Well just saw some news articles today talking about a new MTG animated series on Netflix. I know they've been trying to make a movie for years but I guess they got Netflix to green-light a series instead. It might have a chance to be interesting as an animated series - if they tried some kind of "live action" version it would almost certainly be crappy unless they threw Game of Thrones amounts of money at it.
I played MTG from around 1995 until the early 2000s. I missed out on the Alpha/Beta sets but managed to get a box of Arabian Nights cards before they became silly-expensive. I still have roughly 10,000 mostly mint (probably like 8,000 never played and a few other boxes never opened) cards sitting in a closet somewhere - maybe if this TV series hits big it'll spike the value of these cards and I can retire early. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Yeah, I saw the article today too. I've not played as much as I would have liked and I've lost any decks I've had over the years.
-----------
[color=#FF0000]Senior Developer/Project Manager/Co-Founder... and then some.[/color]
I never really played MTG, but I remember back in the day when I collected Pokemon Cards, id go to the comic store and would always admire some of the artwork on the MTG cards.
I saw the news today as well. I was a little confused about what they are doing. They mentioned an animated series which made me think cartoon, but the promo artwork for it was cg?
[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/dpj0nl.jpg[/IMG]
-----------
[color=#FF0000]Graphic Designer[/color]
I do that now when I look at CCG stores in Japan. MTG and Pokemon are only two of like a dozen major CCGs still going strong there. They have stores ([url=http://www.yellowsubmarine.co.jp/]Yellow Submarine[/url] is a big retail chain there) filled with nothing but rows upon rows of display cases full of "rare singles" of any game you can think of. If I was still seriously into these games I could easily spend thousands in a matter of minutes... ;)
Nothing saying it couldn't be animated CGI. Then again even shows that "look" like traditional animation (i.e. Simpsons, South Park, Archer, etc.) are all pretty much computer-based now anyway.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Even from the Russo Brothers, I have no faith in a video-game or card-game based movie yet.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
I'm excited for it and await a trailer.
I really hope it'll be good. MTG has some pretty cool lore.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
You're in luck! Its a series... :P
-----------
[color=#FF0000]Graphic Designer[/color]
That too tbh
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
If they tackle this animated show like they are just adapting a huge untapped collection of fantasy stories then it might be good. But if they go in with the mindset of trying to make this series act as an extended animated advertisement for a CCG then it'll be stupid.
I don't want them to be constantly mentioning "five colors of magic" or "players using cards as spells" at all. The whole "meta" concept of this series being based on a game needs to be completely suppressed. I feel that's going to be hard thing to accomplish but I'll probably keep an open enough mind to watch the first episode or two at least.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
From the limited info we have it seems it'll be focusing on the planeswalkers themselves. I don't think in universe they use cards, they use spells and summon creatures. Or they lead creatures, not entirely sure if they summon them or lead them... It might vary from planeswalker to planeswalker.
AFAIK the five colors of magic is an actual thing in their lore so that might get mentioned.
Honestly I'm good with it being just a load of cool animated MTG lore, being a card game show (as long as they actually follow the actual rules), or somewhere in between.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Sure a drama series based on MTG is going to have to conform at least to some degree with the way the game works. I get that. I even get that details like the "colors of magic" will likely be mentioned/explained as part of the plot of the show. But as far as we know as I said this is supposed to be a scripted episodic drama, not an animated "card game show".
My point was I don't want the characters to be talking/acting as if they are literally inside a game like people acting as the pieces in a human chess game. Sure a character can "summon creatures and cast spells" but I don't need them saying things like "Darn, I really want to summon a Serra Angel but I don't have enough land to tap to get the white mana I need". If they specifically talk like they are "inside" a card game it'll be horribly silly. Instead let them dramatically "act" out the actions that we "simulate" when we're playing the game.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Almost sounds like Heroscape when you put it that way.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
I'm still likely going to give this MTG show a try. I'm just saying there's lots of way this thing can go sideways depending on the way they choose to "translate" this particular CCG into an animated drama.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I played MtG from 1993 to 1998 and recently got back into it. I had Alpha set cards, but when I was in a bad place mentally I gave them away, including an original [url=https://www.cnet.com/news/guy-opens-old-magic-the-gathering-deck-stumbles-on-27000-card/]Black Lotus[/url] (currently worth about $27,000 at auction), and yes, I am kicking myself over it.
For what it is worth, each of the Planeswalkers, such as Chandra Nalaar in the NetFlix image, has a great deal of backstory to each of them and if the series focuses on the stories that lead them to the recent [url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/War_of_the_Spark]'War of the Spark'[/url] set, I suspect we should see some interesting stuff. If it is what comes after, get ready for some interesting drama, because one of the [url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Liliana_Vess]'heroes'[/url] was a baddie at the beginning of the "War of the Spark" but does a [url=https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceTurn]heel face turn[/url] and helps to save the day, but the authorities want to aprehend her in order to bring her to justice for her actions in the beginning (she is actually a good person who got stuck in a bad contract with a serious baddie). And Liliana's backstory is pretty tragic getting to this point, considering she was an herbalist/healer to start and is now the most powerful necromancer around. She is my favorite planeswalker, followed closely by [url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Jace_Beleren]Jace Beleren[/url] and [url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Kaya]Kaya[/url].
Also, Mana is colored in MtG, which dictates what it can do and, in the game, you need land to have access to it. I suspect that the Planeswalkers will 'bond' themselves to appropriate lands for their magic so that they can cast their spells. However, fewer lands means less mana available so they may not be able to cast some spells at certain times. Admittedly, this is pure conjecture and based on a little mental gymnastics as to what would be a good way to represent how the walkers get their power.
And if anyone wants to look me up in Magic the Gathering: Arena, I use the same name as here.
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
Yeah, I figured in Lothic's example if the show goes the card game show direction it'd be more like "I want to summon Serra Angel but I can't yet draw the power I need from the plains."
Sticking loosely to the card game rules while still being in universe.
But I'm thinking it'll probably be more like a higher budget version of this kinda thing
[Youtube]0pru4PoCg2g[/youtube]
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Whatever they end up doing, I hope its catered to people who havent played as well because otherwise, I dont think I could follow along.
-----------
[color=#FF0000]Graphic Designer[/color]
I've got a good friend that sort of lived through the same scenario. He started playing since the beginning so he had collected a bunch of Alpha/Beta/Unlimited cards including something like a dozen Moxes. But unfortunately he got to a place in the late 90s where he needed money to finish college so he traded the majority of his collection for like $10,000. As I said this was the late 90s so imagine what that same collection would've likely been worth today.
The good part of the story is that my friend's degree helped him get his current six-figure salary so it wasn't a total loss. Still he regrets that he had to sacrifice the cards.
Yeah this is what I'm talking about. I watched your entire youtube vid and not once did it mention "cards" or "tapping mana" or anything related to people playing the game it was based on. This is how the Netflix series ought to be handled - a straight up fantasy drama BASED on the game lore but not having any obvious meta details related to being BASED on a card game.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Yeah, if it does anything like tapping mana it'll probably be "drawing power" or some such.
I'm not sure if it's ever been properly addressed how exactly planeswalkers duel eachother in the lore. But it seems pretty easy to remove the card game aspect from it. Tapping mana becomes drawing power from various lands, and everything else is just spells. It'd be nice if they did the show in such a way that those who play the game can see the semblance to the card game but either way is good for me. There's a ton of lore in MTG so seeing any amount of it in a show will be rad as heck.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
It'll probably be based on the books. It would let people who have never played the game before learn the lore of the game and attract new people to the game. WotC will probably try to cast a wide net and the books themselves are a great place to do that.
not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/24.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
Watched the video and it has some of the core Planeswalkers origins, which, if NetFlix uses them, would be cool and introduce the viewers to the MtG universe well without overwhelming them. I just hope we get better animation.
For those who are interested, starting after the Narration in the Video we see: [url=https://magic.wizards.com/en/story/planeswalkers/gideon-jura]Gideon Blackblade[/url] ([url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/White]White[/url]), [url=https://magic.wizards.com/en/story/planeswalkers/jace-beleren]Jace Beleren[/url] ([url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Blue]Blue[/url], 2nd Favorite Planeswalker), [url=https://magic.wizards.com/en/story/planeswalkers/liliana-vess]Liliana Vess[/url] ([url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Black]Black[/url], Favorite Planeswalker), [url=https://magic.wizards.com/en/story/planeswalkers/chandra-nalaar]Chandra Nalaar[/url] ([url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Red]Red[/url]), [url=https://magic.wizards.com/en/story/planeswalkers/nissa-revane]Nissa Revane[/url] ([url=https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Green]Green[/url])
These are also some of the main characters for the current 'War of the Spark' event that they have going on, and main characters in the books mentioned in another post.
The order they were shown was deliberate and representative of the Color Wheel of Mana demonstrating the Allied and Enemy colors (example: White is allied with Green and Blue and Enemies with Red and Black, While Blue is Allied with White and Black and Enemies with Green and Red)
As I stated in my earlier post, I started with Alpha and played through to Mirage, then I took a break. Coming back now is kind of fun seeing all the changes that have taken place since I last played (1998). Coming back has been made easier, I believe, due to 'Magic the Gathering: Arena' which has helped to reinforce what the rules are and how play has changed (no more mana burn, YAY!).
Looking at all of that, I am starting to sound like a MtG advertiser...Sorry...
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
They got rid of mana burn? Heh, sounds like the whiny Millennials got a hold of the game and "sissified" it... lol
Then again as I recall when the game first started you were supposed to ante up a card to lose to your opponent if you lost the game. That was pretty much the [b]first[/b] rule we ignored when I played with my friends. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
They got rid of mana burn because, for the most part, it didn't DO anything/didn't ever matter. Beyond that it was just one more thing to track that made an already very complex game even more confusing for new players. In short, the only real purpose it served was as a barrier for entry.
Not to derail the topic or anything, but I'd hardly call Liliana a "good person." Tragic backstory, sure. Lot of people have tragic backstories -- and maybe she WAS a good person once upon a time -- but it's hard to call someone who's murdered an untold number of beings across the multiverse just serve her own selfish purpose "good" no matter what other positive actions she's more recently taken. (And it will be a very, very long and difficult process for her to become a "good person" again, assuming she even wants to.)
Yeah, the video I posted was from the MTG 2018 PC game, which along with those cutscenes had you play out the stories of how these character's became planeswalkers. Which had smaller narrated but non-animated lore bits in there. Searching for that I found a much longer video (almost 40 mins iirc) that I believe shows all the other lore bits in there. Which I could find again and post if folks are interested.
I wasn't aware there were MTG books, are they any good?
Mana burn was taken out of the game, officially, in 2010 apparently. To free up design space and be less confusing to new players. From a quick thing I've read it rarely came up anyway. I think even if the rule was active (which it might have been but it never came up/no one enforced it) since I've started playing MTG I might have taken less than 5 points of mana burn damage total from all the games I've played, it's really not hard to only spend the mana you have need of.
All this talk about MTG is making me want to play. Too bad there's not really any good single player MTG games around, not too fond of playing with randos. And my friends fear my Goblin and Minotaur decks so they wont play me.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Fair enough point on Liliana, she IS represented as being both self-interested, and compassionate towards the people around her. I am interested to see where her story goes.
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
Mana Burn was a tactic you could play by forcing a player to tap lands to cause unblockable damage, but it was an unreliable method and was more of an annoyance than a real help (except to one player I knew). I agree with the other commentor that said it was more of a pain to keep track of than any thing else.
To give you an idea, the 'Tap Target Permanent' cards can tap a land and, under the old rules, would have caused Mana Burn WHILE denying you access to that mana until your untap phase. I remember watching a young man lose his mind and throwing a tantrum when he lost because of Mana Burn. It was both amusing and sad: amusing because it was a 17 year old acting like a three year old, and sad because it was a 17 year old acting like a three year old.
I also am a fan of the game because it came out while I was in the military, and they would send cards to groups like the USO to distribute to deployed troops, and to my understanding they still do. So if a veteran asks you to teach them how to play MtG, treat them the same way you would someone who asks you to teach them this "poker" game...with caution.
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
Try the [url=https://magic.wizards.com/en/mtgarena?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=arn&utm_term=&utm_content=opb-branded-search-all-text-arn-opb-t14-m99&gclid=Cj0KCQjwrdjnBRDXARIsAEcE5Yn8RDvrhftY7Kmj9EV8Wp-btkRKGLhIFEOyBTHI1-KnJBlP7CRn9EAaApygEALw_wcB]Magic the Gathering: Arena[/url], it is free to play and you can earn credits to purchase booster packs to build better decks online. If you purchase a 'War of the Spark' Planeswalker deck (such as Jace) irl, you can enter a code and have all the cards from that deck added to your available cards online. The tutorial is interesting and really helps you get into the flow of how the online version works.
As for the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_novels]books[/url]: I haven't read one since the first ones in the 1990s and that one was not bad, but not particularly good either. I don't remember which one it was, so take that with a grain of salt.
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
If you guys say so. I actually recall making decks that would win games via redirecting the damage I would take from mana burn towards damaging my opponents instead. There were also cards (probably long since nerfed now) that would force your opponent to tap lands on their turns to cause them to take mana burn directly.
I could buy the idea that they got rid of mana burn because they decided it was too cheesy and/or overpowered to do what I did with it, [b]not[/b] because it was "useless" or "too confusing for new players to handle". Either way it sounds like a "simplification" of the game just for the sake of simplification, thus my standard crack at Millennials for why it was done. *shrugs*
This... Why ever play MTG if you [i]couldn't[/i] whip players badly enough to make them act like three year olds? :)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I find it odd that cards that tap target permanent would actually work towards mana burn. I mean if you force a player to tap a creature with a tap effect afaik they don't gain the tap effect (though they could tap the creature in response to the card making them tap it), same as tap effects don't activate when a creature becomes tapped after attacking, so I don't really get why forcing a land to become tapped grants the opponent mana.
I tried out MTG arena when it was in beta, iirc i liked it enough, but again it was more of a vs random actual people than something I could do solo. Maybe that's changed since. I'll have to see if I can get it on my phone.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Your "confusion" over this issue might very well be part of the reason they got rid of mana burn. I'm willing to give that potential reason the benefit of the doubt. All I can tell you is that "forcing" your opponent to suffer mana burn damage (via various means) at least [b][i]used to be[/i][/b] a completely legitimate and viable means to defeat your opponent. Back when I was playing there was never any "question" about whether it was fair/legal to do that.
Unlike "tapping a creature with a tap effect" I believe the way mana producing lands work is fundamentally different. Standard lands don't get tapped to put mana in your pool as a "secondary effect", it's primary purpose is to "produce mana when tapped" regardless of HOW it got tapped. A card that enables me force you to tap your creature is NOT activating any of that creature's secondary tap effects directly - that's why you could choose to use one of those tap effects in response to my initial action. If you don't use a tap effect in response it's not involved in the action at all.
Anyway like I said it's really not a matter up for debate. Damaging your opponent via mana burn was perfectly legal as long as mana burn was a "thing" - now that it's gone it doesn't really matter if it was ever retroactively "questionable" to force your opponent to suffer it or not.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Yeah, standard lands don't have a tap effect written on them.
Mana burn just seems odd to me (having never used the rule). I think the game runs better without it, even if old mana burn decks no longer work. Thpugh most of those decks just force the tapping of permanents, right? So it'd be pretty easy to adjust it to deny the opponent mana/tap all their creatures so you can attack directly.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
To be completely fair the whole "concept" of mana burn was never really a big thing to begin with. Turns out there were only a few relatively rare cards that could be used to create a purpose-built deck that could exploit the effect as a method to actively damage your opponent and even then those decks were never extremely reliable/predictable. You basically had to be super lucky to survive along enough to get all the parts in place so they either worked awesomely or failed miserably - there was no in-between.
The only other time mana burn was ever a factor (that I recall) were in cases where you had lands that generated two or more mana and for some reason you couldn't use that extra mana by the end of the turn. I'd say unless someone was using a purpose-built mana burn deck you'd probably only see it happen to ANY player in ANY game like maybe 1% of the time if even that much.
Ultimately I'd be willing to accept the idea they got rid of mana burn mostly because it rarely happened in the first place. Combine that with the fact that they probably ended up nerfing most of the obscure overpowered cards you'd need to make a workable mana burn deck it likely became something that they effectively eliminated in [i]practice[/i] before they removed it [i]officially[/i].
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
"Mana burn was almost removed in the Sixth Edition rules update, but Mark Rosewater fought to keep it in. Ten years later, he fought to have it removed. His reasons to remove it were that it would free up design space, do away with a rule that's confusing for new players and that it's a rule that wasn't pulling its weight.
He tried it out in design by having all designers play without mana burn for a month. It hadn't come up in playtests at all during the whole month."
That's what the MTG wiki says about it.
Until I watched a lets play of an old MTG game I didn't even know it was a rule, and until I looked into it after it was brought up in this thread I thought that it must have been axed well before I started playing. I started playing while mana burn was still a rule and never heard anyone mention it.
Also.
Mana Burn sounds like a decent name for some sort of magic pyromancer hero/villain.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
As an avid player from Ice age through Weatherlight, then again from Mirrodin to the present, I can tel you my Magic playing friends are not expecting great things from this series, but some of them did say things like "well, it's the Russos, and its a cartoon, so it has a chance..." So we'll see.
That said, Hasbro COULD screw it up BADLY by making it some kind of "buy all our playsets and toys" shill delivery system. They ought to know by now that A the audience for this is way older now then the 12 year olds that fall for that kind of marketing, and B stories with dialog that revolve around explaining how the cards work is super dumb. But big gaming companies don;t see that in the boardroom where the decisions get made, because they don't play game or watch cartoons themselves.
Edit: And as for mana burn, I had a mana burner deck back in the day. Power Surge was the card you needed. Godo times. But it was only one card, the other billion cards they've printer don't care about mana burn anyway.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Yeah I just sort of found it funny that I only learned about Mana Burn's REMOVAL when I read what Culach said about it in this thread. Shows you how long it's been since I've been seriously involved with the game. ;)
I also had a chuckle over the language you quoted from the MTG wiki. I get the part that mana burn was never a big deal in the game overall, but phrases like "freeing up design space" and that it was "confusing for new players" are laughable to me because it was never hard or confusing to deal with. Again as an "old time player" it just comes off to me as a change just for change's sake. I have serious doubts its official removal dramatically "improved" the game one way or the other.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Well I can see it freeing up design space as now you can have cards that use excess mana for effects or have cards that are "tap opponent's land, do thing" without it doubling up on punishing the opponent.
As for confusing players it may have been less that the rule for it was confusing and more as to it's inclusion and why tapping land works a certain way why tapping other permanents work a different way.
And considering how rarely it seemed to come up (other than when dealing with decks specifically designed to do mana burn) I can't see it's removal as being any sort of detriment.
The best thing about table top games is if you're not playing the official format (tournaments, events, and the like) you can go ahead and use whatever house rules you and your friends like. Official rules only matter in official functions after all.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Eh I guess. Still the "freeing up design space" phrase sounds like they were trying to say something weird like "we can only have 53 rules for this game so now that we got rid of the one for mana burn we can now put a new one in the 53th slot". This attempt to rationalize what they did here sounds like "silly hand-wavy Devspeak" to me.
Like I said I never had a problem understanding mana burn in relation to the rest of the rules for permanents. To be honest you're literally the first person I've ever seen who seems to have a "disconnect" about it. Not saying your interpretation on this is wrong; just saying that at least back in the late 90s when I was playing [b]no one[/b] I played with ever questioned this mechanic at all. *shrugs*
If the MTG game designers eventually came to the conclusion a few years ago to get rid of mana burn because they thought the concept was "too confusing" then that's fine. I'm just telling you there was -nothing- confusing about it. I can probably think of dozens of rule scenarios for this game that are FAR more confusing than this.
I didn't say its removal was or would be a detriment. In fact I used your observation to come to the exact opposite conclusion. When "considering how rarely it seemed to come up" [b]officially removing[/b] mana burn from the game was likely not actually necessary. Basically I see this as "fixing a problem" that wasn't actually a problem to begin with.
Mana Burn was a rare but legitimate factor in the game you had to account for - to me it almost seems like the game would be "too easy" if you didn't have to be mindful of it. Without fear of mana burn what stops people from routinely tapping most/all their land at the beginning of their turn and then just randomly deciding when/if any of that mana will apply to spells? How do you properly account for interruptive responses when you can fudge things like that? Frankly I think the lack of mana burn would actually make gameplay less orderly overall.
Oh trust me I've been creating "house rules" for table top games for 40+ years now. Case in point like I said earlier we threw out the "ante up a card from your deck at the beginning of the game" rule MTG had from Day One. But by the same token I'll just stress we never once considered -not- playing with mana burn. It seemed so perfectly reasonable that I never once considered changing the way it worked in any way.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
In fewer words.....
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
Seriously I know you mean well but if your only response to various posts is "You used too many words" then I would offer that you're using "too many words" to even bother typing responses like that in first place.
In a few words if you don't like "long" posts then don't read them and certainly don't "add" to the problem by responding to them. No one elected you to be the "word count cop" around here. Dude, just get over this...
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
The quoting every sentence gets me more than fluid paragraphs :p
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
Sorry your problem, not mine. I'd rather be precise than terse. As always no one's forcing you to read it...
BTW, it's really the height of hubris to think your "critiques" would get -anyone- here to change the way that they write good, bad or otherwise.
TL;DR keep this shit to yourself from now on. You've already had a Redname supposedly warn you about the "previous way" you used to be passive aggressive about this. I'm sorry but this is -not- funny anymore.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I okay'd "in fewer words" with YOU, which I thought trumped a Dev. But if that's no longer acceptable, I'll drop the meme.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
You know how you don't like long and/or heavily quoted posts? I have that same degree of hatred for people "grading" my posts like I'm still in grade school. Get it? You're poking a bear here and you're not going to win.
I've been writing technical documents for the Air Force and other "three letter agencies" for decades now. No one complains that my writing is "too long/wordy" in those venues. You're spitting into the wind with your futile attempts to change the way I write at this point.
Please, I beg of you, get over this and find something else more worthy to be annoyed by.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Come on guys... you're both awesome people! Let's get along! ^_^
-----------
[color=#FF0000]Graphic Designer[/color]
I'm good for that as long as my posts are not subject to being graded for the "proper" word/quote count. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
They'd leave mana untapped if they wish to play instant spells, have permanents with paid effects, or if they just wish to make their opponent think they're planning something "they only tapped 2 out of their 10 mana and played [card], they have 5 cards in their hand... They're probably waiting for me to attack to spring something nasty." Basically they'd leave mana untapped if they wish to do things off turn.
Any unused mana goes away when you end your turn, so there's really no reason to tap it if you're not going to use it. Only reason I can see you doing that is if your opponent has some kind of nasty cards that require tapping your lands or only can effect untapped lands, or something.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
HI, as a MTG player I believe a Clarification Is in Oder.
500.4. When a step or phase ends, any unused mana left in a player’s mana pool empties. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
Yeah obviously the game has apparently "been working" ever since they removed mana burn.
I'm just saying that for me it'd be like playing chess for decades then someone suddenly deciding it'd be a good idea to get rid of the rooks. Sure you could probably still play a rookless version of chess, but it would likely be really weird for a long time afterward. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I assumed the mana pool would empty like this in this post mana burn game. This was not the issue of tactics/strategy I was talking about but thanks for posting the "current" rule anyway.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Probably closer to getting rid of the castling move, for a chess analogy.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Sure... at least you get the point. It's ultimately a semi-arbitrary change that might not affect much but it would still be something that would always seem "weird" to me. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
From the reasons given it seems removing the rule offered more than keeping it in.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
From the reasons given it seems removing the rule was just something to do for its own sake.
Again as someone who had no problem playing with the mechanic for years it just seems like a "nonplus" maneuver overall. Either way it's obvious WotC is still selling cards so at the very least I'll grant it wasn't a "bad thing" for them to do. I guess that's as far as I'm willing to go with that. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]