MTG: What If

>>55242216
Mana screw and mana flood would be gone, which would make the game more accessible, more enjoyable, and more skill-based, all while pissing off aging grognards. Win-win!

File: Image.png (104KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 223x311px

>>55242253
How should draw cards work?
Scry cards?

>>55242360
Choose 1 deck to target.

>>55242253
>>55242216

The secret that mtg players don't understand (stupid ones, that is) is that they actually love variance, they just don't realize it.

You think Garfield didn't understand that putting the resource to cast your spells into your deck and not doing it another way would lead to some games where you screw or flood? It was a conscious decision and magic is a better game for it, even if sometimes you get non-games as a result.

>>55243340
I hate the variance. I hate the floods, and the screws. I've played rounds with people testing a similar system to OP, and it was a lot more enjoyable.

>>55242253
It would actually harm the game as it is now because all of the cards that interact with lands and even some specific land setups.
The game would have been better if it was designed with that in mind to start, but it's impossible to change what exists now without breaking it apart.

lands make deckbuilding more interesting with things like manlands and other utility cards. Force of Will has that exact mechanic try it out it's pretty fun.

Why do you try to justify an outdated mechanic that, even when a deck is finely tuned, causes a non-trivial number of non-games? And think of casual/new players - they won't know about land tuning or refining their mana base or optimal ratios, or even to look them up. They might end up sticking in 30 lands, or 20 lands, and end up getting bored of the game because they have so many non-games.

>>55243377
I'm not saying that you are wrong to enjoy the game as you want to play it, but magic would not be the game it is today if it wasn't for the way the resource mechanic works.
>>55243395
No, I disagree. I do not wish that magic had been designed with a "land deck" from the beginning.

>>55243470
The real question is: If you feel this way, why are you playing MTG and not Hearthstone or another TCG? Lands are the reason Magic decks are inefficient enough to allow for none-combo decks, otherwise it would be Yugioh.

Or if they banned out combo and focused on midrange and aggro it would become Hearthstone.

>>55243470
variance due to lands is one of the main reasons the game is still popular because it keeps the game fresh especially for new players.

>>55243562
I play other TCGs more, because Magic is an outdated game, and every LGS community I've met are cliquish groups of fat middle-aged men who don't like when new players show up.

>>55243602
So you don't play magic, and your opinion doesn't actually matter at all here. Got it, keep on wasting your time trying to "fix" other people's hobbies.

>>55243672
I didn't say I don't play. I said I play ther games more.

>>55243542
Lands are a poor resource system and is one of the biggest complaints you see about the game itself. It's fine to accept Magic can't change it (just like they can't introduce tribal again even if it was a good idea poorly executed) because it's a crucial part of the game and that some of its other non resource aspects are well designed. But other games have already used superior system with their flaws lying elsewhere, Force of Will as noted above, for example.

>>55242216

>>55243692
Duel Masters did it best, IMO.

>>55242253
Ok I have a 48 card spell deck, and 12 card land deck of just urza lands.

>>55243861
Let me just play a bitterblossom then a contamination.

>>55243692
But saying that "force of will did it better" is just your opinion.

>>55244367
Would you care to say what are the benefits of MtG's lands compared to other games?

>>55242253
>more accessible
>more skill based
There's a reason that they call it curvestone

Why are there so many threads complaining about land all of a sudden.

>>55243340
>people actually believe this

>>55242216
there is a simple solution to solve the land problem.
Make a special zone, you can play any card in it but when you do it looses all abilities and its name and is a basic land.
Needs some finetuning for multicolored stuff but that would get grid of all land related problem with mtg. Which imho the the single biggest problem with the game.

>>55242216
The game would be better.

1. Mana deck. Only basic lands can be included in the mana deck. Nonbasic lands have to go in the main deck.

2. Any card that allows you to search a library can search both the mana deck and the main deck at the same time, though steps must be taken to keep the decks separated. When done, both decks are shuffled separately.

Those rules fix magic.

>>55243562
I actually don't play magic anymore. It is inferior to a lot of products out there. One of the reasons for this inferiority is the land system.

>>55244582
Literally what Duel Masters did.
Turn order was Untap, Start (upkeep), Draw, Charge (play any one card as a mana source; monocolored cards enter play untapped, multicolor enter play tapped, five color do not produce mana unless specifically stated otherwise), Main Phase, Combat, End, Cleanup

>>55242216
I believe you are looking for Hearthstone? Alternatively there is a movement trying to make a casual format work, I believe it's called a Battlebox.

Each player gets five basic lands and five Allied guildgates in their command zone. Lands may be played from the command zone. Draw cards from a communal deck. I believe their starting hand size is 4-5 to allow you to curve?

http://mtgbattlebox.com/rules.html

>>55244430
As has been stated earlier, mainly variance. If you always drew the exact number of lands you wanted, a lot of games of magic would get really dull really quickly. I mean, I already can play 15 games of my green-white creatures deck against your blue-black control deck and feel like I've figured out the match-up and become somewhat bored as the games tend to all play out similarly. Always drawing the exact number of lands I want would exacerbate this even further.

>>55244742
So, you're arguing that not being able to play your deck is good because it makes games less predictable? Also, aside from competitive players testing things, who's going to play 15 games with the exact same list in a row?

>game is 100% skill based, autism wins
>noobs play 10 games, get destroyed without any glimmer of hope of ever winning, never play again
>autist still has no friends

>>55242216
>>55242253
All this would result in is people running a handful of mountains and then a bunch of really efficient burn and aggro stuff with low cmcs. Don't need to worry about getting mana screwed by having too few lands because you can just draw them at any time. No worries about getting a dead draw later on because you only draw lands when you want to.

Magic as it is would be too reliable for aggro in such a circumstance.

>>55244792
In a row, usually not. But If you've got a standard deck, or a modern deck, and you play that deck in a local event weekly on top of playing some games with your friends, you're going to figure your matchups and games are going to get predictable.

Now, what I'm arguing is that the sacrifice of the occasional non-game is worth the benefit that variance gives you.

>>55244908
I find nongames more unappealing than getting bored of a particular build of a deck.

>>55242216
Magic is balances around resource management and lands are a major component of that. It's a pretty common game mechanic. It's like saying "what if Starcraft didn't make you gather minerals and gas?"

>>55245058
Except, in Starcraft, you can't get RNG fucked out of having minerals and gas.

>>55245058
What if Starcraft gave you random amounts of minerals and gas when you gathered?

>>55242216
My deck is 4x lightning bolt, 4x chain lightning, 4x lava spike, 48x mountain.

>>55245133
It's only random if you're bad.