Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My issue was that they alway eratta the best cards once some-one figures out how a certain combo is massively powerful and it gets spammed.
Then they drop a new set that just trumps everything they eratta'd.

helgrenze wrote:My issue was that they alway eratta the best cards once some-one figures out how a certain combo is massively powerful and it gets spammed.
Then they drop a new set that just trumps everything they eratta'd.

They've stopped doing that. WotC knows that people don't like power level errata, and so it's changed to "ban or nothing" most of the time. There's four main exceptions.

Time Vault was erratad countless times, since it's incredibly broken and its wording is very unusual. I think it's now restricted, but it's banned pretty much everywhere but Vintage. Nobody knows how the hell Time Vault is supposed to work, and pretty much each of its potential wordings has possible insanity.

Lotus Vale/Lion's Eye Diamond were errata'd in an attempt to have them match their previous function instead of turning as broken as Black Lotus; while I think it's stupid, it does mean that I get to play Lion's Eye Diamond in EDH now without getting called for cheese.

The last exception is creature type errata; some creatures have been given additional creature types. This was done for flavor reasons instead of flavor reasons; for example, Homarid Warrior wasn't a warrior before its errata, and none of the human cards were human before Mirrodin errata. The changes didn't do much at a tournament level, but there's a lot of casual games affected by it.

You'll never see a card errata'd for power level reasons today, only banned.

Chaos Orb was the teacher of that lesson.

I remember opening a Blacker Lotus in an unglued pack.

And then my friend asked if he could put it in his deck. "NO!"

Skriker wrote:2) The colors just don't feel really unique anymore. Early on the colors were very distinct from each other and offered very different playing styles. Now you can do just about everything in every color....meh.
Skriker

Thisthisthis

I started back in prophecy, and it was enjoyable in a collectable aspect, and how colors were unique. "What's that you say? Red is big on destroying things? Cards that nuke the whole board and hurt everyone? I GOTTA GET ME SUM DAT"

So I made my red deck, and all was well. Then they started mass producing multicolored cards, and it just got worse and worse until I bailed out. Also, while warhammer might be expensive, paying a premium for plastic models seems a better deal then paying a premium for paper. At least my warhammer army could survive a flood.

Skriker wrote:2) The colors just don't feel really unique anymore. Early on the colors were very distinct from each other and offered very different playing styles. Now you can do just about everything in every color....meh.
Skriker

Color boundaries were less distinct early in the history of the game. There was no real color pie at the time outside of some vague concepts. That's why cards like Red Elemental Blast/Blue Elemental Blast/Apocalypse were created. Red, Green, and White got more abilities, but that's because initially they were horribly limited, while Blue and Black could just do anything in the game (Including direct damage, mana production). While the first three colors gained more, the second two lost some, until they were fairly balanced (Although Red and Green still have less variety than Black, Blue, and White).

Necroshea wrote:Thisthisthis

I started back in prophecy, and it was enjoyable in a collectable aspect, and how colors were unique. "What's that you say? Red is big on destroying things? Cards that nuke the whole board and hurt everyone? I GOTTA GET ME SUM DAT"

So I made my red deck, and all was well. Then they started mass producing multicolored cards, and it just got worse and worse until I bailed out.

Prophecy is generally considered one of the worst sets in the history of the game, with absolutely nothing new or interesting and a horribly low power level; only Homelands and Fallen Empires solidly beat it. The first six sets that focused on multicolored (Invasion block, which started right after Prophecy, and Ravnica block) are, in contrast, some of the most popular and well-reviewed sets of all time, with healthy tournament environments and tons of new concepts like Split and Hybrid that opened new design space.

So you have a right to your opinion, but it certainly isn't a majority one. Mono-Red decks are still very popular today (In fact, one of them won the latest Starcity Open for Innistrad), so it's not like multicolored cards are everywhere. The newest set has a grand total of one multicolored card, and it has some fun Red cards that kill everything (Like Rumbling Temblor, Blasphemous Act, and Balefire Dragon).

Molten Butter wrote:

Skriker wrote:2) The colors just don't feel really unique anymore. Early on the colors were very distinct from each other and offered very different playing styles. Now you can do just about everything in every color....meh.
Skriker

Color boundaries were less distinct early in the history of the game. There was no real color pie at the time outside of some vague concepts. That's why cards like Red Elemental Blast/Blue Elemental Blast/Apocalypse were created. Red, Green, and White got more abilities, but that's because initially they were horribly limited, while Blue and Black could just do anything in the game (Including direct damage, mana production). While the first three colors gained more, the second two lost some, until they were fairly balanced (Although Red and Green still have less variety than Black, Blue, and White).

Don't know how things are now, but early on, Black was very limited: it had no way of getting rid of enchantments or artifacts. A mono-black was extremely vulnerable. Ditto for Blue, which though could at least Counter them.

Green could do anything in the game, though some abilities were very cumbersome to use or limited. Problem for Green was that it had LOT of creatures, but few of them were any good: result of faulty design strategy which assumed that card rarity would actually mean something.

Molten Butter wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Thisthisthis

I started back in prophecy, and it was enjoyable in a collectable aspect, and how colors were unique. "What's that you say? Red is big on destroying things? Cards that nuke the whole board and hurt everyone? I GOTTA GET ME SUM DAT"

So I made my red deck, and all was well. Then they started mass producing multicolored cards, and it just got worse and worse until I bailed out.

Prophecy is generally considered one of the worst sets in the history of the game, with absolutely nothing new or interesting and a horribly low power level; only Homelands and Fallen Empires solidly beat it. The first six sets that focused on multicolored (Invasion block, which started right after Prophecy, and Ravnica block) are, in contrast, some of the most popular and well-reviewed sets of all time, with healthy tournament environments and tons of new concepts like Split and Hybrid that opened new design space.

Fallen Empires was a decent expansion, it was underpowered but had some good cards and well made theme. Homelands was awful, poor design and just one good card (Autumn Willow).

I'm not a fan of their 'be a shop or die' policy.

Backfire wrote:[Another thing we did a lot was team games. 2 vs 2 with random pairings was insanely fun, games had ebb & flow and cards which had no use on duels were suddenly quite useful. You had things like animated Aladdin's Lamps crushing your enemies.

We've played a lot of 3 on 3 and 4 on 4 games and nothing shuts those dominating decks down better than having multiple opponents. That deck that makes it impossible for your opponent to do anything against when played one on one really just annoys everyone and results on you getting stomped to death by 3 opponents at once when used in 4 on 4.

Never *ever* bring a permission deck to any game that is not one on one, unless you really like the abuse you will take.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:Chaos Orb was the teacher of that lesson.

Chaos Orb was an awesome fun card to play with, though. Always a hoot when you think you have your perfect throw and your opponent blows the card back on to your side of the table and you screw yourself. That was always so much fun!

Skriker

It's going to sound mean, but 99% of the major complaints you hear about magic design are from people who never got deep enough into magic theory to understand what's behind them.

The vast majority of things I see in this thread either never actually happened or happened 10+ years ago.

Also having played competitive magic AND 40k, I can absolutely say magic is cheaper, in both the short term AND the long term, and I even maintained 3 or 4 standard decks at any given time.

It's going to sound mean, but 99% of the major complaints you hear about magic design are from people who never got deep enough into magic theory to understand what's behind them.

this

Once you really delve into game design and theory you'll find that magic and its cards are a lot more sound design-wise than 40k (can't speak for fantasy).

Yes, there have been mistakes, but bear in mind that magic releases 600+ new cards every year, each of which can be combined with the 12.000+ already existing cards. This compared to GW which releases 2 new codices, about 40 unit entries (if I'm generous) every year, where every unit entry can only be combined with the other ~20 in its dex.

happygolucky wrote:So I have heard a LOT of bad press for it but why dose it have bad press, isn't it simpily a wargame with cards? (I feel like im going to get lectured now...)
.

There's always been some bad press from folks who don't like the concept, but no more than usual for any activity. I played briefly fairly early in it's history (around 1994 or so). Wasn't my thing at all as minis are the attraction to gaming for me, but no hard feelings.

A couple of my wargaming buddies recently returned to Magic after being away for a while and they are having a blast playing casually.

I do take issue with this part of your inquiry.

happygolucky wrote: isn't it simpily a wargame with cards? (I feel like im going to get lectured now...)

Here comes a small lecture

Magic is not a wargame, and certainly not a wargame in the sense that Tabletop wargaming or Tactical boardgames are wargames. Wargame boundaries are pretty wide, but even then magic is pretty far outside what is considered a wargame. Magic is a fantasy collectible card game with almost no relation to a military simulation beside extremely abstract concepts of combat.

Yeah, it's all semantics, and that it's not a wargame should not be a slight to the game. However its always good to define terms. Here's more about what is encompassed in the term "wargame"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

Rented Tritium wrote:The vast majority of things I see in this thread either never actually happened or happened 10+ years ago.

More then that. By the looks of it, most people in this thread didn't experience combo winter.

I still sometimes marvel at the stupidity behind a few card designs in the Urza block; it's like they were asking for what they got. Take Palinchron, for example: The thing practically has "infinite mana engine!" scribbled onto the card. And it's one of the least objectionable broken cards from the Urza block!

Or how about Tinker, aka "Mana costs? Card resources? Feth that, let's let you play any artifact in your deck at any time for three mana!"

And if that's not enough, we'll throw in the best mana engine since Fastbond and Channel!

The good about MtG:

If you have a group that you play friendly games with, then you can have a good way to waste tons of time. We have about 7-8 folks that get together at a house, buy some boosters, and have a small draft. We used to play Elder Dragon Highlander alot since it was a fun way to use all our old cards (still have tons of stuff from 5th to 6th Edition and blocks. MtG is good for quick pickup games, easy to carry a couple of decks with you.

The bad:

If you are thinking about playing in tournaments, then you can easily spend more money than on GW, and have a lot less to show for it. Yeah, a new Codex might screw a unit over and you will need to make an adjustment to your list. But a new block in MtG can instantly invalidate one third of your current cards. Big cards can

If you think that GW or other tabletop games are bad about net-listing, then MtG will really rub you raw. Everyone tries to copy the latest tournament build if you are competing. I feel that MtG has a higher proportion of TFGs than other games, but that might just be my meta.

I still play it with friends, but I got out of the tournament scene a long time ago.

The main thing I like about MtG is that its more tightly balanced and the devs will write about what motivates them to make a card cost x, with y stats and have z ability.

Sometimes they make guffs, less so now than in previous years (Sharazad anyone?), but even when I'm not fully grasping the logic behind certain cards I know that they have at least done a mathematical analysis of the card, and that they are somewhat consistent to a system of design logic and that somebody has done the editor's role and examined the thing with some common sense.

Now GW on the other hand pretty much says "No Comment" to nearly any question regarding design logic and testing, often this goes for fluff too: we get things like the DSing Landraider, TWC, Mandrakes, Vulkan, Spiritual Liege, The Blood Blood of Blood (I'm fine with this being used for Khorne), Wolf nail clippers/hair ornaments/24 hour deodorant, too much of the GK codex.

Yes WotC does produce a hobby that challenges GW for hungriest cash furnace. But at least MaRo isn't going to allow a Matt Ward mistake get by.

Walk into a local MTG comp and you can physically feel the waves of BO, desperation and tragedy emanating from the MTG tables...

No thanks.

I get the same from 40k players at events and local groups.

Trying to justify either fandom is superior to the other is pointless, the same type of people are found in both: Geeks and its a said fact that many people who are geeks have no "social intelligence" as the psych majors in my classes describe it, thus they tend to come off as barely human due to prioritizing their hobby over hygiene, diet or laundry.

Having played both 40k and magic, I'd say the money investment is similar. 40k has a much much much higher cost of entry and magic has a higher maintenance cost.

If you properly watch prices, stay ahead of the curve and buy the right things before they get hot and sell your old stuff BEFORE it rotates, you can get your magic spending down pretty low. It's perfectly reasonable to play the PTQ circuit for a few hundred dollars per year. That's way less than most 40k players spend.

Also, people are quick to harp on rotation for killing your investment, but not everything rotates. Legacy staples and standard legal dual lands always rise in the long term.

And honestly, jockeying to stock up on the next big thing before it rises in price is actually a really thrilling aspect of the pro game. I consider it to be a legitimate part of the experience.

That said, I've found the community for 40k to be on average more concerned with having fun than magic players. It's not better, just different. Sometimes I want to min/max and play a strong game and it's much much MUCH harder to get my 40k game up to that level than it was with magic.

Rented Tritium wrote:If you properly watch prices, stay ahead of the curve and buy the right things before they get hot and sell your old stuff BEFORE it rotates, you can get your magic spending down pretty low. It's perfectly reasonable to play the PTQ circuit for a few hundred dollars per year. That's way less than most 40k players spend.
[...]
And honestly, jockeying to stock up on the next big thing before it rises in price is actually a really thrilling aspect of the pro game. I consider it to be a legitimate part of the experience.

You can even put that more strongly. For a while I was able to play competitive magic and actually turning a profit by staying really tight on the prices (and realizing Tarmogoyf's potential ahead of the curve).

It was fun to do, it felt like playing stockbroker . But I can also really appreciate the calm waters of warhammer. Yes it's generally expensive but at least I have the peace of mind that (barring price-hikes) I will be able to buy unit x for the same price next week as I do today.

I wouldn't call the speculation aspect of Magic fun. It can actually be really stressful, unless you're doing long-run speculation on obvious stuff like dual lands.

AvatarForm wrote:Walk into a local MTG comp and you can physically feel the waves of BO, desperation and tragedy emanating from the MTG tables...

No thanks.

Dear God, you mean they're gamers? Who would have known!

Here's a tip: Next time you go to your LGS to play whatever game you like, bring a gas mask.

TiB wrote:[It was fun to do, it felt like playing stockbroker . But I can also really appreciate the calm waters of warhammer. Yes it's generally expensive but at least I have the peace of mind that (barring price-hikes) I will be able to buy unit x for the same price next week as I do today.

Yeah price-hikes not withstanding!

I still occasionally buy magic boosters to add to my collection, but I just got tired of the collectible aspect of it. When the Axis and Allies mini game was first being marketed it was not supposed to have a collectible aspect. I was excited and looking forward to it and then suddenly it is collectible. Yay... Worse units like T-34 tanks which were a dime a dozen in the war were set up as rare and hard to find items. WTF? No thanks!

I guess for me the real question is why does every game have to appeal to every gamer, and why does it need to appeal to each of those gamers for the same reasons? Firstly not everyone needs to like a game or play it. Secondly in a group of 10 players you could likely get 10 different reasons as to why they like that game...or the other way why they hate that game.

Like warhammer, then play it. Like Magic then play it. Like 'em both, then play them. I play both games the same ways: with friends and not in official tournements to appease my own desires and interests in the games.

Skriker

There is no real hate, for it. WoTC has pushed FNM ( friday night magic) for a long time, to introduce people to a tournament enviroment.

You meet new people play new decks, ( because really playing against your best buddies mono white life gain deck for the 1000th time isnt that much fun)

It has a competitive nature built into it,

Clearly defined rules, tournaments being supported, and one tournament type leading to another.

In MTG the "fluff" is hardly a part of the playing experience most of the novels are just terrible ( there are exceptions, ) so it doesnt come into play, it iis MUCH easier to start playing magic, as it is

A. cheaper
B quicker ( no paint, no modeling my deck will look just like everyone elses except that one guy with 40 foils in his deck)
c. Quick pick up games.

It is just a different game experience.

There was a time when the novels were quite good. That time was long ago.

The Thran and Brothers War were fan. tastic.

I like MTG a lot. Its fast based and requires a lot of thinking and strategy to play. Its also really easy to start, since you can just buy an starter or event deck (if you like challenge). Though now days it has become really competitive in standard format, but if you like to just play for lolz then Elder Dragon Highlander (commander) is the game for you. I've started an G/W human deck because of two things:

1.I wanted to compete against other deck with an unique deck of my own (deck spamming is )
2.I like challenge, and MTG is a perfect game for that.
3.The deck costs over 100€ but is really flavourful and fun to play. I can also attend to tournaments with it.

I have pretty fun friends, who all play MTG but fortunately don't spam a lot. MTG is a great game, but its not for everyone due to its difficulty and somewhat expensive nature.

The new modern format plus legacy are both getting very popular, so there's no longer a single dominant format, this means the price of singles for standard has dropped slightly.

But legacy prices have been going through the roof .

I like Magic because it is a very tight ruleset. They run tournaments very effectively. They cater to the hardcore tournament players and the casual players at the same time.

Yes, it can be very pricey. I happen to be one the "lucky" ones with access to all the OLD stuff, so primarily play Vintage, where I don't need to add new cards to my collection all that often. Standard players are churning out a ton on new cards every few months. But at least they can also usually resell at full value or even HIGHER, which is unique.

I'm getting back into it again... mostly just online though. Loving Innistrad right now.

I never did get the hang of deck building. I play with premades now.

There's some weird stigma with MTG that I sort of don't understand. It can be applied to most any other game but for some reason amongst people I game with MTG is considered the worst of them all.

At tournament level, players spend more on a deck per release or season than many 40k players do (I've not known ANY miniatures players to drop more than $3000 on an army for one tournament. I've known several M:TCC (Magic: The cash cow) players whom did.).

This also runs the risk at the larger events of having your expensive pile of cards stolen (like the estimated $30,000 USD valued tier 1 deck stolen at GenCon this year).

I played it for all my childhood.

why it is great: it is fun, the rules are fast, the game is rarely boring, the strategies are many, the balance is important around the factions in each edition.

why i stoped: at the start, to get a good deck you needed a lot of cheap cards strategic assembled together, some not so cheap to add the sauce, and normally a small bunch of rare costly cards to act as key factor of your strategy. That was fine, and a good deck could be built with 300 U$.

Today, each edition bring a new powerfull bunch of rare cards who auto-win the game, some common cards are so strong as old rare ones, and the real competitive decks have tons of the rariest costly cards on them (that can cost over 50 U$).

Sadly, 40k is slowly becoming something like that... and im afraid...