|
I'd love to resolve a gifts ungiven when the target becomes invalid oh baby
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Sickening posted:Spell fizzle is an important part of the game. Some cards are balanced around them being disrupt-able in this way. harnessed lightning is one of those cards even! or at least i think part of it being only able to target creatures is so it can produce energy only in a limited capacity
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Spell fizzle is an important part of the game. Some cards are balanced around them being disrupt-able in this way. Plenty of cards were balanced around combat damage using the stack, and that didn't stop them from changing those interactions. I can see where this would be more dangerous since it's more likely to make cards stronger rather than weaker, but I can't think of any particular examples where it would really break things. The point I realized that the rule feels outdated and probably confounding to new players is when Awaken showed up. You cast Coastal Discovery for its mana cost, you target nothing, you draw two cards every time. You cast it for its Awaken cost, you target something, that target goes away, you draw nothing. The drawing cards part is so clearly independent of the targeting a land part, but by adding a target and then removing it, you lose the original unconditional part of the spell. I feel there's no logical way to explain that interaction other than "that's just the way it is," and I think the fewer rules you have that work counter to a new player's intuition, the better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Plenty of cards were balanced around combat damage using the stack, and that didn't stop them from changing those interactions. I can see where this would be more dangerous since it's more likely to make cards stronger rather than weaker, but I can't think of any particular examples where it would really break things. There's virtually no scenario where you screw yourself over with it by accident. The only scenarios are where your opponent makes a move that is intended to counter your spell and effectively does so. It's not any different badfeels from them holding an actual counterspell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I remember MaRo saying somewhere that he would prefer spells not to fizzle when their targets are illegal, but just to do as much as possible. And that it's a change that would break too many things if changed in the rules now. I personally don't think it would impact the game in any negative way, it would just make it more intuitive for new players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Plenty of cards were balanced around combat damage using the stack, and that didn't stop them from changing those interactions. I can see where this would be more dangerous since it's more likely to make cards stronger rather than weaker, but I can't think of any particular examples where it would really break things. On the other hand there are some auras that would probably become a nightmare without that restriction. Can you imagine Twin without the threat of a two for one constantly looming?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:On the other hand there are some auras that would probably become a nightmare without that restriction. In this world if your deceiver exarch gets removed in response to splinter twin the twin still goes away, the change is that if you Harnessed Lightning a dude and it gets flickered in response or whatever, you still get 3 energy
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
If that change was made, presumably auras would still go to the graveyard if their target was made illegal. But to do that, the rules regarding auras would have to be reworked as well, otherwise they'd just enter play and you could attach them to any other legal permanent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
I've said this before here and I agree we should definitely remove the rule. We're already half way there in that multitarget spells already have a best effort fallback if just one of their targets becomes illegal. Honestly going over every card on modo and updating them is probably the largest practical reason against.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Rather than getting rid of the rule, it'd be better to change how countering on resolution works by doing as much as possible when there are 0 legal targets. A good example is the Awaken spell - if you remove the land still draw the cards, you just don't get a creature land any more. This is just me throwing it out there though, there really could be some problematic cases out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Just to clarify what people are proposing regarding spells no longer fizzling if the target becomes invalid - if I lightning helix your creature and you remove it in response I still gain 3 life?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
And then if I cast a creature with the bestow cost, but you remove the target, then... oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
The Escalate cards were a good example of them being aware of and designing around the pitfalls of the fizzle rule. On every card that has a mode which chooses a target, all of the modes target, so you never lose the whole spell due to one invalid target. ^^^ Bestow is also a good example of them saying "the fizzle rule would make Bestow feel awful, so we're just going to write a new rule to make fizzle not apply to Bestow." It's clear that in recent design they're trying to avoid it in places where it makes sense to, it would just be a massive undertaking to figure out how to deal with applying it in a blanket sense. Nibble fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
And the lightning helix example?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Dehtraen posted:And the lightning helix example? you would just gain 3 life
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Gifts ungiven!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
The Lightning Helix example is why I'm not 100% on board with this idea. Having a blanket rule of "no legal targets, spell fizzles" is easy to apply universally. If the rule was changed to "do as much as possible" you'd still get situations where new players might think other parts of a card are also countered; "Lightning Helix looks like a life drain spell, if I don't do the damage then how do I gain the life?" New players are going to get confused at some point, magic is a complicated game with complicated mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:The Lightning Helix example is why I'm not 100% on board with this idea. Having a blanket rule of "no legal targets, spell fizzles" is easy to apply universally. Just change lightning helix to say "Deal 3 damage to target creature or player. This spell has lifelink"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Counterexample, electrolyze. If it has two targets and one goes away you still draw the card, but if it's 2 damage to just one, I don't. That inconsistency is much harder to explain and is more confusing to new players than what you described. "Always do as much as possible" is simpler a guideline than "just fizzle it, except sometimes do as much as possible anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Spell fizzling is a bad design choice that's stuck around long enough to not really be worth removing due to the possibility of accidentally breaking a lot of cards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Counterexample, electrolyze. If it has two targets and one goes away you still draw the card, but if it's 2 damage to just one, I don't. That inconsistency is much harder to explain and is more confusing to new players than what you described. As it stands now, every fizzle interaction (however unintuitive initially) works with one short explanation: "If your spell had targets, now that it's resolving does it have at least one legal target? If yes, spell resolves and you do what the card says. If no, spell fizzles and nothing happens." Having a spell do as much as possible is inevitably going to lead to edge cases and need clarifying rules. It's not as simple as it sounds because you need to define what is and is not possible when a targeted spell no longer has any legal targets. Changing the rule will likely make it even more complicated. e: Mezzanon posted:Just change lightning helix to say "Deal 3 damage to target creature or player. This spell has lifelink" The problem with this is that it functionally changes how Lightning Helix works. If you cast Lightning Helix with a Soulfire Grandmaster out you gain 6 life. ThePeavstenator fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Spells fizzling is a bit odd, but I think it does lead to some interesting gameplay, like removing your own creatures to deny a secondary effect. I don't think it's particularly hard to wrap your head around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
I don't think undoing spell fizzle is an intractable rules change, but I also like it the way it is. I think it adds rewarding emergent interaction and the idea of manually countering a spell by invalidating its parameters feels very magical to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Spells fizzling is a bit odd, but I think it does lead to some interesting gameplay, like removing your own creatures to deny a secondary effect. I don't think it's particularly hard to wrap your head around. I think that's the idea. In the example I posted, what I did in the game was use Hidden Stockpile to sacrifice the creature in response to the Harnessed Lightning. The creature was dead no matter what because I had no way to make its rear end big enough to absorb the damage. My opponent got rid of the creature one way or another, but I got to scry and denied them energy. But if making spells fizzle is a feel bad, then is casting a Giant Growth to make a creature's toughness high enough to absorb the damage of a Lightning Bolt a feelbad too? Or getting around indestructability by using -1/-1 counters to remove the creature?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:The problem with this is that it functionally changes how Lightning Helix works. If you cast Lightning Helix with a Soulfire Grandmaster out you gain 6 life. Multiple instances of lifelink don't stack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
But what if it has lifelink twice tho? (and yes, that was the point he was making) (edit: and maybe you were just spelling it out and I'm the one who is lost here)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Star Man posted:But if making spells fizzle is a feel bad, then is casting a Giant Growth to make a creature's toughness high enough to absorb the damage of a Lightning Bolt a feelbad too? Or getting around indestructability by using -1/-1 counters to remove the creature? Using the original rules, it didn't matter if you cast the Giant Growth before or after the Bolt, your creature would live. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
So umm, this looks like a new thing? https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/578436#paper B/G/X appears to be dropping the x? Basically more utility lands like ghost quarters. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Sickening posted:So umm, this looks like a new thing? There was a lot of talk of Fatal Push allowing this kind of thing but I don't know if it's had any real results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:There was a lot of talk of Fatal Push allowing this kind of thing but I don't know if it's had any real results. Well the list I posted had 2 pushes and 4 abrupt decays. I don't understand it at all but I am open to what finding out what the hell is going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Ask Me For Warez posted:Multiple instances of lifelink don't stack. With a Soulfire Grandmaster, Lightning Helix as printed would gain 6 life. If it was changed to having lifelink, it would only gain 3. That's the functional difference they meant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:The Lightning Helix example is why I'm not 100% on board with this idea. Having a blanket rule of "no legal targets, spell fizzles" is easy to apply universally. For example, you'd introduce the case where Lightning Helix would gain life but Corrupt would not, even though currently with complete fizzling they function the same way in regards to their target becoming invalid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:For example, you'd introduce the case where Lightning Helix would gain life but Corrupt would not, even though currently with complete fizzling they function the same way in regards to their target becoming invalid. So what? That's a good thing that lets them make meaningful differences to similar cards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Spells fizzling is a bit odd, but I think it does lead to some interesting gameplay, like removing your own creatures to deny a secondary effect. I don't think it's particularly hard to wrap your head around. Eikre posted:I don't think undoing spell fizzle is an intractable rules change, but I also like it the way it is. I think it adds rewarding emergent interaction and the idea of manually countering a spell by invalidating its parameters feels very magical to me. Yeah this is the other part I like about it. Cards like Bile Blight would get way better if sacrificing the targeted creature in response did nothing. That bit about emergent interaction is also a really good point. Part of the appeal of Magic and games in general (at least to me) is their depth of strategy and mechanics. Learning curves are actually really valuable in the longevity of a game. Whenever you "level up" it feels rewarding and keeps you engaged in the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Magic is a silly game http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=14795&d=289092&f=MO
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Magic is a silly game http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=14795&d=289092&f=MO Modern is bad and its diversity is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I also look forward to the "how are her legs positioned" analyses but it won't be as fun as the Olivia Voldaren art.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Modern is bad and its diversity is a problem. umm no actually modern owns right now
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Modern is bad and its diversity is a problem. fite me irl. At GP Vancouver at a side event I saw a Jund vs Junk matchup where both players had lily's out. Except the Jund players T4 play was a huntmaster, and the Junk players T4 was a goddamn Phyrexian Obliterator. The Jund player had 3 lightning bolts in hand and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Siivola posted:In case you don't read the daily magic update: Were people really debating this? Bonus posted:umm no actually modern owns right now 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:40
|
|