Re: Magic: The Alternative

> Most of the cards are complicated, or are useful only in certain,
> rare situations.

Sure; this means people can have fun building decks that cause
those rare situations.
Are you claiming that your 'Mason' card is simple, by the way?

> How many different standard decks do you remember seeing the last
> time you were at a tournament? The last time I judged one, I kept
> seeing the same cards over and over again at every table.

This says a lot about how common netdecking is, and only a little
about how balanced the cards are.

However, yes, I take your point. Interestingly enough, computer games
have similar problems - e.g. the tanks in Red Alert were overpowered,
so that the only viable strategy was the "tank rush".

Game developers correct this by releasing patches - for Red Alert,
they made the tanks more expensive. WotC's control over the cards
is a lot less fine; mostly they can only ban them, or print hosers.

You seem to want a perfectly balanced set, where every card is
playable, right? It's a noble objective, but I sincerely doubt
you'll be able to do it... and certainly not in your first go. Be
ready to adjust the mana costs of cards, etc, after people have
found what works best.

> The game is designed for two players, but I and many other
> experienced players find multiplayer games to be much more
> enjoyable and strategic than simple one-on-ones.
>
> WotC is not going to make Magic a true multiplayer game, because
> they don't want to make casual players choose between learning the
> new system, or abandoning Magic. It's too risky a move for WotC to
> make.

Eh? WotC have already released one multiplayer set, which offered
various suggestions on multiplayer rules.

> RULES CHANGES
> -------------
>
> 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.

As various people have pointed out, the term "Instant" is already used
and universally understood in MTG. The only thing you'll gain if you
redefine it is more confusion among the players.

Either invent a new term to mean "doesn't use the stack", or spell it
out in words like MTG already does.

> 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 gives us the same results as the current rules, right?
People mostly understand the current rules, and your rewording of
them doesn't make them simpler. Surely this is merely change for
change's sake?

> Creatures don't need to have subtypes.

At first I thought you were saying "Creatures have no subtypes",
but I see you weren't. Ok, sure, whatever.

> There are no steps, only phases.

Sure. Note that cards like Blinding Angel and Relentless Assault
affect entire combat phases; will you get rid of all such effects?

And, a minor point - this will make mana burn behave differently.
It happens at the end of each phase. (Most players won't care, of
course.)

> There are no supertypes. There is nothing legendary and nothing
> basic. Players may have a maximum of four copies of a card in their
> decks, unless the card has only the land type and its mana cost is 0.

In the latest rules, "basic" is a simple and useful concept; if the
card has "Basic" written on it, you can have as many as you want in
a deck. Your new approach is more complex, not less - as you admit by
grudgingly using "non-basic" here:

> All non-basic (a term not defined in MTA, but you know what I mean)
> lands should have a converted mana cost greater than 0.

!? This would make them indistinguishable from artifacts. Ok, not
in gameplay mechanics, but certainly in flavour.

> There must be exactly 64 cards in a deck (I like powers of two).
> There must be exactly 16 cards in a sideboard during match play.
> (I like powers of two).

Do you have a gameplay-based reason for this? If you want people to
play your MTG variant, you should be making it as simple to describe
as possible. Try starting with "It's like MTG, except...".

In other words, don't pollute the central concept with all these
pointless extras.

> 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.

Interesting - sounds like a great (if hectic) way to speed up
multiplayer games. I'll try this out among my local players. (Without
all your other irrelevant changes, naturally.)

Have you tried playing a multiplayer game this way? Is it fun?
And comprehensible?

(Ooh - maybe, for an even more streamlined game, each player should
be limited to one spell/one pass per phase? I.e. everyone drops any
lands they want to play, then Player 1 says "I play Llanowar
Elves"; Player 2 says "nothing", Player 3 says "I play Savannah
Lions", and Player 4 says "I counter Llanowar Elves".
Then the Counterspell and the Lions resolve off the stack in reverse
order, and we move on to the combat phase.)

> All players draw 8 cards at the beginning of the game
> and may mulligan as in MTG (drawing one less card each time). The
> draw phase of the first turn is skipped for all players.

More change for change's sake...
Players expect to draw 7 cards at the beginning of the game, and then
draw a card in the first turn. Same number of cards (albeit with
slightly less to mulligan with), and more familiar to the players.
There's no reason not to do it the familiar way.

> There is no summoning sickness. Creatures come into play tapped
> (except those with haste).

Interesting. I note your point (from another post) about how
this interacts with the simultaneous turns.

Hmm. Well, this makes a fairly fundamental change to the game (which
will therefore confuse the players)... but on the other hand it does
genuinely simplify the rules. I could view this as a good idea.

> There are no basic land types, but lands still do have subtypes.
> This allows for things like "enchanted land is an island," where
> island is a land subtype, NOT a basic land type.

If you enchant a nonbasic land with that, would you expect to remove
its other abilities?

> All text to be followed on resolution should be preceeded by "[R]".
> It's possible to have, for example, a creature with resolution text
> that Shocks as it resolves (just before it comes into play). This
> would be very similar to the card "Flametongue Kavu" from MTG. If
> "Mystic Snake" were to be included in MTA, it would also use
> resolution text rather than a triggered ability. Resolution text is
> NOT a static ability, like it is in MTG.

Er... ok, so what happens if you Reanimate this Flametongue Kavu?
It doesn't go on the stack (I assume), so when do you choose the
target for the Shock?
(Some black reanimation spells are still going to exist, right?)

> Lands are spells! They can use the stack if their speeds are [S]
> or [F], and they can have resolution text. A land could even be
> countered if its speed were [S] or [F] and a card were made that
> could "counter target land."

<shrug> whatever.

> "Multiblock X" means, "This can block X additional creatures." So, a
> creature with "Multiblock 1" can block two creatures.

You've created a keyword ability that's used by just 8 creatures in
the whole of Magic? That's even fewer than Islandhome...

> Subtypes are listed in parentheses.

More change for change's sake.

--
Laurie Cheers