Mixing
What could go wrong if Magic: the Gathering adopts Hearthstone's play/draw rule?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In Magic, the player who goes first doesn't get to draw a card on the first turn, i.e. the player who goes second plays each turn with an extra card. This typically isn't enough compensation and everyone chooses to play first almost all the time in constructed.
In addition to this mechanic, Hearthstone also allows the second player to start with a "Coin", which is effectively Lotus Petal. Can Magic adopt this mechanic as well?
Obviously Magic is more complicated than Hearthstone and Lotus Petal introduces new risks, e.g. Lotus Petal is a permanent (e.g. counts for City's Blessing), an artifact (e.g. counts for Improvise), can be sacrificed (e.g. counts for Revolt), and so on. However, I can't think of any way this lets the second player do really degenerate things like win on turn 1. Instead, this would let the second player counter these turn 1 win attempts by e.g. casting Spell Pierce.
Is there any dangerous combo that could be enabled by giving the second player a free Lotus Petal? If so, what combo could it be?
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In Magic, the player who goes first doesn't get to draw a card on the first turn, i.e. the player who goes second plays each turn with an extra card. This typically isn't enough compensation and everyone chooses to play first almost all the time in constructed.
In addition to this mechanic, Hearthstone also allows the second player to start with a "Coin", which is effectively Lotus Petal. Can Magic adopt this mechanic as well?
Obviously Magic is more complicated than Hearthstone and Lotus Petal introduces new risks, e.g. Lotus Petal is a permanent (e.g. counts for City's Blessing), an artifact (e.g. counts for Improvise), can be sacrificed (e.g. counts for Revolt), and so on. However, I can't think of any way this lets the second player do really degenerate things like win on turn 1. Instead, this would let the second player counter these turn 1 win attempts by e.g. casting Spell Pierce.
Is there any dangerous combo that could be enabled by giving the second player a free Lotus Petal? If so, what combo could it be?
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
It's more like a 0 mana instant than a petal, though.
– Arthur
2 hours ago
Yu-Gi-Oh! also recently modified their rulings to specify that the player going first doesn't draw a card, as going first and having a +1 seemed like an advantage over the second player.
– DarkCygnus
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In Magic, the player who goes first doesn't get to draw a card on the first turn, i.e. the player who goes second plays each turn with an extra card. This typically isn't enough compensation and everyone chooses to play first almost all the time in constructed.
In addition to this mechanic, Hearthstone also allows the second player to start with a "Coin", which is effectively Lotus Petal. Can Magic adopt this mechanic as well?
Obviously Magic is more complicated than Hearthstone and Lotus Petal introduces new risks, e.g. Lotus Petal is a permanent (e.g. counts for City's Blessing), an artifact (e.g. counts for Improvise), can be sacrificed (e.g. counts for Revolt), and so on. However, I can't think of any way this lets the second player do really degenerate things like win on turn 1. Instead, this would let the second player counter these turn 1 win attempts by e.g. casting Spell Pierce.
Is there any dangerous combo that could be enabled by giving the second player a free Lotus Petal? If so, what combo could it be?
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
In Magic, the player who goes first doesn't get to draw a card on the first turn, i.e. the player who goes second plays each turn with an extra card. This typically isn't enough compensation and everyone chooses to play first almost all the time in constructed.
In addition to this mechanic, Hearthstone also allows the second player to start with a "Coin", which is effectively Lotus Petal. Can Magic adopt this mechanic as well?
Obviously Magic is more complicated than Hearthstone and Lotus Petal introduces new risks, e.g. Lotus Petal is a permanent (e.g. counts for City's Blessing), an artifact (e.g. counts for Improvise), can be sacrificed (e.g. counts for Revolt), and so on. However, I can't think of any way this lets the second player do really degenerate things like win on turn 1. Instead, this would let the second player counter these turn 1 win attempts by e.g. casting Spell Pierce.
Is there any dangerous combo that could be enabled by giving the second player a free Lotus Petal? If so, what combo could it be?
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
edited 5 hours ago
Glorfindel
7581417
7581417
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
2497
2497
It's more like a 0 mana instant than a petal, though.
– Arthur
2 hours ago
Yu-Gi-Oh! also recently modified their rulings to specify that the player going first doesn't draw a card, as going first and having a +1 seemed like an advantage over the second player.
– DarkCygnus
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It's more like a 0 mana instant than a petal, though.
– Arthur
2 hours ago
Yu-Gi-Oh! also recently modified their rulings to specify that the player going first doesn't draw a card, as going first and having a +1 seemed like an advantage over the second player.
– DarkCygnus
2 hours ago
It's more like a 0 mana instant than a petal, though.
– Arthur
2 hours ago
It's more like a 0 mana instant than a petal, though.
– Arthur
2 hours ago
Yu-Gi-Oh! also recently modified their rulings to specify that the player going first doesn't draw a card, as going first and having a +1 seemed like an advantage over the second player.
– DarkCygnus
2 hours ago
Yu-Gi-Oh! also recently modified their rulings to specify that the player going first doesn't draw a card, as going first and having a +1 seemed like an advantage over the second player.
– DarkCygnus
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Mana and land is an integral part of the Magic. It controls the pacing of the game and gives you a limited resource which can make for interesting choices. A reason the one land per turn rule exists is to enforce that pacing and make sure both sides have a fair chance to build up and respond to an opponent's threats.
Many decks build their mana base so that they can hit certain drops as early as possible. If your deck runs on 3 mana (most of your key cards cost 3), you make sure you can reliably drop a land every turn for the first 3 turns. If your deck needs to hit 4 drops on turn 4, you add more mana or add ramp. If your deck has multiple colors, you think about adding color fixing so you can play what you need to as early as possible.
Think about what happens when you miss a crucial land drop. Your turn is now probably wasted and you are put at a great disadvantage. Each increase in cost generally coincides with an increase in power. It's hard to keep pace with an opponent's 3 drops when you can only play 2 cost spells.
So what happens if you gave one person a free Lotus Petal? Well, you've just given that player a turn advantage (they can play a spell a turn ahead now), ramp and color fixing. That's powerful. And that doesn't even include the synergies you've touched on.
Imagine what you could do if you had one extra mana, even if it was just once. Turn 2 Steel Leaf Champion? How would you respond to that? Turn 3 Liliana of the Dark Realms? Yes please. If you are playing burn, how awesome would it be to get to drop an extra burn spell early? Playing aggro? Establish your board dominance faster.
The single extra mana alone would probably be too powerful, let alone any synergies from having a bonus sacable artifact on the field.
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
There are already decks that win on turn one, giving one extra mana on that turn enables these decks to be more reliable.
One example of a deck that wins turn one, and already wants to be on the draw, is Flash Hulk. While Flash has been banned in legacy and restricted in vintage, the combo only needs two mana, one of it blue, to win turn 1. This two mana is usually accomplished with Gemstone Caverns, Elvish Spirit Guide or Simian Spirit Guide and the land drop for the turn, usually an Island. Adding one free mana would mean you no longer need one of those three cards, just Flash and Protean Hulk and your land for turn in the opening hand.
Flash is used to cast Protean Hulk, which must be sacrificed since you can't pay the 4 generic mana required by Flash, triggering Protean Hulk's death effect. That effect could search for many things, 4 Disciple of the Vault and X cost artifact creatures like Phyrexian Marauder and Shifting Wall, using the 0 toughness artifact creatures dying to trigger the Disciples, or 4 Virulent Sliver and a Heart Sliver to swing 5 poisonous 4 hasted creatures turn 1, doing double the lethal poison count.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Practical implementation problems of paper magic aside, the effect of the change would depend on the format. The faster the format, the more likely the change would warp it. I would expect a free Petal for the player to strongly warp the game in favor of going second. Considering that Petal has been banned/restricted from competitive play for many years and has only been reprinted for online play, the chances of WotC giving everyone free a Lotus Petal on their starting hand for being on the draw are slim to none.
From a practical standpoint, in paper Magic you would have to provide and distribute what amounts to Lotus Petal token cards from now to until the rule is abolished. Since it's a general rule, you could not limit the distribution to certain blocks, like with transform proxy cards. That limits how many other token cards you could include in future sets.
You would sharply devalue the secondary market value of actual Lotus Petals, both paper and online, because there would be much less incentive to include them in your deck. While Lotus Petal is obviously nowhere near power 9 levels of prices, WotC has been known to respect the secondary market by vowing to never reprint certain rare cards on paper. Considering the similar gameplay purpose of Lotus Petal, the change might even negatively affect prices of Moxes and Lotus.
From a gameplay perspective, the Petal would have the biggest effect in the eternal formats, where a match can be decided within few turns. As you already mentioned, there is a multitude of archetypes that would be affected by a free (as in hand cards), free (as in mana cost) artifact that produces mana. It would most likely promote combo decks that need to generate a certain amount of mana within a single turn to go off.
I can't go into specific combos that would be enabled by Lotus Petal. Suffice to say that there are already decks that win on turn 1, and a Petal would only enable more of them. That is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, the meta would adapt around that.
In any case, constructing and piloting a deck would become much more complex, because being on the play and on the draw would be even more different than today. In a way, it would also make the outcome of games, at least the first in a series, more luck-dependent. Since a Petal is such a strong card, most players will be compelled to optimize their deck for having one, and that means you are more dependant on the luck of the coin flip in the first match of a series. That can't be healthy for a game that already involves quite a bit of RNG.
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Mana and land is an integral part of the Magic. It controls the pacing of the game and gives you a limited resource which can make for interesting choices. A reason the one land per turn rule exists is to enforce that pacing and make sure both sides have a fair chance to build up and respond to an opponent's threats.
Many decks build their mana base so that they can hit certain drops as early as possible. If your deck runs on 3 mana (most of your key cards cost 3), you make sure you can reliably drop a land every turn for the first 3 turns. If your deck needs to hit 4 drops on turn 4, you add more mana or add ramp. If your deck has multiple colors, you think about adding color fixing so you can play what you need to as early as possible.
Think about what happens when you miss a crucial land drop. Your turn is now probably wasted and you are put at a great disadvantage. Each increase in cost generally coincides with an increase in power. It's hard to keep pace with an opponent's 3 drops when you can only play 2 cost spells.
So what happens if you gave one person a free Lotus Petal? Well, you've just given that player a turn advantage (they can play a spell a turn ahead now), ramp and color fixing. That's powerful. And that doesn't even include the synergies you've touched on.
Imagine what you could do if you had one extra mana, even if it was just once. Turn 2 Steel Leaf Champion? How would you respond to that? Turn 3 Liliana of the Dark Realms? Yes please. If you are playing burn, how awesome would it be to get to drop an extra burn spell early? Playing aggro? Establish your board dominance faster.
The single extra mana alone would probably be too powerful, let alone any synergies from having a bonus sacable artifact on the field.
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Mana and land is an integral part of the Magic. It controls the pacing of the game and gives you a limited resource which can make for interesting choices. A reason the one land per turn rule exists is to enforce that pacing and make sure both sides have a fair chance to build up and respond to an opponent's threats.
Many decks build their mana base so that they can hit certain drops as early as possible. If your deck runs on 3 mana (most of your key cards cost 3), you make sure you can reliably drop a land every turn for the first 3 turns. If your deck needs to hit 4 drops on turn 4, you add more mana or add ramp. If your deck has multiple colors, you think about adding color fixing so you can play what you need to as early as possible.
Think about what happens when you miss a crucial land drop. Your turn is now probably wasted and you are put at a great disadvantage. Each increase in cost generally coincides with an increase in power. It's hard to keep pace with an opponent's 3 drops when you can only play 2 cost spells.
So what happens if you gave one person a free Lotus Petal? Well, you've just given that player a turn advantage (they can play a spell a turn ahead now), ramp and color fixing. That's powerful. And that doesn't even include the synergies you've touched on.
Imagine what you could do if you had one extra mana, even if it was just once. Turn 2 Steel Leaf Champion? How would you respond to that? Turn 3 Liliana of the Dark Realms? Yes please. If you are playing burn, how awesome would it be to get to drop an extra burn spell early? Playing aggro? Establish your board dominance faster.
The single extra mana alone would probably be too powerful, let alone any synergies from having a bonus sacable artifact on the field.
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Mana and land is an integral part of the Magic. It controls the pacing of the game and gives you a limited resource which can make for interesting choices. A reason the one land per turn rule exists is to enforce that pacing and make sure both sides have a fair chance to build up and respond to an opponent's threats.
Many decks build their mana base so that they can hit certain drops as early as possible. If your deck runs on 3 mana (most of your key cards cost 3), you make sure you can reliably drop a land every turn for the first 3 turns. If your deck needs to hit 4 drops on turn 4, you add more mana or add ramp. If your deck has multiple colors, you think about adding color fixing so you can play what you need to as early as possible.
Think about what happens when you miss a crucial land drop. Your turn is now probably wasted and you are put at a great disadvantage. Each increase in cost generally coincides with an increase in power. It's hard to keep pace with an opponent's 3 drops when you can only play 2 cost spells.
So what happens if you gave one person a free Lotus Petal? Well, you've just given that player a turn advantage (they can play a spell a turn ahead now), ramp and color fixing. That's powerful. And that doesn't even include the synergies you've touched on.
Imagine what you could do if you had one extra mana, even if it was just once. Turn 2 Steel Leaf Champion? How would you respond to that? Turn 3 Liliana of the Dark Realms? Yes please. If you are playing burn, how awesome would it be to get to drop an extra burn spell early? Playing aggro? Establish your board dominance faster.
The single extra mana alone would probably be too powerful, let alone any synergies from having a bonus sacable artifact on the field.
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
Mana and land is an integral part of the Magic. It controls the pacing of the game and gives you a limited resource which can make for interesting choices. A reason the one land per turn rule exists is to enforce that pacing and make sure both sides have a fair chance to build up and respond to an opponent's threats.
Many decks build their mana base so that they can hit certain drops as early as possible. If your deck runs on 3 mana (most of your key cards cost 3), you make sure you can reliably drop a land every turn for the first 3 turns. If your deck needs to hit 4 drops on turn 4, you add more mana or add ramp. If your deck has multiple colors, you think about adding color fixing so you can play what you need to as early as possible.
Think about what happens when you miss a crucial land drop. Your turn is now probably wasted and you are put at a great disadvantage. Each increase in cost generally coincides with an increase in power. It's hard to keep pace with an opponent's 3 drops when you can only play 2 cost spells.
So what happens if you gave one person a free Lotus Petal? Well, you've just given that player a turn advantage (they can play a spell a turn ahead now), ramp and color fixing. That's powerful. And that doesn't even include the synergies you've touched on.
Imagine what you could do if you had one extra mana, even if it was just once. Turn 2 Steel Leaf Champion? How would you respond to that? Turn 3 Liliana of the Dark Realms? Yes please. If you are playing burn, how awesome would it be to get to drop an extra burn spell early? Playing aggro? Establish your board dominance faster.
The single extra mana alone would probably be too powerful, let alone any synergies from having a bonus sacable artifact on the field.
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
answered 2 hours ago
Becuzz
2,432813
2,432813
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
There are already decks that win on turn one, giving one extra mana on that turn enables these decks to be more reliable.
One example of a deck that wins turn one, and already wants to be on the draw, is Flash Hulk. While Flash has been banned in legacy and restricted in vintage, the combo only needs two mana, one of it blue, to win turn 1. This two mana is usually accomplished with Gemstone Caverns, Elvish Spirit Guide or Simian Spirit Guide and the land drop for the turn, usually an Island. Adding one free mana would mean you no longer need one of those three cards, just Flash and Protean Hulk and your land for turn in the opening hand.
Flash is used to cast Protean Hulk, which must be sacrificed since you can't pay the 4 generic mana required by Flash, triggering Protean Hulk's death effect. That effect could search for many things, 4 Disciple of the Vault and X cost artifact creatures like Phyrexian Marauder and Shifting Wall, using the 0 toughness artifact creatures dying to trigger the Disciples, or 4 Virulent Sliver and a Heart Sliver to swing 5 poisonous 4 hasted creatures turn 1, doing double the lethal poison count.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
There are already decks that win on turn one, giving one extra mana on that turn enables these decks to be more reliable.
One example of a deck that wins turn one, and already wants to be on the draw, is Flash Hulk. While Flash has been banned in legacy and restricted in vintage, the combo only needs two mana, one of it blue, to win turn 1. This two mana is usually accomplished with Gemstone Caverns, Elvish Spirit Guide or Simian Spirit Guide and the land drop for the turn, usually an Island. Adding one free mana would mean you no longer need one of those three cards, just Flash and Protean Hulk and your land for turn in the opening hand.
Flash is used to cast Protean Hulk, which must be sacrificed since you can't pay the 4 generic mana required by Flash, triggering Protean Hulk's death effect. That effect could search for many things, 4 Disciple of the Vault and X cost artifact creatures like Phyrexian Marauder and Shifting Wall, using the 0 toughness artifact creatures dying to trigger the Disciples, or 4 Virulent Sliver and a Heart Sliver to swing 5 poisonous 4 hasted creatures turn 1, doing double the lethal poison count.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
There are already decks that win on turn one, giving one extra mana on that turn enables these decks to be more reliable.
One example of a deck that wins turn one, and already wants to be on the draw, is Flash Hulk. While Flash has been banned in legacy and restricted in vintage, the combo only needs two mana, one of it blue, to win turn 1. This two mana is usually accomplished with Gemstone Caverns, Elvish Spirit Guide or Simian Spirit Guide and the land drop for the turn, usually an Island. Adding one free mana would mean you no longer need one of those three cards, just Flash and Protean Hulk and your land for turn in the opening hand.
Flash is used to cast Protean Hulk, which must be sacrificed since you can't pay the 4 generic mana required by Flash, triggering Protean Hulk's death effect. That effect could search for many things, 4 Disciple of the Vault and X cost artifact creatures like Phyrexian Marauder and Shifting Wall, using the 0 toughness artifact creatures dying to trigger the Disciples, or 4 Virulent Sliver and a Heart Sliver to swing 5 poisonous 4 hasted creatures turn 1, doing double the lethal poison count.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
There are already decks that win on turn one, giving one extra mana on that turn enables these decks to be more reliable.
One example of a deck that wins turn one, and already wants to be on the draw, is Flash Hulk. While Flash has been banned in legacy and restricted in vintage, the combo only needs two mana, one of it blue, to win turn 1. This two mana is usually accomplished with Gemstone Caverns, Elvish Spirit Guide or Simian Spirit Guide and the land drop for the turn, usually an Island. Adding one free mana would mean you no longer need one of those three cards, just Flash and Protean Hulk and your land for turn in the opening hand.
Flash is used to cast Protean Hulk, which must be sacrificed since you can't pay the 4 generic mana required by Flash, triggering Protean Hulk's death effect. That effect could search for many things, 4 Disciple of the Vault and X cost artifact creatures like Phyrexian Marauder and Shifting Wall, using the 0 toughness artifact creatures dying to trigger the Disciples, or 4 Virulent Sliver and a Heart Sliver to swing 5 poisonous 4 hasted creatures turn 1, doing double the lethal poison count.
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
answered 2 hours ago
Andrew
3,463327
3,463327
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
As a note, the reason flashhulk usually prefers the draw is Gemstone Caverns works when you do not go first.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Practical implementation problems of paper magic aside, the effect of the change would depend on the format. The faster the format, the more likely the change would warp it. I would expect a free Petal for the player to strongly warp the game in favor of going second. Considering that Petal has been banned/restricted from competitive play for many years and has only been reprinted for online play, the chances of WotC giving everyone free a Lotus Petal on their starting hand for being on the draw are slim to none.
From a practical standpoint, in paper Magic you would have to provide and distribute what amounts to Lotus Petal token cards from now to until the rule is abolished. Since it's a general rule, you could not limit the distribution to certain blocks, like with transform proxy cards. That limits how many other token cards you could include in future sets.
You would sharply devalue the secondary market value of actual Lotus Petals, both paper and online, because there would be much less incentive to include them in your deck. While Lotus Petal is obviously nowhere near power 9 levels of prices, WotC has been known to respect the secondary market by vowing to never reprint certain rare cards on paper. Considering the similar gameplay purpose of Lotus Petal, the change might even negatively affect prices of Moxes and Lotus.
From a gameplay perspective, the Petal would have the biggest effect in the eternal formats, where a match can be decided within few turns. As you already mentioned, there is a multitude of archetypes that would be affected by a free (as in hand cards), free (as in mana cost) artifact that produces mana. It would most likely promote combo decks that need to generate a certain amount of mana within a single turn to go off.
I can't go into specific combos that would be enabled by Lotus Petal. Suffice to say that there are already decks that win on turn 1, and a Petal would only enable more of them. That is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, the meta would adapt around that.
In any case, constructing and piloting a deck would become much more complex, because being on the play and on the draw would be even more different than today. In a way, it would also make the outcome of games, at least the first in a series, more luck-dependent. Since a Petal is such a strong card, most players will be compelled to optimize their deck for having one, and that means you are more dependant on the luck of the coin flip in the first match of a series. That can't be healthy for a game that already involves quite a bit of RNG.
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Practical implementation problems of paper magic aside, the effect of the change would depend on the format. The faster the format, the more likely the change would warp it. I would expect a free Petal for the player to strongly warp the game in favor of going second. Considering that Petal has been banned/restricted from competitive play for many years and has only been reprinted for online play, the chances of WotC giving everyone free a Lotus Petal on their starting hand for being on the draw are slim to none.
From a practical standpoint, in paper Magic you would have to provide and distribute what amounts to Lotus Petal token cards from now to until the rule is abolished. Since it's a general rule, you could not limit the distribution to certain blocks, like with transform proxy cards. That limits how many other token cards you could include in future sets.
You would sharply devalue the secondary market value of actual Lotus Petals, both paper and online, because there would be much less incentive to include them in your deck. While Lotus Petal is obviously nowhere near power 9 levels of prices, WotC has been known to respect the secondary market by vowing to never reprint certain rare cards on paper. Considering the similar gameplay purpose of Lotus Petal, the change might even negatively affect prices of Moxes and Lotus.
From a gameplay perspective, the Petal would have the biggest effect in the eternal formats, where a match can be decided within few turns. As you already mentioned, there is a multitude of archetypes that would be affected by a free (as in hand cards), free (as in mana cost) artifact that produces mana. It would most likely promote combo decks that need to generate a certain amount of mana within a single turn to go off.
I can't go into specific combos that would be enabled by Lotus Petal. Suffice to say that there are already decks that win on turn 1, and a Petal would only enable more of them. That is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, the meta would adapt around that.
In any case, constructing and piloting a deck would become much more complex, because being on the play and on the draw would be even more different than today. In a way, it would also make the outcome of games, at least the first in a series, more luck-dependent. Since a Petal is such a strong card, most players will be compelled to optimize their deck for having one, and that means you are more dependant on the luck of the coin flip in the first match of a series. That can't be healthy for a game that already involves quite a bit of RNG.
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Practical implementation problems of paper magic aside, the effect of the change would depend on the format. The faster the format, the more likely the change would warp it. I would expect a free Petal for the player to strongly warp the game in favor of going second. Considering that Petal has been banned/restricted from competitive play for many years and has only been reprinted for online play, the chances of WotC giving everyone free a Lotus Petal on their starting hand for being on the draw are slim to none.
From a practical standpoint, in paper Magic you would have to provide and distribute what amounts to Lotus Petal token cards from now to until the rule is abolished. Since it's a general rule, you could not limit the distribution to certain blocks, like with transform proxy cards. That limits how many other token cards you could include in future sets.
You would sharply devalue the secondary market value of actual Lotus Petals, both paper and online, because there would be much less incentive to include them in your deck. While Lotus Petal is obviously nowhere near power 9 levels of prices, WotC has been known to respect the secondary market by vowing to never reprint certain rare cards on paper. Considering the similar gameplay purpose of Lotus Petal, the change might even negatively affect prices of Moxes and Lotus.
From a gameplay perspective, the Petal would have the biggest effect in the eternal formats, where a match can be decided within few turns. As you already mentioned, there is a multitude of archetypes that would be affected by a free (as in hand cards), free (as in mana cost) artifact that produces mana. It would most likely promote combo decks that need to generate a certain amount of mana within a single turn to go off.
I can't go into specific combos that would be enabled by Lotus Petal. Suffice to say that there are already decks that win on turn 1, and a Petal would only enable more of them. That is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, the meta would adapt around that.
In any case, constructing and piloting a deck would become much more complex, because being on the play and on the draw would be even more different than today. In a way, it would also make the outcome of games, at least the first in a series, more luck-dependent. Since a Petal is such a strong card, most players will be compelled to optimize their deck for having one, and that means you are more dependant on the luck of the coin flip in the first match of a series. That can't be healthy for a game that already involves quite a bit of RNG.
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
Practical implementation problems of paper magic aside, the effect of the change would depend on the format. The faster the format, the more likely the change would warp it. I would expect a free Petal for the player to strongly warp the game in favor of going second. Considering that Petal has been banned/restricted from competitive play for many years and has only been reprinted for online play, the chances of WotC giving everyone free a Lotus Petal on their starting hand for being on the draw are slim to none.
From a practical standpoint, in paper Magic you would have to provide and distribute what amounts to Lotus Petal token cards from now to until the rule is abolished. Since it's a general rule, you could not limit the distribution to certain blocks, like with transform proxy cards. That limits how many other token cards you could include in future sets.
You would sharply devalue the secondary market value of actual Lotus Petals, both paper and online, because there would be much less incentive to include them in your deck. While Lotus Petal is obviously nowhere near power 9 levels of prices, WotC has been known to respect the secondary market by vowing to never reprint certain rare cards on paper. Considering the similar gameplay purpose of Lotus Petal, the change might even negatively affect prices of Moxes and Lotus.
From a gameplay perspective, the Petal would have the biggest effect in the eternal formats, where a match can be decided within few turns. As you already mentioned, there is a multitude of archetypes that would be affected by a free (as in hand cards), free (as in mana cost) artifact that produces mana. It would most likely promote combo decks that need to generate a certain amount of mana within a single turn to go off.
I can't go into specific combos that would be enabled by Lotus Petal. Suffice to say that there are already decks that win on turn 1, and a Petal would only enable more of them. That is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, the meta would adapt around that.
In any case, constructing and piloting a deck would become much more complex, because being on the play and on the draw would be even more different than today. In a way, it would also make the outcome of games, at least the first in a series, more luck-dependent. Since a Petal is such a strong card, most players will be compelled to optimize their deck for having one, and that means you are more dependant on the luck of the coin flip in the first match of a series. That can't be healthy for a game that already involves quite a bit of RNG.
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
answered 4 hours ago
Hackworth
24.2k261110
24.2k261110
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43975%2fwhat-could-go-wrong-if-magic-the-gathering-adopts-hearthstones-play-draw-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
It's more like a 0 mana instant than a petal, though.
– Arthur
2 hours ago
Yu-Gi-Oh! also recently modified their rulings to specify that the player going first doesn't draw a card, as going first and having a +1 seemed like an advantage over the second player.
– DarkCygnus
2 hours ago