Re: Magic: The Alternative

> You are entirely welcome to create a new game based somewhat on Magic:
> the Gathering (at least until WotC Legal notices)

Do you really think they're going to come after me for suggesting
alternate rules? There have been plenty of people who suggest rules
variations and I've never heard of any of them being sued.

> but keep in mind
> that you'd probably be aiming this new game toward non-Magic players

No, I'd be aiming this primarily at those who already know Magic but
are fed up with the problems I listed.

> I don't know if it's more profitable to design and print new cards
> rather than just putting new artwork on an older card and reprinting
> it.  True, people won't buy that card if they've already got 4.

People would very quickly stop buying Magic cards.

> I'd imagine that paying the R&D and Templating teams costs a
> significant amount -- so actually WotC's paying more to develop new
> cards.

They have to. They wouldn't make any money if they printed the same
set over and over, even if it did make for a better game (see my
original message).

>This ties in to the last sentence of the paragraph above -- if
> there's one unchanging set, things will get really boring really
> quickly, as people will rush to find "the deck to rule them all" [and
> if you think you can find a card mix without such a deck, good luck --
> the DCI's been trying that for several years now.]

I've considered that, but I don't think it will happen. Maybe there
will be a set of powerful one on one decks, but I've regularly seen
crappy decks win in multiplayer. This is because a powerful deck can't
take on two lesser decks. In multiplayer, there tends to be a balance
of power, with the most powerful player in the game at any one time
defending himself from the other players. As the people you play with
begin to know your deck, they know how to prevent you from winning. It
is for this reason that I've found in my own games that if I
constantly tweak my decks, I usually win more because I do something
my opponents weren't expecting. Winning in multiplayer has more to do
with diplomacy and a good poker face than having a deck full of
powerful cards. The strategy is in how you use the cards, not in the
cards themselves, at least that's what I've seen.

And since the set won't change that much, there will be plenty of time
to balance the cardset.

What I find really aggravating about the responses I've seen so
far--aside from the excessive negativity--is the fact that people are
bashing a game they haven't even played. I wonder if people had the
same reactions to Richard Garfield as he was making the first edition
(alpha) of MTG, which was REALLY imbalanced!

> There are a lot of very good games that have very short rulesets, true
> ... but in a lot of the cases of those games that I can think of, the
> expert players memorize vast amounts of data to back up those rules. 
> For instance:
> 
> chess -- players memorize what openings to use and what those
> openings' counter-moves are
> 
> Scrabble -- players memorize the Scrabble dictionary, or sections
> thereof
> 
> go -- see chess :)

Do you really think that the current list of changes for MTA would
turn Magic into chess? You're really not giving enough thought to my
suggestions. And even with a heavily simplified ruleset and small
cardset, MTA would be far more complex and allow for more possible
game states than go.

> That's part of it, yes, but another part of why WotC doesn't make
> "official" multiplayer rules is because a section of Magic players
> will cheer and applaud these new rules ... and another section will
> promptly amend and/or ignore sections of those rules.

When WotC releases new versions of the MTG comprehensive rules, people
don't ignore parts that have changed (though most casual players don't
bother reading the new rules at all).

> Your caveat shows a problem involving social inertia -- I'm sure you
> have heard or would hear a lot of "But I know Magic, why should I
> learn this new thing?" from people to whom you introduce your variant.

It really wouldn't be that different. The casual player could learn
the basic differences in about five minutes. As for why someone would
want to learn it, just read the rest of the benefits section of my
original post. The game would be faster and allow for greater
strategy.

Another word about strategy. I said earlier that I find *more*
strategy in multiplayer games than in one on ones. I'm serious about
this. This is because in one on ones a player's actions are almost a
given. (Your opponent has an AEther Flash on the table. You have a
Naturalize in your hand and you're playing a creature deck. What are
you going to do?) The only strategy involved is in deck building and
sideboarding, which, after the best decks have been found (the format
is solved) no longer exists. So, the only way to make the game fun
again is to introduce a different cardset. In multiplayer, you have to
go after the strongest person in the game, but not too strongly or you
leave yourself open, and you have to do so while appearing to be weak.
Varying your deck configuration, even if it makes it weaker overall,
is advantageous. And I'm not saying this from a purely theoretical
view. This comes from my experience playing in one on ones and my
experience playing multiplayer. The strategy in MTA would still
involve deck construction, even with a static cardset, but the actual
gameplay itself would also be strategic, which, unfortunately, is not
the case in one on one MTG games.

After thinking about all this, I will grant you one thing. If you have
no interest in multiplayer games at all (even if they would be GOOD
multiplayer games), then MTG would be better than MTA, because of what
you said earlier about there being a few decks that would rule them
all. One on one MTA would be less interesting than one on one MTG,
even if the MTG rules are messier.

> > 4) New game mechanics, including lands with mana costs, a keyword for
> > creatures that can block multiple attacking creatures, and more.
> 
> Of course, this could be incorporated into the Magic rules themselves.
>  The rule that says lands have mana cost 0 could be amended and a rule
> defining when land mana costs were to be paid added.  A rule defining
> "Tackle N" or some other word as "A creature with Tackle N may block
> up to an additional N creatures." could be added (see the Fear rule
> for an example of a mechanic being "keyword-ized".)

Yes, wouldn't it be funny if MTA caught on and WotC made MTG more like
MTA, incorporating the new mechanics of MTA into MTG at some point?

> It would be an interesting intellectual exercise, and trying this out
> on a smaller scale could provide interesting insight into Magic's
> foundation, but I'd probably stick with Magic when playing with my
> friends.

I'd suggest at least taking the modified turn structure and applying
it to the MTG cardsets (formats). Just ban all extra turn granting
cards (Time Stretch, Final Fortune) from your games. I think you'd see
that it's better, at least for multiplayer.

> I18N?  [Internationalization] Are you going to take into account
> characters from languages other than English when defining what card
> names can be?  If not, you're going to lose sections of the world who
> won't be interested in cards that can't be printed in their language.

Sorry, I don't know much about linguistics. I don't see how
restricting the card names for the English version would interfere
with its translation into other languages.

> Also, AN didn't have too many 'weird characters' in their card names
> -- just accented vowels, if I remember correctly.  The AE from Aerathi
> Berserker (Legends) and other cards starting with Aether is IMHO
> 'weirder' than those accented vowels :)

Yes, you're right. But it still causes problems. And a lot of people
wouldn't know how to pronounce the names (I'm still not sure about a
lot of AN cards).

> > There are three speeds. Instant: doesn't use the stack. Fast: can be
> > played like an instant in MTG. Slow: Can only be played during the
> > main phase when the stack is empty. The types and their default
> > speeds: Sorcery [S], Land [I], Enchant [S], Artifact [S], Creature
> > [S]. Any card can have any speed. The default speed for activated
> > abilities is [F]. Mana-producing abilities should be preceeded by [I].
> > Mana abilities will not be defined in the MTA rules. Please note that
> > there is no need for instants, since an instant is just a [F] sorcery.
> 
> This has obvious cross-system terminology incompatibility, another
> reason people will play your variant or Magic, not both.

I understand that people are idiots. I understand that the average
homo sapien has a measly 100 IQ. But could people be so dumb that they
cannot understand that the word "instant" means different things in
different games? Is it that hard a concept to grasp?

"In MTA, 'instant' is a speed, not a type."

"Huh? I don't get it!"

> Phasing?  Fear?  Rampage?  Bands-with-other?  Cycling?  Storm? 
> Flashback?  Landwalk?

Phasing: My least favorite keyword. If there was a card that you could
use only every other turn, the rule could be given on the card's text.
I don't think there would be enough cards with phasing that a keyword
would be worthwhile. Keep in mind that many keywords and cards with
those keywords were made by WotC just because they needed to come up
with more cards for the sake of profit, not because they're good
cards.

Fear: I've never liked this one, but as evasion abilities go, it does
have some flavor. It's not quite in its proper color though. Blue is
really the color with unblockable cards. I don't like evasion
abilities because if you play a deck with a lot of creatures with that
ability, and the other player (or players) doesn't have anything to
deal with it, it doesn't make for a fun game. After playing against
people with shadow decks with my type 2 decks in casual games, I'm
convinced that creatures should be able to block other creatures most
of the time. So evasion abilities should really be kept at a minimum.
Personally, I think flying and blue's unblockable creatures is enough.

Rampage: A nice ability, but it shouldn't be on so many creatures that
it's a keyword. I think recent cards have been printed with the
rampage ability given not as a keyword, but written out in its
entirety. Such would be the case with rampaging MTA creatures.

Bands-with-other: Too close to banding to introduce yet another
keyword. Limiting cards to having banding or not does not
significantly limit the variety of the cards, IMO.

Cycling: This was a big mistake on WotC's part, I think. Discarding
cards to draw others is a blue ability (Compulsion) and it should stay
in that color.

Storm: With the exception of Mind's Desire, how many storm cards have
you seen played at tournaments? Games should be over by the time
players have enough mana to play a few spells and THEN the storm card.

Flashback: Not a bad one. I like this ability. I would definately
consider buyback, flashback, or the ability of Hammer of Bogardan as
an MTA keyword. Now I'm thinking of a three-mana blue sorcery that
draws a card and can be bought back like the Hammer. Thanks for the
suggestion!

Landwalk: See my comments on evasion abilities for fear.

> > There must be exactly 64 cards in a deck (I like powers of two).
> 
> But that limits creativity -- why shouldn't I be able to use a 65-card
> deck if I want to have an extra copy of one card that I need?

You'd be better off taking something else out, and you should know
that! :)

>Why not a 66 card deck if I'm worried about decking?

There will be other ways to prevent decking. I've already got an idea
for an artifact that puts cards from the graveyard on the bottom of
the library.

> > There must be exactly 16 cards in a sideboard during match play (I
> > like powers of two).
> > 
> > All players take turns together. One player has the lead, the lead
> > passes to the player to the immediate left of the player with the lead
> > on the next turn. The player with the lead is the first player to
> > receive priority after resolutions and at the beginning of phases.
> 
> You can set this as a house rule in your Magic games, if you want.

I thought it was so good that I wanted to design a variant around it.
The turn structure really is the crown jewel of MTA.

> So what if there's a card "locking down" another card?  We can't
> determine if the second card can untap unless we determine if the
> first card will untap first.  Of course, your variant could just not
> have any cards like that ... but again that limits your creativity.

You're referring to cards like Amber Prison? Simple. The locked down
card untaps if the locker untaps. If it's not clear from the card
text, one simple rule could be added for such cards (and they almost
certainly would be in the cardset, BTW).

> Nitpick: what if creatures gain first string during the First Combat
> Damage Phase -- do they assign and deal damage during this phase or
> no?  [Magic handles this by having "all creatures in combat that did
> not assign damage during the First Strike Combat Damage step" instead
> of "all attacking and blocking creatures without first-strike" in the
> second bullet.]

Good point! First-strike in MTA would function exactly like first
strike in MTG. I went on longer than I needed to in those steps.

> So how do you create a creature that you want to be able to block the
> first turn it comes into play but not be able to attack?

Haste is an ability of red, and red generally prefers attacking to
defending, so creatures with haste would be able to both attack and
block. I'm thinking of having all walls have haste regardless of
color. Also, white may get something like, "Untap target creature you
control. That creature cannot attack this turn." Another possibility
is, "<cardname> comes into play untapped and cannot attack this turn."

> So if a card has resolution text and there is a triggered ability that
> triggers upon resolution of the card, which resolves first?  Is it the
> same always or does it depend on the situation?

The resolution text is followed (performed, executed, whatever) as the
spell is resolving. The resolution of the spell triggers some ability,
and that ability waits to be put on the stack. After the spell
resolves, it goes to a different zone depending on its type (In play
for enchantments, creatures, artifacts, and, if there are any, [F] or
[S] lands. Graveyard for sorceries.) Then, state-based effects are
checked and any triggered abilities waiting to be put on the stack are
put on the stack (this is when the ability would go to the stack).
Those two things are performed until no more abilities trigger and no
more state-based effects are generated. Then, the lead player receives
priority, and may respond to the triggered ability or pass. Assuming
he and all other players pass, the ability would resolve. So, to
answer your question, the card always resolves first. This is all very
similar to MTG.

> This was something I actually seem to remember being discussed (or
> maybe that was mana abilities) and quickly shot down -- forcing
> someone to discard a card in response to them playing their land (or
> the mana ability of that land) that would have allowed them to play
> that card is no fun at all.  Basically, if a discard deck could force
> a discard each turn, they'd automatically win (or would win a
> significant portion of the time.)

In my original post I was trying to imply that such a situation could
theoretically exist given the speed system, but realistically might
not for the very reason you gave. All basic (a term not defined in
MTA, but you know what I mean) lands would be [I], but some special
lands could be [F] or [S]. They would be very useful, but would carry
the risk of being countered (and if they are, the player would not be
able to play another land that turn).

> > "Multiblock X" means, "This can block X additional creatures." So, a
> > creature with "Multiblock 1" can block two creatures.
> > 
> > Cards in MTA with the same name as a card in MTG may be different from
> > that MTG card (see Flash Counter, as an example).
> 
> Another barrier to cross-system compatibility.

Yeah, it's a problem. Maybe I will stick to only using MTG card names
when the cards do the same things. It depends on how hard it is coming
up with the cards for MTA. I'm taking a top-down approach (there was
an article on magicthegathering.com discussing top-down and bottom-up
design, you can search for it and read it for more information).
Basically, there are mechanics that each color needs, and there should
be varying degrees of it depending on mana cost. So blue needs cheap
cards to draw a small number of cards, and expensive cards to draw a
large number of cards. Green needs a cheap card or two to bring an
extra land out, or an expensive card to bring lots of land out. If the
card text and mana costs match up with an existing MTG card, I'd use
that MTG card name.

> > Subtypes are listed in parentheses.
> > 
> > In general, cards have been made slightly weaker and things cost
> > slightly more mana (see Spark and Shock). This was done to increase
> > the length of games, which decreases the luck factor. All cards in MTA
> > should be roughly Tier-2.
> 
> So tell me again why I should play in this "weaker" system than in
> Magic itself?

As I said "This was done to increase the length of games, which
decreases the luck factor."

> I already know how to play Magic (and we can 'hack'
> together multiplayer rules in my playgroup) and the cards are more
> powerful in Magic.

How fun is it to always win with your type 1 power nine deck? Do you
really want to spend thousands of dollars on cardboard? If you're
going to proxy, why not proxy something better?

> There are three counters on a card.  The card has recently been picked
> up and replaced by an opponent to verify the text, therefore the
> counter positions have changed.  The card itself can put +1/+0
> counters on it, and there is an artifact in play that can put +0/+1
> counters on it.  The card has base power and toughness of 1/1.
> 
> What is the power and toughness of the creature after all the counters
> have been applied?

The same as it was before it was picked up. Use different counters
(pennies, nickels, and dimes) or just remember what it is. That
situation shouldn't come up that often. If it does, there are ways of
keeping track of such things.

> > There is no reminder text on cards. Players are expected to know how
> > to play the game.
> 
> There goes the new player section of the crowd and the section that
> remembers most of the rules but could still use help sometimes.  Your
> following is dwindling :)

MTA will have about half as many keywords, and they won't be
complicated ones (reminder text for imprint I can understand, reminder
text for flying I cannot). If you can't remember whether walls can
attack or not, get up from the table, walk over to the nearest wall
and see if it attacks you. :)

Newbie 1: "I attack with my Carnivorous Plant."

Newbie 2: "Damn! Down to nine..."

Hell, it's fun just to watch! I suggest two new acronyms: RTFC and
RTFR, "Read the F*cking Card" and "Read the F*cking Rules,"
respectively.

> Again, since I intended this reply to be taken in the manner of the
> devil's advocate, please take it as such.  It's a nice idea, but I
> think Magic's too firmly entrenched to be uprooted in such a manner.

Probably so. And the resistance I'm seeing to the idea on this
newsgroup is evidence enough of people's resistance to change. I thank
you for taking the time to thoroughly explain yourself and read my
entire post. It's too bad there aren't more people knowledgeable of
the MTG game rules reading and responding to my entire post.

It's unlikely I'm going to finish this project with this kind of
response, which is good I guess. I'm glad I didn't waste my time first
and then see what people think of the idea.