the HQ, makes sense to be attacked.
The creatures are basically your summoned army that can defend you. But when you see the enemy attacking you can move your troops to favourable positions to defend the attack. I don't see how it would make sense to be able to attack certain creatures when you can see the atttackers coming and simply reposition them to avoid that.
I also don't get the argument about wasting deck slots on removal. Do you also consider spending slots on lands an equal waste? Those are also cards that has nothing to do with the decks theme.
Or if you could actually attack other creatures with your creatures then you could just put cards that have something to do with the theme of your deck instead of filling it with random removals just because it's the only way to actually get rid of annoyances, which by the way, cannot be protected from removals.
You don't fill decks with random removal and there are tonnes of ways to protect things from removal.
Shouldn't you be able to attack their other things too then? Send some troops to burn the plains, some oters to crush some weird hatHelm of the host and yet another one should be able to jump in the way of a Lightning Bolt aimed at someone else.
My point is that this suggestion is basically revamping the entire game to correct one thing that you think seems odd (I disagree). But it's rather inconsistent due to all the other odd things you seem fine with.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
The creatures are basically your summoned army that can defend you.
Your summons should also be able to defend you by attempting to kill other summons that may be a threat to you as well.
[quote from="HugSeal »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/811570-i-think-its-about-time-someone-says-it?comment=28"]I don't see how it would make sense to be able to attack certain creatures when you can see the atttackers coming and simply reposition them to avoid that.
What if the opponent's summon has a ability to spawn tokens every turn so the more you leave it the bigger the threat it becomes, this is why we also have removals, remember? So instead of always being forced to have removal in case the enemy has a utility summon that it will gradually becomes more and more of a threat (Either by getting +1/+1 every turn or by spawning tokens.)
So if you have a swarm at that time, why should they wait and watch it grow? Why wouldn't it make sense to attempt to take care of that now (Assuming the opponent doesn't have good blockers to protect the creature.)
You don't fill decks with random removal and there are tonnes of ways to protect things from removal.
I wouldn't say tons but yes indeed there are a few like counters, buffing before damage, hexproof ect, still that's not an excuse for not not being able to attack as well.
And as much as I want to agree with you, the fact is that you need the random removals in your deck if you want it to be viable in a matchup, since you can't do anything if the opponent has a utility creature unless he himself decides to either attack with it (thus exposing it.) or block a bigger creature, which would probably never happen unless either by mistake or the opponent uses it as a shield in desperation since he would lose otherwise.
Shouldn't you be able to attack their other things too then? Send some troops to burn the plains, some oters to crush some weird hatHelm of the host and yet another one should be able to jump in the way of a Lightning Bolt aimed at someone else.
That would be good, except there aren't any measurable ways to do it, for example how much damage should a land take before it gets destroyed?
In summons this should be measurable by their toughness,
Now I'd agree too for instance that artifacts should also break if they get enough damage but the problem is that there is no measurable way to be able to calculate the damage needed for an artifact to break/destroyed as well.
Anyway I digress, as long as non-creature artifacts or lands don't have toughness it's pointless to discuss about it for now, I really hope this would happen as well at some later point.
Although to be honest I wouldn't like mana sources to be able to get destroyed that easily. (If it was up to me they would simply called 'mana sources' and not 'lands' to begin with since as you suggested a 'land' should be something that could get ravaged.)
My point is that this suggestion is basically revamping the entire game to correct one thing that you think seems odd (I disagree).
I wouldn't say "revamping" as even before planeswalker cards came out creatures couldn't attack anything but the players, did magic became something completely different from what it used to be, or it got even more deep since the planeswalker card type was introduced?
This is why I refrain from using the term "creature" and instead I use "summon".
I want to thank you for spending your time conversing, let me know if there is any misunderstandings, I'm always happy to reply to messages.
Creatures able to attack other creatures directly, makes First Strike, Haste and Protection from even more powerful and allow these abilites to snowball wven more. In addition direct damage spells even become more powerful allowing you to interact with attackers and blockers while still having the versatility of being able to target players and planeswalkers.
Also desthtouch becomes completely overpowered on 1 mana creatures.
You are right, as things stand right now, if something like that were to suddenly come, it would make make the game
totally unbalanced.
I could also add that unblockable or summons with evasion in general would simply be one turn free removal, this is why if something like that were to even be suggested first evasion should be mitigated, personally I'd say that unblockable summons shouldn't even be a thing to begin with and many other summons should also have reach or other defend abilities to be able to protect from evasion in general, the player though should probably be able to block anything, in order to take the damage for himself to protect his/her summons.
Even just look at Provoke. As someone one who played limited Legions It gave the player who got to attack first with their Provoke creatureso much power limited was all about the mitigatong or getting Provoke as quickly as possible. This actually makes going first even more powerful than it already is (depending on the format going first actually give over a 10% increase to win percentage) so if this was implomented the entire game structure would need to change to accommodate that the player going furst is significantly more likely to win.
Again with provoke you are just forcing a creature to block, defending player has no way of protecting that creature with other blockers since it is considered a blocker itself.
What we are saying here is more in line with attacking planeswalkers thus giving defending player a chance to block in order to protect said planeswalker/summon than anything else.
People tend to compare this with yugioh or hearthstone mechanic or even provoke just like you mentioned, though all of these methods don't give your opponent a chance to protect the summon that is being attacked by any other means.
If people detached their mindset from this mentality they would realize that when a summon attacks another summon the controller of the summon which is being attacked will always have a chance of blocking with other creatures/summons in order to protect it.
The rule of creatures can attack other creatures like they are all Planeswalkers would work and probably work fine in a casual format like Commander, so decks that are filled with creatures can more easily remove specific creatures.
That in itself would probably do fine, but for magic in general, the scope of how much it changes the game is simply not worth doing it.
Its especially bad simply because it gives the attacking player another option, which is the last we need or want, as magics biggest strength is the options the defending player gets compared to most other card games, in which the attacker has all the advantages.
If you allow every creature itself to act like a planeswalker in terms of declaring to attack them, it also becomes quite a cluster fk when lots of attackers are declared and such ; it can be done in a convenient way, but thats much better for a casual format and you can even try it with some friends.
Here's another point. When I was new, I thought creatures could attack each other. It balanced itself out somewhat - but it was because I played mostly vanilla and French vanilla cards, and because damage stayed on the creatures - I didn't know damage was removed at end of turn either.
Even if we allowed creatures to block each other when creatures are individually attacked, the game screws up completely as snowballing if you allow them to attack each other. You have to necessiate damage to stay on creatures, to make them more limited. This is why Planeswalkers work, by the way. They are simply not the same kind of gamestate as a creature with potentially infinite ability to absorb damage.
Changing the game rules like this leads either to the Provoke snowball situation if damage is removed as currently (which is a bafflingly unbalanced suggestion) or we'll have damage stay, track it with counters and every creature with other kinds of counters becomes Frankenstein's Monster. It's not a good idea.
Look at Pokémon, for example - there's a reason Energy is tracked with cards while damage is tracked with counters. It keeps tracking easier.
You really want this creature fighting to be a thing? Just go play another card game at that point. It's completely off base to add that to Magic in my eyes. As is, it'll break the game or make board states unreadable.
I think the mechanical problems have been addressed enough to make it pretty clear, that this proposal is at least problematic and requires changes that are too fundamental to implement without creating a whole new format (if not basically pretty much a different game).
So I want to focus on the idea that you have to "waste slots in [a] deck to put removals that have nothing to do with the rest of the deck's theme".
If you think of theme in terms of flavor, there are enough options for removal, so you should be able to find something that fits your overall concept.
I assume you are rather talking about theme as core strategy though, so it seems you are asking to have answers to more problems without any opportunity costs. And as I see it, that would remove a layer of strategy from the game. A deck can't have answers to everything, so you need to identify the things that you have to be able to deal with and build accordingly. If you could just smash everything with the creatures you want to run anyway, that would dumb the game down quite a bit (I'm obviously exaggerating here, but the point should be clear).
The rule of creatures can attack other creatures like they are all Planeswalkers would work and probably work fine in a casual format like Commander, so decks that are filled with creatures can more easily remove specific creatures.
Although as matters stand it will create a huge imbalance, this is why if such a rule were to be made it shouldn't affect already existing creature but a new card type such as "summons" or something else.
Since if it were to be applied right now, creatures with evasion will be used as one turn free removal.
Its especially bad simply because it gives the attacking player another option, which is the last we need or want, as magics biggest strength is the options the defending player gets compared to most other card games, in which the attacker has all the advantages.
Again as the current play stands with so many unblockables of course this wouldn't be wise.
But still we need to remember that in magic you can also block, since most people tend to compare that with yugioh, so I don't know if the attacking player would have all the advantages if the defending player has blockers to block with.
If you allow every creature itself to act like a planeswalker in terms of declaring to attack them, it also becomes quite a cluster fk when lots of attackers are declared and such ; it can be done in a convenient way, but thats much better for a casual format and you can even try it with some friends.
This already applies in blockers step already, this although has already been solved by setting aside the pieces to make the board make more sense.
Also this is a really bad idea if it were to be applied to existing creatures as it would create huge imbalance, this is why a new card type should probably be created for that before we even discussing attacking.
Exactly, this is why it was suggested that evasion should be mitigated, if not in creatures, in summons surely.
So what exactly is the difference between a “creature” and a “summon”?
Other than one is just an obsolete term for the other.
A summon in this context is the term we used to describe an object that is able to act as a creature except it's controller can choose what to attack in attacker's step, that changes nothing for defending player though as he is still able to block as normal.
Summons would most likely be able to attack other summons as well as players and/or planeswalkers and being able to be blocked by defending player's creatures and/or summons.
Edit: We decided to reuse the term exactly because it was rendered obsolete.
Sorry but no, it mtg there are a lot of creatures with evasion that it creates a huge imbalance between colors, since defending player's doesn't even have a chance to block in order to be able to protect his creatures.
Not to mention that mtg was designed in such as way as to make it more balanced the way it already is.
- but it was because I played mostly vanilla and French vanilla cards, and because damage stayed on the creatures - I didn't know damage was removed at end of turn either.
In other words you were playing the game according to what made most sense to you right? And assuming your friends were playing the same way probably means that it made sense to them as well, correct me if I'm wrong.
Even if we allowed creatures to block each other when creatures are individually attacked, the game screws up completely as snowballing if you allow them to attack each other.
Jutt to add to that, that that the fact that if something like that were to happen, creature with evasion would probably be used as one turn removal each turn.
You have to necessiate damage to stay on creatures, to make them more limited. This is why Planeswalkers work, by the way. They are simply not the same kind of gamestate as a creature with potentially infinite ability to absorb damage.
Yeah this should probably be the next step of the conversation as the magic community hasn't even accepted the fact that summons should be able to attack other summons in the first place, then we could talk about board state as what you are saying, isn't so crazy after all.
Changing the game rules like this leads either to the Provoke snowball situation if damage is removed as currently (which is a bafflingly unbalanced suggestion) or we'll have damage stay, track it with counters and every creature with other kinds of counters becomes Frankenstein's Monster. It's not a good idea.
This is why a new card type is necessary if we were to even open this pandora's box, cause if it were to be applies to already existing creatures it would create huge imbalance, not to mention that creatures with evasion would probably wreck havoc.
Look at Pokémon, for example - there's a reason Energy is tracked with cards while damage is tracked with counters. It keeps tracking easier.
Although I'm not sure, I suspect that the reason R&D decided to remove damage at the end of turn was because it was time consuming tracking them down on a physical paper game, now with digital, this should probably be a lot easier.
You really want this creature fighting to be a thing? Just go play another card game at that point. It's completely off base to add that to Magic in my eyes. As is, it'll break the game or make board states unreadable.
Not as it currently stands because again, it will create huge imbalance, this is why a new card type should probably be created before we are even allowed to discuss about changing how attacking works.
One thing we need to remmeber though is that before planeswalker cards came into being, the only thing a creature could attack was player itself.
I think the mechanical problems have been addressed enough to make it pretty clear, that this proposal is at least problematic and requires changes that are too fundamental to implement without creating a whole new format (if not basically pretty much a different game).
Assuming that you consider mtg to be a completely different game that what it used to be before planeswalker cards came into being then, I agree.
As metter stands it will create huge imbalance with different colors, this is why if such a discussion were to be even made, a new card type should probably introduced that would allow one to do such this, as it would not affect already existing cards.
So I want to focus on the idea that you have to "waste slots in [a] deck to put removals that have nothing to do with the rest of the deck's theme".
If you think of theme in terms of flavor, there are enough options for removal, so you should be able to find something that fits your overall concept.
What we are talking in this specific context is simple:
If you got a vampire deck, you would probably want to add more vampires than removals which would most likely not be Vampire.
If you are playing Aggro you would most likely want to put more cheap drop creatures and battle shenanigans than wasting these slots in order to put removals.
But in both of these two mere instances, you are forced to put removal since it's the only way to get rid of a threat.
This may not have been an issue in the past but with cards like [[Ajani's Pridemate]] this has been increasingly prevalent.
I assume you are rather talking about theme as core strategy though, so it seems you are asking to have answers to more problems without any opportunity costs. And as I see it, that would remove a layer of strategy from the game.
First of all this is the first time we've heard that having more options diminishes strategy.
I wonder if you have the same opinion planeswalkers, so if you weren't able to attack planeswalkers but only be forced to get rid of them with removal, that somehow would increase strategy, or make the game rely more on RNG for the final result?
Cause as things stand you are pretty much on standstill unless one of you draws a removal in order to proceed and this kind of remind poker than actual choice, so unless you think that poker is strategy deep then, we don't know how much this thing can stand on it's own.
If you could just smash everything with the creatures you want to run anyway, that would dumb the game down quite a bit (I'm obviously exaggerating here, but the point should be clear).
Assuming that you have a swarm of creatures I don't see why you shouldn't, I mean in an actual battle you wouldn't want your army to be engaged with opponent's army?
Also to add to that that, having to think the best approach to protect your underlings should probably add strategy, not diminish it.
Exactly, this is why it was suggested that evasion should be mitigated, if not in creatures, in summons surely.
So what exactly is the difference between a “creature” and a “summon”?
Other than one is just an obsolete term for the other.
A summon in this context is the term we used to describe an object that is able to act as a creature except it's controller can choose what to attack in attacker's step, that changes nothing for defending player though as he is still able to block as normal.
Summons would most likely be able to attack other summons as well as players and/or planeswalkers and being able to be blocked by defending player's creatures and/or summons.
Edit: We decided to reuse the term exactly because it was rendered obsolete.
So you want to create a whole new type of card that basically acts like creatures but are not creatures. That would never be confusing for new players, right? LOL
Old creature cards have the word “summon” in their type line, So what happens if I have a mix of older and newer cards, more confusion?
And by your purposed rules that your summons can only attack other summons, then what’s the point? You’ve created a new card type that is mechanically and flavorfully no different from a preexisting type just to fulfill some unwanted flavor need. Once again, more rules for little gameplay value.
Say you run a deck full of these summons, that can attack each other, planeswalkers, and players, I’ll just play with creatures that your summons cannot attack. That way if you refuse to run removal I have the advantage.
My biggest point is this: is the complexity and potential for confusion adding enough play value and fun to be worth it. You’re so completely blinded by your idea that it seems that you cannot see the negatives. And you treat most criticism as though it’s from people who simply cannot grasp your vision.
We grasp your vision, were just not impressed by it. Not all ideas are good ideas. Most successful creative endeavors are collaborative because most ideas need editing. Creative people tend to be more in love with their creations than those creations deserve. While Richard Garfield was genius in creating Magic you have to admit that the original design needed work. Mechanically the game has benefitted from the input of others. Many ideas end up on the cutting room floor, no offense but that’s where this one belongs.
Instead how about a mechanic like Fight, or a take on Fight.
Like a green enchantment that reads something like “your creatures gain Tap: fight target creature”
A Boros legendary creature with a tribal ability “All your soldiers gain Tap: fight target creature”
An Instant or Sorcery that say “any number of creatures fight any number of target creatures.”
There are ways to limit complexity and still get your point across mechanically and flavorfully yet stay within existing game parameters.
Another big problem with your “summons” is their parasitism. They interact with each other one way, but in all other aspects they might as well be creatures. They are literally creatures with a built in weakness and a ton of rules baggage. Is that necessary?
Assuming that you consider mtg to be a completely different game that what it used to be before planeswalker cards came into being then, I agree.
As metter stands it will create huge imbalance with different colors, this is why if such a discussion were to be even made, a new card type should probably introduced that would allow one to do such this, as it would not affect already existing cards.
Planeswalkers were a completely new cardtype. Of course they had to come with a bunch of new rules and adjustments to the game, but this was all in the realm of additions, not revamping something that has been an integral part of the game since it's beginning.
Now you're talking about introducing a new card type, but frankly that doesn't make much sense to me. You basically want to change how creatures can attack or block, but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?
This would not really fundamentally change what you seem to be dissatisfied with, but just open a very narrow niche of alternative combat mechanics, making things more complicated and less clear (and especially confusing for newer players).
First of all this is the first time we've heard that having more options diminishes strategy.
Slapping additional utility onto cards you want to run anyway does not really provide more options though. If the cards that advance your game plan can just double as answers to opposing threads, you remove the need to consider how many/what answers you might need.
Granted, this adds an additional layer of strategy to combat, but in return it makes deck building more trivial.
So you want to create a whole new type of card that basically acts like creatures but are not creatures. That would never be confusing for new players, right?
Mtg is already confusing to new players, so intuitive design should mitigate this.
Old creature cards have the word “summon” in their type line, So what happens if I have a mix of older and newer cards, more confusion?
Don't get stuck with the word, I used it as an example for any card that acts like a creature but is able to attack other entities, (call them whatever you want.), you are free to make any suggestion.
We merely use the tern since it has been rendered obsolete, it doesn't mean that this should be the absolute.
And by your purposed rules that your summons can only attack other summons, then what’s the point? You’ve created a new card type that is mechanically and flavorfully no different from a preexisting type just to fulfill some unwanted flavor need.
Maybe to you the sound of being able to send your army against another army may not sound appealing. But not everyone shares that feeling.
Say you run a deck full of these summons, that can attack each other, planeswalkers, and players, I’ll just play with creatures that your summons cannot attack. That way if you refuse to run removal I have the advantage.
I don't think we have come to a point where we can discuss rullings, when we aren't even liking the idea of being able to send troops against other troops.
It's just to early to talk about the specifics yet.
Not only that, but we should also consider the imbalances that this would possibly create before even attempting to make suggestions.
My biggest point is this: is the complexity and potential for confusion adding enough play value and fun to be worth it.
In my personal opinion yes, because it adds a layer of intuitive learning to new players that they are able to send their army against their opponent's army as well as other living entities on the battlefield.
You’re so completely blinded by your idea that it seems that you cannot see the negatives.
If we are blinded because we like to play the game as it might make more sense and tweaking with rules here and there in order to make them balanced then we probably are.
And you treat most criticism as though it’s from people who simply cannot grasp your vision.
This is because we have been getting huge negativity simply for suggesting that a player should be able to send his troops against the opponent's as it would make more sense, and instead we are treated like we wanna change it to yugioh or something, because people can't comprehend the idea that in mtg you can block as well in order to protect your army.
We grasp your vision, were just not impressed by it.
I never said that it was an idea that one should be impressed from the fact that you should have been able to send your troops against the opponent's it should simply make sense, not impress.
Creative people tend to be more in love with their creations than those creations deserve.
Well, I don't consider myself as a "creative person" nor that I'm in love with something that should have been there from the beginning.
I simply say that if mtg wants to survive, it should become more intuitive. That's all, it really shouldn't have been that huge deal to begin with.
Now this sound like more than a personal feeling, than actual argument.
This is literally equivalent to "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" argument.
Why should we stick to the old ways when as you yourself suggested mtg was improoved because it was getting imput.
Again let's not forget that before planeswalker cards were even a thing, the only thing you could attack was the player itself, so as a living entity on the battlefield planeswalkers are able to be attacked as well, which was a really good step, do you consider that some negative result?
Do you think that you should only have been able to get rid of planeswalkers with only removals?
Instead how about a mechanic like Fight, or a take on Fight.
Let me stop you right there as it seems you still cannot comprehend the idea yet you claim you do.
In "fight" mechanic, defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his underlings, since you choose two creature to directly deal their damage to one another, again what you completely missing out is the fact that in mtg you can also block.
I'll skip the next part as it's rambling based on false assumptions, which clearly shows that you haven't understood the whole point and think that this is gonna turn to something like yugioh where you don't even have a chance to protect your creatures by blocking.
For once more, what we are suggesting is more in line with attacking planeswalkers where defending player can still choose blockers in order to protect it than the fight mechanic you are suggesting.
Another big problem with your “summons” is their parasitism. They interact with each other one way, but in all other aspects they might as well be creatures. They are literally creatures with a built in weakness and a ton of rules baggage. Is that necessary?
Again before we are even able to discuss the more specific rullings we should be able to grasp the main concept yet, and that is that a player should have been able to send his troops against his opponent's while the opponent should have a chance to protect his.
The very fact that you even suggesting a fight mechanic means clearly that you haven't understood the whole point.
Let's fight try to get past this negativity of stucking in the old ways and then when we see things more objectively we could talk about the specifics how about it.
Finally, I'm not against said "summons" (whatever you wanna call them.) to be able to attack creatures as well, it was a mere suggestion, as we thought that this wouldn't cause that huge of imbalance because if they were, maybe people would start complaining how they are completely broken, which goes to show that people won't be able to be satisfied with anything, especially change.
Planeswalkers were a completely new cardtype. Of course they had to come with a bunch of new rules and adjustments to the game, but this was all in the realm of additions, not revamping something that has been an integral part of the game since it's beginning.
Except that this would be a new card type as well, and for that exact purpose.
Now you're talking about introducing a new card type, but frankly that doesn't make much sense to me. You basically want to change how creatures can attack or block, but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?
No we don't want to change how creatures attack or block, we are saying how this new card type would work.
Maybe to you the notion of being able to send your troops against the opponent's might sound absurd, but really it doesn't sound that absurd, especially to new players, also let us not forget that in mtg you can also block.
but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?
Were creatures able to attack other creatures? I think not, so this is definitely a new card type that would function similarly, indeed, but different in that aspect, as to make the game more intuitive.
making things more complicated and less clear (and especially confusing for newer players)
Actually new players who haven't got good grasp of the game, already doing this without even knowing that they are doing it wrong, since I've seem many new players saying that their creature is going to attack this creature and then proceed to blockers.
Trust me it's rather the opposite as it makes it clearer to new players that they can attack any living entity (which they should have been in my humble opinion from the beginning.)
Slapping additional utility onto cards you want to run anyway does not really provide more options though. If the cards that advance your game plan can just double as answers to opposing threads, you remove the need to consider how many/what answers you might need.
First of all this won't always be the case since, once more, defending player will always have chance to block and you wouldn't simply just send your troops to the opposite side if the opponent has an answer, so they wouldn't be used as answers to threats as well so casually as you might think.
Secondly, you won't have unlimited answers anyway, in any situation.
Granted, this adds an additional layer of strategy to combat, but in return it makes deck building more trivial.
It's the opposite rather since as things stand you don't have to think that much of deckbuilding when you simply have to fill the rest of the gap with random removals since there is no other way to get rid of bigger threats, but if you weren't force to cause of this reason, then you would have to double-think the cards you should be putting in your deck, which would rather make deck building more deep than it already is.
Being able to attack Planeswalkers with creatures makes sense from a mechanical and lore perspective. In the game you the player are a planeswalker, and you attack planeswalkers with creatures. So when the planeswalker card type was introduced it fit in with that aspect of the game. Also, being able to attack planeswalkers separates them, mechanically, from creatures.
In a ground based war, you send in the troops. The defensive position chooses to either engage or retreat.
Magic’s combat system captures this perfectly well. If you are the attacking force and you wish to stop a retreating force, you need ranged weapons, hence removal spells.
When an army amasses on the battlefield to attack, they don’t attack individual combatants, they attack the position, in that moment the defending army decides how to respond.
Active player yells “charge” and sends in the troops(attacking), the defending player either engages(blocking) or retreats(not blocking), that’s warfare in a nutshell. If you want your predator drone to drop a bomb on my general, that’s not a massive, infantry attack, that’s a targeted attack, well represented by spot removal. If you want to napalm your enemy’s troops, massive removal spells. If the battlefield is too cluttered to your disadvantage nuke it.
Watch any movie depicting a bronze age, iron age, medieval, or Napoleonic battle. You’ll never see an amassed force targeting individual soldiers in a charge, except for high value targets. But the targeting of high value targets is easily represented by either spells or activated abilities. Even archers and infantry gunners(smooth bore musket types) don’t target, they engage in volley fire. Artillery pieces don’t target individuals, they target areas or fortifications.
Either way I’ll leave you be, WOTC will not likely go in the direction you’re suggesting so this entire discussion just idle banter.
There have been many changes to the game over it’s history, they been incremental, usually fixing flaws or adding to existing design space(planeswalkers). And not every change was for the better, with some of those changed being revisited and re-tweaked.(combat damage on the stack for instance). Also these changes were all implemented by design and development teams, being tested(albeit not always thoroughly enough). So if your idea, or one like it, could work, without breaking the game, WOTC designers would explore it. They do try to milk every bit of design space, but slowly over time(they have to milk the cash cow for years to come).
If you want people to be less negative about your idea spent dozens of hours play-testing it in multiple formats. Work out odd and troublesome interactions. Have a third party play-test it to find stuff you may have missed, take notes and then present your findings. Science it out then get back to us.
People come to these forums all they time with their purposed “fixes” for the game, most of which stem from either a newness to the game or a lack of understanding of the game’s design rules. Most often these ideas are not well received. A large part of the Salvation community is very well versed in the game’s design, rules, and complexity nuance. My time on these forums has been very educational many of the regulars and moderators really know their stuff, so please understand that there is a deep well of knowledge this community brings to the discussion. Magic rules are like scientific peer review, better to be cautious and not screw it up than it is to accept something that needs retroactive fixing(WOTC already screws this up enough as it is).
Actually new players who haven't got good grasp of the game, already doing this without even knowing that they are doing it wrong, since I've seem many new players saying that their creature is going to attack this creature and then proceed to blockers.
Trust me it's rather the opposite as it makes it clearer to new players that they can attack any living entity (which they should have been in my humble opinion from the beginning.)
Yeah, not being able to attack an opposing "army" with most of your "army"(creatures), but with some of them (your new creatures, but not really) should be much less confusing than the current, consistent way of dealing with combat.
We're either completely talking past each other, or you're trolling hard. Either way, I'm out of this, since I don' see this discussion coming to any constructive result.
Or if you could actually attack other creatures with your creatures then you could just put cards that have something to do with the theme of your deck instead of filling it with random removals just because it's the only way to actually get rid of annoyances, which by the way, cannot be protected from removals.
Also desthtouch becomes completely overpowered on 1 mana creatures.
But I honestly dont see how attacking creatures would make sense in a lore way at all.
You are a planeswalker, you can call for planeswalker friends, that is the HQ, makes sense to be attacked.
The creatures are basically your summoned army that can defend you. But when you see the enemy attacking you can move your troops to favourable positions to defend the attack. I don't see how it would make sense to be able to attack certain creatures when you can see the atttackers coming and simply reposition them to avoid that.
I also don't get the argument about wasting deck slots on removal. Do you also consider spending slots on lands an equal waste? Those are also cards that has nothing to do with the decks theme.
You don't fill decks with random removal and there are tonnes of ways to protect things from removal.
Shouldn't you be able to attack their other things too then? Send some troops to burn the plains, some oters to crush some weird hatHelm of the host and yet another one should be able to jump in the way of a Lightning Bolt aimed at someone else.
My point is that this suggestion is basically revamping the entire game to correct one thing that you think seems odd (I disagree). But it's rather inconsistent due to all the other odd things you seem fine with.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
What if the opponent's summon has a ability to spawn tokens every turn so the more you leave it the bigger the threat it becomes, this is why we also have removals, remember? So instead of always being forced to have removal in case the enemy has a utility summon that it will gradually becomes more and more of a threat (Either by getting +1/+1 every turn or by spawning tokens.)
So if you have a swarm at that time, why should they wait and watch it grow? Why wouldn't it make sense to attempt to take care of that now (Assuming the opponent doesn't have good blockers to protect the creature.)
Because instead of wasting deck slots to put removals, you could be playing cards that are in line with the rest of the deck.
This is a completely separate subject, if you would like to discuss it, you can pm me and I can tell you my personal opinion about it.
I wouldn't say tons but yes indeed there are a few like counters, buffing before damage, hexproof ect, still that's not an excuse for not not being able to attack as well.
And as much as I want to agree with you, the fact is that you need the random removals in your deck if you want it to be viable in a matchup, since you can't do anything if the opponent has a utility creature unless he himself decides to either attack with it (thus exposing it.) or block a bigger creature, which would probably never happen unless either by mistake or the opponent uses it as a shield in desperation since he would lose otherwise.
That would be good, except there aren't any measurable ways to do it, for example how much damage should a land take before it gets destroyed?
In summons this should be measurable by their toughness,
Now I'd agree too for instance that artifacts should also break if they get enough damage but the problem is that there is no measurable way to be able to calculate the damage needed for an artifact to break/destroyed as well.
Anyway I digress, as long as non-creature artifacts or lands don't have toughness it's pointless to discuss about it for now, I really hope this would happen as well at some later point.
Although to be honest I wouldn't like mana sources to be able to get destroyed that easily. (If it was up to me they would simply called 'mana sources' and not 'lands' to begin with since as you suggested a 'land' should be something that could get ravaged.)
I wouldn't say "revamping" as even before planeswalker cards came out creatures couldn't attack anything but the players, did magic became something completely different from what it used to be, or it got even more deep since the planeswalker card type was introduced?
This is why I refrain from using the term "creature" and instead I use "summon".
I want to thank you for spending your time conversing, let me know if there is any misunderstandings, I'm always happy to reply to messages.
You are right, as things stand right now, if something like that were to suddenly come, it would make make the game
totally unbalanced.
I could also add that unblockable or summons with evasion in general would simply be one turn free removal, this is why if something like that were to even be suggested first evasion should be mitigated, personally I'd say that unblockable summons shouldn't even be a thing to begin with and many other summons should also have reach or other defend abilities to be able to protect from evasion in general, the player though should probably be able to block anything, in order to take the damage for himself to protect his/her summons.
What we are saying here is more in line with attacking planeswalkers thus giving defending player a chance to block in order to protect said planeswalker/summon than anything else.
People tend to compare this with yugioh or hearthstone mechanic or even provoke just like you mentioned, though all of these methods don't give your opponent a chance to protect the summon that is being attacked by any other means.
If people detached their mindset from this mentality they would realize that when a summon attacks another summon the controller of the summon which is being attacked will always have a chance of blocking with other creatures/summons in order to protect it.
Turn 1 Sedge Scorpion
Turn 2 Spirit Mantle
That in itself would probably do fine, but for magic in general, the scope of how much it changes the game is simply not worth doing it.
Its especially bad simply because it gives the attacking player another option, which is the last we need or want, as magics biggest strength is the options the defending player gets compared to most other card games, in which the attacker has all the advantages.
If you allow every creature itself to act like a planeswalker in terms of declaring to attack them, it also becomes quite a cluster fk when lots of attackers are declared and such ; it can be done in a convenient way, but thats much better for a casual format and you can even try it with some friends.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
So what exactly is the difference between a “creature” and a “summon”?
Other than one is just an obsolete term for the other.
Even if we allowed creatures to block each other when creatures are individually attacked, the game screws up completely as snowballing if you allow them to attack each other. You have to necessiate damage to stay on creatures, to make them more limited. This is why Planeswalkers work, by the way. They are simply not the same kind of gamestate as a creature with potentially infinite ability to absorb damage.
Changing the game rules like this leads either to the Provoke snowball situation if damage is removed as currently (which is a bafflingly unbalanced suggestion) or we'll have damage stay, track it with counters and every creature with other kinds of counters becomes Frankenstein's Monster. It's not a good idea.
Look at Pokémon, for example - there's a reason Energy is tracked with cards while damage is tracked with counters. It keeps tracking easier.
You really want this creature fighting to be a thing? Just go play another card game at that point. It's completely off base to add that to Magic in my eyes. As is, it'll break the game or make board states unreadable.
So I want to focus on the idea that you have to "waste slots in [a] deck to put removals that have nothing to do with the rest of the deck's theme".
If you think of theme in terms of flavor, there are enough options for removal, so you should be able to find something that fits your overall concept.
I assume you are rather talking about theme as core strategy though, so it seems you are asking to have answers to more problems without any opportunity costs. And as I see it, that would remove a layer of strategy from the game. A deck can't have answers to everything, so you need to identify the things that you have to be able to deal with and build accordingly. If you could just smash everything with the creatures you want to run anyway, that would dumb the game down quite a bit (I'm obviously exaggerating here, but the point should be clear).
W(W/U)U Ephara - Flash & Taxes W(W/U)U || B(B/G)G Meren - Circle of Life B(B/G)G
RGW Marath - Ever shifting Wilds RGW || (U/R)C(W/B) Breya - Artificial Dominion (U/R)C(W/B)
UBR Becket Brass - take what you can, give nothing back UBR
So you are saying that when planeswalkers were introduced the game stopped being Magic the Gathering and became something else entirely?
Although as matters stand it will create a huge imbalance, this is why if such a rule were to be made it shouldn't affect already existing creature but a new card type such as "summons" or something else.
Since if it were to be applied right now, creatures with evasion will be used as one turn free removal.
Not at the current state of game alright, the game would need to revamp evasion first secondly it shouldn't affect already existing cards.
Again as the current play stands with so many unblockables of course this wouldn't be wise.
But still we need to remember that in magic you can also block, since most people tend to compare that with yugioh, so I don't know if the attacking player would have all the advantages if the defending player has blockers to block with.
This already applies in blockers step already, this although has already been solved by setting aside the pieces to make the board make more sense.
Also this is a really bad idea if it were to be applied to existing creatures as it would create huge imbalance, this is why a new card type should probably be created for that before we even discussing attacking.
A summon in this context is the term we used to describe an object that is able to act as a creature except it's controller can choose what to attack in attacker's step, that changes nothing for defending player though as he is still able to block as normal.
Summons would most likely be able to attack other summons as well as players and/or planeswalkers and being able to be blocked by defending player's creatures and/or summons.
Edit: We decided to reuse the term exactly because it was rendered obsolete.
Why? Because it would make sense right? This is called intuitive playing, just to clarify.
Sorry but no, it mtg there are a lot of creatures with evasion that it creates a huge imbalance between colors, since defending player's doesn't even have a chance to block in order to be able to protect his creatures.
Not to mention that mtg was designed in such as way as to make it more balanced the way it already is.
In other words you were playing the game according to what made most sense to you right? And assuming your friends were playing the same way probably means that it made sense to them as well, correct me if I'm wrong.
Jutt to add to that, that that the fact that if something like that were to happen, creature with evasion would probably be used as one turn removal each turn.
Yeah this should probably be the next step of the conversation as the magic community hasn't even accepted the fact that summons should be able to attack other summons in the first place, then we could talk about board state as what you are saying, isn't so crazy after all.
This is why a new card type is necessary if we were to even open this pandora's box, cause if it were to be applies to already existing creatures it would create huge imbalance, not to mention that creatures with evasion would probably wreck havoc.
Although I'm not sure, I suspect that the reason R&D decided to remove damage at the end of turn was because it was time consuming tracking them down on a physical paper game, now with digital, this should probably be a lot easier.
Not as it currently stands because again, it will create huge imbalance, this is why a new card type should probably be created before we are even allowed to discuss about changing how attacking works.
One thing we need to remmeber though is that before planeswalker cards came into being, the only thing a creature could attack was player itself.
Assuming that you consider mtg to be a completely different game that what it used to be before planeswalker cards came into being then, I agree.
As metter stands it will create huge imbalance with different colors, this is why if such a discussion were to be even made, a new card type should probably introduced that would allow one to do such this, as it would not affect already existing cards.
What we are talking in this specific context is simple:
If you got a vampire deck, you would probably want to add more vampires than removals which would most likely not be Vampire.
If you are playing Aggro you would most likely want to put more cheap drop creatures and battle shenanigans than wasting these slots in order to put removals.
But in both of these two mere instances, you are forced to put removal since it's the only way to get rid of a threat.
This may not have been an issue in the past but with cards like [[Ajani's Pridemate]] this has been increasingly prevalent.
First of all this is the first time we've heard that having more options diminishes strategy.
I wonder if you have the same opinion planeswalkers, so if you weren't able to attack planeswalkers but only be forced to get rid of them with removal, that somehow would increase strategy, or make the game rely more on RNG for the final result?
Cause as things stand you are pretty much on standstill unless one of you draws a removal in order to proceed and this kind of remind poker than actual choice, so unless you think that poker is strategy deep then, we don't know how much this thing can stand on it's own.
The whole point is that even if you identify them you probably can't do anything until you draw the removal, cause you simply have no other options.
Assuming that you have a swarm of creatures I don't see why you shouldn't, I mean in an actual battle you wouldn't want your army to be engaged with opponent's army?
Also to add to that that, having to think the best approach to protect your underlings should probably add strategy, not diminish it.
So you want to create a whole new type of card that basically acts like creatures but are not creatures. That would never be confusing for new players, right? LOL
Old creature cards have the word “summon” in their type line, So what happens if I have a mix of older and newer cards, more confusion?
And by your purposed rules that your summons can only attack other summons, then what’s the point? You’ve created a new card type that is mechanically and flavorfully no different from a preexisting type just to fulfill some unwanted flavor need. Once again, more rules for little gameplay value.
Say you run a deck full of these summons, that can attack each other, planeswalkers, and players, I’ll just play with creatures that your summons cannot attack. That way if you refuse to run removal I have the advantage.
My biggest point is this: is the complexity and potential for confusion adding enough play value and fun to be worth it. You’re so completely blinded by your idea that it seems that you cannot see the negatives. And you treat most criticism as though it’s from people who simply cannot grasp your vision.
We grasp your vision, were just not impressed by it. Not all ideas are good ideas. Most successful creative endeavors are collaborative because most ideas need editing. Creative people tend to be more in love with their creations than those creations deserve. While Richard Garfield was genius in creating Magic you have to admit that the original design needed work. Mechanically the game has benefitted from the input of others. Many ideas end up on the cutting room floor, no offense but that’s where this one belongs.
Instead how about a mechanic like Fight, or a take on Fight.
Like a green enchantment that reads something like “your creatures gain Tap: fight target creature”
A Boros legendary creature with a tribal ability “All your soldiers gain Tap: fight target creature”
An Instant or Sorcery that say “any number of creatures fight any number of target creatures.”
There are ways to limit complexity and still get your point across mechanically and flavorfully yet stay within existing game parameters.
Another big problem with your “summons” is their parasitism. They interact with each other one way, but in all other aspects they might as well be creatures. They are literally creatures with a built in weakness and a ton of rules baggage. Is that necessary?
Now you're talking about introducing a new card type, but frankly that doesn't make much sense to me. You basically want to change how creatures can attack or block, but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?
This would not really fundamentally change what you seem to be dissatisfied with, but just open a very narrow niche of alternative combat mechanics, making things more complicated and less clear (and especially confusing for newer players).
Slapping additional utility onto cards you want to run anyway does not really provide more options though. If the cards that advance your game plan can just double as answers to opposing threads, you remove the need to consider how many/what answers you might need.
Granted, this adds an additional layer of strategy to combat, but in return it makes deck building more trivial.
W(W/U)U Ephara - Flash & Taxes W(W/U)U || B(B/G)G Meren - Circle of Life B(B/G)G
RGW Marath - Ever shifting Wilds RGW || (U/R)C(W/B) Breya - Artificial Dominion (U/R)C(W/B)
UBR Becket Brass - take what you can, give nothing back UBR
Mtg is already confusing to new players, so intuitive design should mitigate this.
Don't get stuck with the word, I used it as an example for any card that acts like a creature but is able to attack other entities, (call them whatever you want.), you are free to make any suggestion.
We merely use the tern since it has been rendered obsolete, it doesn't mean that this should be the absolute.
Maybe to you the sound of being able to send your army against another army may not sound appealing. But not everyone shares that feeling.
I don't think we have come to a point where we can discuss rullings, when we aren't even liking the idea of being able to send troops against other troops.
It's just to early to talk about the specifics yet.
Not only that, but we should also consider the imbalances that this would possibly create before even attempting to make suggestions.
In my personal opinion yes, because it adds a layer of intuitive learning to new players that they are able to send their army against their opponent's army as well as other living entities on the battlefield.
If we are blinded because we like to play the game as it might make more sense and tweaking with rules here and there in order to make them balanced then we probably are.
This is because we have been getting huge negativity simply for suggesting that a player should be able to send his troops against the opponent's as it would make more sense, and instead we are treated like we wanna change it to yugioh or something, because people can't comprehend the idea that in mtg you can block as well in order to protect your army.
I never said that it was an idea that one should be impressed from the fact that you should have been able to send your troops against the opponent's it should simply make sense, not impress.
Well, I don't consider myself as a "creative person" nor that I'm in love with something that should have been there from the beginning.
I simply say that if mtg wants to survive, it should become more intuitive. That's all, it really shouldn't have been that huge deal to begin with.
And this is what is it, another input that would probably help the game become more intuitive.
Now this sound like more than a personal feeling, than actual argument.
This is literally equivalent to "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" argument.
Why should we stick to the old ways when as you yourself suggested mtg was improoved because it was getting imput.
Again let's not forget that before planeswalker cards were even a thing, the only thing you could attack was the player itself, so as a living entity on the battlefield planeswalkers are able to be attacked as well, which was a really good step, do you consider that some negative result?
Do you think that you should only have been able to get rid of planeswalkers with only removals?
Let me stop you right there as it seems you still cannot comprehend the idea yet you claim you do.
In "fight" mechanic, defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his underlings, since you choose two creature to directly deal their damage to one another, again what you completely missing out is the fact that in mtg you can also block.
I'll skip the next part as it's rambling based on false assumptions, which clearly shows that you haven't understood the whole point and think that this is gonna turn to something like yugioh where you don't even have a chance to protect your creatures by blocking.
For once more, what we are suggesting is more in line with attacking planeswalkers where defending player can still choose blockers in order to protect it than the fight mechanic you are suggesting.
Again before we are even able to discuss the more specific rullings we should be able to grasp the main concept yet, and that is that a player should have been able to send his troops against his opponent's while the opponent should have a chance to protect his.
The very fact that you even suggesting a fight mechanic means clearly that you haven't understood the whole point.
Let's fight try to get past this negativity of stucking in the old ways and then when we see things more objectively we could talk about the specifics how about it.
Finally, I'm not against said "summons" (whatever you wanna call them.) to be able to attack creatures as well, it was a mere suggestion, as we thought that this wouldn't cause that huge of imbalance because if they were, maybe people would start complaining how they are completely broken, which goes to show that people won't be able to be satisfied with anything, especially change.
Except that this would be a new card type as well, and for that exact purpose.
No we don't want to change how creatures attack or block, we are saying how this new card type would work.
Maybe to you the notion of being able to send your troops against the opponent's might sound absurd, but really it doesn't sound that absurd, especially to new players, also let us not forget that in mtg you can also block.
Were creatures able to attack other creatures? I think not, so this is definitely a new card type that would function similarly, indeed, but different in that aspect, as to make the game more intuitive.
We never said that this would be a huge change anyway, so here's that.
Actually new players who haven't got good grasp of the game, already doing this without even knowing that they are doing it wrong, since I've seem many new players saying that their creature is going to attack this creature and then proceed to blockers.
Trust me it's rather the opposite as it makes it clearer to new players that they can attack any living entity (which they should have been in my humble opinion from the beginning.)
First of all this won't always be the case since, once more, defending player will always have chance to block and you wouldn't simply just send your troops to the opposite side if the opponent has an answer, so they wouldn't be used as answers to threats as well so casually as you might think.
Secondly, you won't have unlimited answers anyway, in any situation.
It's the opposite rather since as things stand you don't have to think that much of deckbuilding when you simply have to fill the rest of the gap with random removals since there is no other way to get rid of bigger threats, but if you weren't force to cause of this reason, then you would have to double-think the cards you should be putting in your deck, which would rather make deck building more deep than it already is.
In a ground based war, you send in the troops. The defensive position chooses to either engage or retreat.
Magic’s combat system captures this perfectly well. If you are the attacking force and you wish to stop a retreating force, you need ranged weapons, hence removal spells.
When an army amasses on the battlefield to attack, they don’t attack individual combatants, they attack the position, in that moment the defending army decides how to respond.
Active player yells “charge” and sends in the troops(attacking), the defending player either engages(blocking) or retreats(not blocking), that’s warfare in a nutshell. If you want your predator drone to drop a bomb on my general, that’s not a massive, infantry attack, that’s a targeted attack, well represented by spot removal. If you want to napalm your enemy’s troops, massive removal spells. If the battlefield is too cluttered to your disadvantage nuke it.
Watch any movie depicting a bronze age, iron age, medieval, or Napoleonic battle. You’ll never see an amassed force targeting individual soldiers in a charge, except for high value targets. But the targeting of high value targets is easily represented by either spells or activated abilities. Even archers and infantry gunners(smooth bore musket types) don’t target, they engage in volley fire. Artillery pieces don’t target individuals, they target areas or fortifications.
Either way I’ll leave you be, WOTC will not likely go in the direction you’re suggesting so this entire discussion just idle banter.
There have been many changes to the game over it’s history, they been incremental, usually fixing flaws or adding to existing design space(planeswalkers). And not every change was for the better, with some of those changed being revisited and re-tweaked.(combat damage on the stack for instance). Also these changes were all implemented by design and development teams, being tested(albeit not always thoroughly enough). So if your idea, or one like it, could work, without breaking the game, WOTC designers would explore it. They do try to milk every bit of design space, but slowly over time(they have to milk the cash cow for years to come).
If you want people to be less negative about your idea spent dozens of hours play-testing it in multiple formats. Work out odd and troublesome interactions. Have a third party play-test it to find stuff you may have missed, take notes and then present your findings. Science it out then get back to us.
People come to these forums all they time with their purposed “fixes” for the game, most of which stem from either a newness to the game or a lack of understanding of the game’s design rules. Most often these ideas are not well received. A large part of the Salvation community is very well versed in the game’s design, rules, and complexity nuance. My time on these forums has been very educational many of the regulars and moderators really know their stuff, so please understand that there is a deep well of knowledge this community brings to the discussion. Magic rules are like scientific peer review, better to be cautious and not screw it up than it is to accept something that needs retroactive fixing(WOTC already screws this up enough as it is).
Yeah, not being able to attack an opposing "army" with most of your "army"(creatures), but with some of them (your new creatures, but not really) should be much less confusing than the current, consistent way of dealing with combat.
We're either completely talking past each other, or you're trolling hard. Either way, I'm out of this, since I don' see this discussion coming to any constructive result.
W(W/U)U Ephara - Flash & Taxes W(W/U)U || B(B/G)G Meren - Circle of Life B(B/G)G
RGW Marath - Ever shifting Wilds RGW || (U/R)C(W/B) Breya - Artificial Dominion (U/R)C(W/B)
UBR Becket Brass - take what you can, give nothing back UBR