I haven't gone through every post but I have yet to see anyone mention the flavor mana burn added to the game. Mana is magical energy that a mage channels through him and if he doesn't expel this excess energy it hurts him.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Citadel of Pain beauty was "damned if you do, damned if you don't.".
How is that beautiful in a game that has always been about interactivity between players?
Your example is take 4 damage or lose 4 life pre m10.Not interactive at all.If they could survive the damage they'd always leave the lands untapped so they could still play spells during the opponents turn.Otherwise they'd still be 4 down and not be able to paly spells during the oppponents turn,which is always the wrong move.
Post m10 however it becomes take 4 damage or not play spells during their opponents turn?A player now has to actually think about what they want to do,not just be forced to go for the always correct answer.
If you need a great example of an interactive and interesting example of such a card look no futher than Choice of Damnations
And no ones had a good counter point as to why you can take in mana without a problem.Seriously if mana is that volitale the lands should explode just for holding it and doing nothing with it.Mages bond to the land so it shouldn't hurt them anymore than it doesn't destroy the land.Furthermore people seem to forget that lands are filtering in power from the blind etenities.Mages are useing an already filtered power source.
Thats like haveing three bottles of water but only needing to drink two but drink the third anyway.Its not going to harm me in the least.
People keep acting like every situation of over drawing mana is by some ridiculous number,no one channels the...POWER OF THE ENTIRE COSMOS!!! to play...Elite Vanguard.Even a new player would really only do that once or twice because they'd realize all that extra huffing and puffing didn't blow anyones house down.If you think otherwise your a self absorbed elitist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
The main reason I'm elated that mana burn is gone is that one time when I wasn't as experienced playing the game and the turn just before I was going to win, the bastard cast a recently released card that I mocked and hated immediately for being terrible: Hidetsugu's Second Rite. Being a noob, I lost to that one card even noobs can dodge.
Jiyor...a single mana is the potential for an incredible amount of energy. Do you have any idea just how much can be made with a single mana? Any idea? Try a creature bigger than a colossus. And yes, you have to ditch a bunch of creatures to keep it out, but it's still a massive beast.
Mana is a fundamental property of existence, not of land itself, and the act of drawing mana into one's mind involves remembering a place of relevance or resonance and generating energy around that thought. Some creatures do so more easily than others, but all the same, all that energy lodged in a being's mind is likely to take its toll if it isn't channeled into something. It is flavorful, it did make sense, and it still is illogical that mana burn's absence hasn't been explained.
Oh, and as far as "land" goes, mountains, oceans, castles, forests, academies and the like tend to have that poignancy that rings true in a person's head to the point they can generate mana - a.k.a. magical potential - from the focus of that memory.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
The main reason I'm elated that mana burn is gone is that one time when I wasn't as experienced playing the game and the turn just before I was going to win, the bastard cast a recently released card that I mocked and hated immediately for being terrible: Hidetsugu's Second Rite. Being a noob, I lost to that one card even noobs can dodge.
Only if you know it's coming and you somehow manage to burn yourself before they draw it or have the mana to cast it. Once you're at 10 and they cast the Rite (and remember, it's an instant), there's nothing you can do to dodge it.
It is flavorful, it did make sense, and it still is illogical that mana burn's absence hasn't been explained.
Like I said in my first post in this thread, a lot of these rules decisions are done by people who view the rules without any of the flavour involved. They aren't alone, either: a large subset of players are entirely mechanically oriented and could not care less about what "mana" actually is except as a nonsensical word for the kind of currency/resources you use to play cards. To that subset, mana burn is a useless niche rule that needs to be pruned because the only argument for its existence is in resource management and the argument for its removal is that it doesn't usually come up.
But if that's the prevailing way to think, then why have flavour text? Or even art? They aren't relevant to actual gameplay, after all (Unglued/Unhinged doesn't count).
Only if you know it's coming and you somehow manage to burn yourself before they draw it or have the mana to cast it. Once you're at 10 and they cast the Rite (and remember, it's an instant), there's nothing you can do to dodge it.
Thanks. Good thing I'm still a bit of a noob. I feel there's one less life regret to confess in my deathbed, but I'm still glad mana burn is gone.
Only if you know it's coming and you somehow manage to burn yourself before they draw it or have the mana to cast it. Once you're at 10 and they cast the Rite (and remember, it's an instant), there's nothing you can do to dodge it.
Like I said in my first post in this thread, a lot of these rules decisions are done by people who view the rules without any of the flavour involved. They aren't alone, either: a large subset of players are entirely mechanically oriented and could not care less about what "mana" actually is except as a nonsensical word for the kind of currency/resources you use to play cards. To that subset, mana burn is a useless niche rule that needs to be pruned because the only argument for its existence is in resource management and the argument for its removal is that it doesn't usually come up.
But if that's the prevailing way to think, then why have flavour text? Or even art? They aren't relevant to actual gameplay, after all (Unglued/Unhinged doesn't count).
There's a giant gap between "not relevant to actual gameplay" and "counterproductive to actual gameplay". And, indeed, whenever those things are counterproductive to actual gameplay, they get axed - e.g. flavor text always steps away to make room for long rules text.
So you're arguing that in a sizable number of normal games, across and between all the player types from the casual to the competitive levels, mana burn impeded not only the normal progression of but also the enjoyment of the game of Magic as a whole? It was counterproductive to the general process of drawing a card, laying a land, attacking with creatures, and playing spells? That's downright ludicrous.
Flavorfully: The mana bursting out of the body. Harming the body, for it was not made to be contained in such "unworthy" vessels as that mana goes returns the source. Maybe with some other magic you could contain it?
Mechanically: Unspent mana does 1 damage and empties the pool. Omnath and Upwelling to keep it from leaving.
This argument is odd and very strange from both sides. Each side shows knowledge and yet at the same time, ignorance. Even though each bit of knowledge that matters from both sides have been repeated several if not many times. I suppose it is true what they say, history does repeat itself.
So you're arguing that in a sizable number of normal games, across and between all the player types from the casual to the competitive levels, mana burn impeded not only the normal progression of but also the enjoyment of the game of Magic as a whole?
Doesn't have to affect every game, or every level, to be a design problem.
It was counterproductive to the general process of drawing a card, laying a land, attacking with creatures, and playing spells?
Gameplay is more than that.
If a gameplay element is not fun, then it doesn't matter whether or not it specifically prevents you from accessing the other elements of gameplay that are fun, it's still counterproductive to the point of gameplay design.
So it's "not fun" to the same degree hard locks and first-turn wins are not fun to anyone having to play against them? Or it's "not fun" to the same degree counterspells and land destruction are in the opinion of every casual-room idiot in Magic Online? Or just "not fun" to the degree "I attacked with my creature, but you Doom Bladed it" is to every Timmy out there?
Really, I can't think of any situations where it's even as "not fun" as getting your big creature killed. Maybe you could enlighten me as to the specifics of how mana burn is "not fun", because the least fun situation I can possibly think of is "late-game topdeck Manamorphose, cast, draw land, burn for 2". Which is a calculated risk and you go into it knowing that might happen.
The designers, and I, and other players presented here, clearly disagree.
With all due respect, the designers lied about their reasons, and they absolutely weren't because it impeded gameplay in anyway.
There's no way people routinely tapped 5 lands to pay a 3cc spell. This is a 3rd grade task to master. I'm pretty confident that people have a good grasp on it pretty much unilaterally.
I also doubt that anyone without a good grasp of the rules at that level weren't playing in any event with an Level high enough for it to be an issue, and if they were, I doubt they made it past the first game.
Like many of the M10 changes, Mana Burn wasn't made for any reason other than to stealth in a way to make new cards. They're running out of variables they can play with, it's very obvious to analysis. So they changed the Mana Burn rule so they could have new variables, such as cards that are dependant on life totals, alternate win conditions, or bypassing the rules on mana pools emptying.
Which is fine, if they'd presented it that way, but they didn't. They instead tried to take the path of arguing for the new player and the casual player. Ignoring that the new player would make that mistake only once, if he did at all, and the Casual doesn't really care anyways. They don't want to indicate any growing weakness in Mtg, because they realize one very important thing...
People consider Mtg to be an investment.
If WOTC gives any indication of weakness, any indication they're running out of space, it'll start a stampede as people try to liquidate immediately and get their money out. Which will, in turn, crush most of their resellers as the secondary market hits free-fall. The suggestion that Mtg is running out of room would kill it, especially if given in an official capacity.
The M10 changes were to stealth squeeze Mtg for design space, just like Emblems are stealthed in "Indestructable Globals". They've done pretty much all they can to cards, and now they're reaching for any other variables they can play with.
It was never about fun, or problems, it was done to try and extend Mtg's design space.
So it's "not fun" to the same degree hard locks and first-turn wins are not fun to anyone having to play against them? Or it's "not fun" to the same degree counterspells and land destruction are in the opinion of every casual-room idiot in Magic Online?
And that's exactly why you don't see a lot of hard locks, first-turn wins, counterspells or land destruction in current sets.
Or just "not fun" to the degree "I attacked with my creature, but you Doom Bladed it" is to every Timmy out there?
Really, I can't think of any situations where it's even as "not fun" as getting your big creature killed.
You are confusing "not fun" to you with "not fun" in the aggregate. You didn't find mana burn "not fun". OK. Others did. I don't think it's fun to want to cast a 3-mana spell and happen to only have a pair of 2-mana producers on the table. You may disagree. That's fine. But the designers probably care most about whether players in the aggregate like or dislike something, not about whether an individual player likes or dislikes something. Seriously, just look through the responses in this thread. There are plenty of people saying "I didn't like mana burn", "I'm glad mana burn is gone", etc. You're saying that you didn't dislike mana burn and trying to extrapolate to everyone else.
With all due respect, the designers lied about their reasons, and they absolutely weren't because it impeded gameplay in anyway.
Damn those designers, conspiring to deceive you.
There's no way people routinely tapped 5 lands to pay a 3cc spell.
No, but people did routinely have a pair of untapped Golgari Rot Farms and wanted to play a Putrefy. There are plenty of things that produce mana in increments other than one.
Like many of the M10 changes, Mana Burn wasn't made for any reason other than to stealth in a way to make new cards.
Stealth? Really? Could you show me where some designers said "We are not removing mana burn to open design space"? Because it seemed to me they were pretty up-front about that being one of their motivations.
It was never about fun, or problems, it was done to try and extend Mtg's design space.
Because an action can only ever have one reason. It can't be that they had more than one consideration, all of which pointed in the same direction - or, even more accurately, they had more than one consideration, some pointed in one direction, others pointed in another, and the net direction of the considerations pointed in the direction of removing mana burn.
And that's exactly why you don't see a lot of hard locks, first-turn wins, counterspells or land destruction in current sets.
The latter two of which being unfortunate not to have in quality but that's an argument for another thread.
I don't think it's fun to want to cast a 3-mana spell and happen to only have a pair of 2-mana producers on the table.
Sounds like the player in question shouldn't have bounced his non-karoo land, or should've tapped it for mana before bouncing it, or else has to weigh whether or not taking 1 damage is worth waiting until the next turn when he can drop that normal land again. The thing is that getting yourself to the point where all your lands are Golgari Rot Farms is something the player does, not that the game forces him into.
So you're basically arguing that Wizards needs to adjust the rules to cover for people who aren't good at the game.
There are plenty of people saying "I didn't like mana burn", "I'm glad mana burn is gone", etc.
I'm sure you could find "plenty" of people to back up anything if you looked. I don't really care about argument from numbers. I care about the degree of "not fun" which is necessary for people to make rules changes. Is it, for example, "not fun" for your opponent to complicate your combat decision-making by waiting until after he attacks to play sorcery-speed spells? Then we should remove the postcombat main phase. Is it "not fun" for a particularly tricky opponent to abuse the intricacies of how the stack works, stymieing new players by making use of rules they don't understand? Then let's make the stack resolve entirely top-down once players are done putting things on it. Is it "not fun" for your plays to be interrupted by your opponent? Then let's make all spells only castable on your own turn with very little exception.
And I'm 100% sure you could find people who would applaud loudly if any of those changes were made.
Voila!
Jiyor...a single mana is the potential for an incredible amount of energy. Do you have any idea just how much can be made with a single mana? Any idea? Try a creature bigger than a colossus. And yes, you have to ditch a bunch of creatures to keep it out, but it's still a massive beast.
and it still is illogical that mana burn's absence hasn't been explained.
Your acting as if an exception is common place.Thanks for countering your own point too.Its impposible to sustain such a massive creature by one mana.A single mana isn't a potential for an incredible amount of energy.
Well golly i guess your right on that one,they never did explain it.And it most certainly wasn't called The Mending or anything like that.:rolleyes:
If you haven't read the book let me fill you in.During the events of the time spiral block the multiverse was starting to collapse,old school PW sacrificed their sparks to stop it.The multiverse started to heal itself,but was changed some.Hence why PW are no longer immortals with god like powers.It even affected the events of Lorwyn as Oona thought the changing multiverse would change her so she created Maralen,well the one we know of anyway,as a vessel to transfer herself over to should a change start happening.And it was stated the the Mending is what caused Alara to shift back into a whole plane again.
The multiverse changed and excess mana no longer hurts anyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
My fun is not your fun, yet your fun is not my fun unless it's also my fun. Just cause you have to be a sour grape about my fun does not give me the excuse to be a sour grape to your fun. As I just want to have fun with my buddy for awhile of just slinging cards.
Flavorfully: The mana bursting out of the body. Harming the body, for it was not made to be contained in such "unworthy" vessels as that mana goes returns the source. Maybe with some other magic you could contain it?
Flavorfully, you're a mighty planeswalker. I'm sure those guys know how to let mana flow out of their bodies without channeling it into a powerful spell and won't just try to keep it in until it breaks out.
Your acting as if an exception is common place.Thanks for countering your own point too.Its impposible to sustain such a massive creature by one mana.A single mana isn't a potential for an incredible amount of energy.
Well golly i guess your right on that one,they never did explain it.And it most certainly wasn't called The Mending or anything like that.:rolleyes:
If you haven't read the book let me fill you in.During the events of the time spiral block the multiverse was starting to collapse,old school PW sacrificed their sparks to stop it.The multiverse started to heal itself,but was changed some.Hence why PW are no longer immortals with god like powers.It even affected the events of Lorwyn as Oona thought the changing multiverse would change her so she created Maralen,well the one we know of anyway,as a vessel to transfer herself over to should a change start happening.And it was stated the the Mending is what caused Alara to shift back into a whole plane again.
The multiverse changed and excess mana no longer hurts anyone.
...you know nothing of me. I post about flavor and story all the time on these boards, and have given many statements, analyses, and editorials to this effect. I have read the books, including the Time Spiral Cycle; the only one WotC released I haven't read the content of is Test of Metal, and that's currently in the mail!
No, you are completely wrong. The Mending would have explained things, but they never said that, nor did they even imply that. It's mere fan wank; legitimate fan wank until the time comes they give an official answer, but fan wank all the same.
(and now for the rant)
And yes, I am completely right with with my example of the Dreadnought! Even when it was a replacement effect, the mana in question would still be a massive animating force to drive that kind of mass around, and now it's even more, as you summon a creature capable of plowing through an army all on its own, that merely requires a massive pile of auxiliary structure to not collapse under its own weight! Furthermore, there's also the massive one-mana potential of Reanimate! Or Ancestral Recall! Or Berserk!
And furthermore...how is the fact that you could cast a Dreadnought but are not going to have any effect on the actual mana you draw?! Huh?! If you tap a Plains for :symw:, it doesn't matter if the card you hold is an Eager Cadet, a Myr Mindservant, an Isamaru, Hound of Konda, or of course the freaking Dreadnought! It's still exactly one mana! It's not an exception, it's a simple mathematical value!
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
So you're basically arguing that Wizards needs to adjust the rules to cover for people who aren't good at the game.
Wizards needs to adjust the rules to match what people want to play.
I'm sure you could find "plenty" of people to back up anything if you looked. I don't really care about argument from numbers. I care about the degree of "not fun" which is necessary for people to make rules changes.
Then you apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. There's no such thing as a generic, universal value of "fun" or "not fun". From the perspective of Wizards, the only thing it makes sense to talk about for such a decision is "is it fun for most of the players?" So no, such a decision cannot be addressed while ignoring numbers.
And I'm 100% sure you could find people who would applaud loudly if any of those changes were made.
If the number of people who would applaud those changes loudly is "most Magic players", then those changes probably should be made.
I could understand the 'Let's have mana burn back' argument if mana burn had been an actual factor in games. It wasn't. It was a niche rule that only rarely applied. At any level of play, mana burn just wasn't an important game element. It had extremely limited design space to explore (Spectral Searchlight sort of covers it), and it didn't really provide any interesting interactions. If there was a card that added ten mana or something to your pool, maybe rarely it would provide some tension and choices ("Hmm, I can only use 6 of that, is that worth 4 damage?), but more often it'd be built around to never worry about it. At less dramatic amounts, it's just an afterthought rule that rarely matters.
I see this as sort of the opposite of the damage-doesn't-use-the-stack argument. That did have large and frequent play interactions, and its removal dramatically changed combat and a number of cards. You can argue convincingly for either side. But mana burn? Besides nostalgia, there's nothing to miss about it. It applied only rarely, and when it did it wasn't interesting.
That being said, I've joked with my playgroup how I want this card:
Mana Burn Is Back! 3R
Enchantment
Mana burn is back.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
How is that beautiful in a game that has always been about interactivity between players?
Your example is take 4 damage or lose 4 life pre m10.Not interactive at all.If they could survive the damage they'd always leave the lands untapped so they could still play spells during the opponents turn.Otherwise they'd still be 4 down and not be able to paly spells during the oppponents turn,which is always the wrong move.
Post m10 however it becomes take 4 damage or not play spells during their opponents turn?A player now has to actually think about what they want to do,not just be forced to go for the always correct answer.
If you need a great example of an interactive and interesting example of such a card look no futher than Choice of Damnations
And no ones had a good counter point as to why you can take in mana without a problem.Seriously if mana is that volitale the lands should explode just for holding it and doing nothing with it.Mages bond to the land so it shouldn't hurt them anymore than it doesn't destroy the land.Furthermore people seem to forget that lands are filtering in power from the blind etenities.Mages are useing an already filtered power source.
Thats like haveing three bottles of water but only needing to drink two but drink the third anyway.Its not going to harm me in the least.
People keep acting like every situation of over drawing mana is by some ridiculous number,no one channels the...POWER OF THE ENTIRE COSMOS!!! to play...Elite Vanguard.Even a new player would really only do that once or twice because they'd realize all that extra huffing and puffing didn't blow anyones house down.If you think otherwise your a self absorbed elitist.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
Mana is a fundamental property of existence, not of land itself, and the act of drawing mana into one's mind involves remembering a place of relevance or resonance and generating energy around that thought. Some creatures do so more easily than others, but all the same, all that energy lodged in a being's mind is likely to take its toll if it isn't channeled into something. It is flavorful, it did make sense, and it still is illogical that mana burn's absence hasn't been explained.
Oh, and as far as "land" goes, mountains, oceans, castles, forests, academies and the like tend to have that poignancy that rings true in a person's head to the point they can generate mana - a.k.a. magical potential - from the focus of that memory.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Only if you know it's coming and you somehow manage to burn yourself before they draw it or have the mana to cast it. Once you're at 10 and they cast the Rite (and remember, it's an instant), there's nothing you can do to dodge it.
Like I said in my first post in this thread, a lot of these rules decisions are done by people who view the rules without any of the flavour involved. They aren't alone, either: a large subset of players are entirely mechanically oriented and could not care less about what "mana" actually is except as a nonsensical word for the kind of currency/resources you use to play cards. To that subset, mana burn is a useless niche rule that needs to be pruned because the only argument for its existence is in resource management and the argument for its removal is that it doesn't usually come up.
But if that's the prevailing way to think, then why have flavour text? Or even art? They aren't relevant to actual gameplay, after all (Unglued/Unhinged doesn't count).
Thanks. Good thing I'm still a bit of a noob. I feel there's one less life regret to confess in my deathbed, but I'm still glad mana burn is gone.
The designers, and I, and other players presented here, clearly disagree.
Mechanically: Unspent mana does 1 damage and empties the pool. Omnath and Upwelling to keep it from leaving.
This argument is odd and very strange from both sides. Each side shows knowledge and yet at the same time, ignorance. Even though each bit of knowledge that matters from both sides have been repeated several if not many times. I suppose it is true what they say, history does repeat itself.
If a gameplay element is not fun, then it doesn't matter whether or not it specifically prevents you from accessing the other elements of gameplay that are fun, it's still counterproductive to the point of gameplay design.
Really, I can't think of any situations where it's even as "not fun" as getting your big creature killed. Maybe you could enlighten me as to the specifics of how mana burn is "not fun", because the least fun situation I can possibly think of is "late-game topdeck Manamorphose, cast, draw land, burn for 2". Which is a calculated risk and you go into it knowing that might happen.
With all due respect, the designers lied about their reasons, and they absolutely weren't because it impeded gameplay in anyway.
There's no way people routinely tapped 5 lands to pay a 3cc spell. This is a 3rd grade task to master. I'm pretty confident that people have a good grasp on it pretty much unilaterally.
I also doubt that anyone without a good grasp of the rules at that level weren't playing in any event with an Level high enough for it to be an issue, and if they were, I doubt they made it past the first game.
Like many of the M10 changes, Mana Burn wasn't made for any reason other than to stealth in a way to make new cards. They're running out of variables they can play with, it's very obvious to analysis. So they changed the Mana Burn rule so they could have new variables, such as cards that are dependant on life totals, alternate win conditions, or bypassing the rules on mana pools emptying.
Which is fine, if they'd presented it that way, but they didn't. They instead tried to take the path of arguing for the new player and the casual player. Ignoring that the new player would make that mistake only once, if he did at all, and the Casual doesn't really care anyways. They don't want to indicate any growing weakness in Mtg, because they realize one very important thing...
People consider Mtg to be an investment.
If WOTC gives any indication of weakness, any indication they're running out of space, it'll start a stampede as people try to liquidate immediately and get their money out. Which will, in turn, crush most of their resellers as the secondary market hits free-fall. The suggestion that Mtg is running out of room would kill it, especially if given in an official capacity.
The M10 changes were to stealth squeeze Mtg for design space, just like Emblems are stealthed in "Indestructable Globals". They've done pretty much all they can to cards, and now they're reaching for any other variables they can play with.
It was never about fun, or problems, it was done to try and extend Mtg's design space.
Damn those designers, conspiring to deceive you. No, but people did routinely have a pair of untapped Golgari Rot Farms and wanted to play a Putrefy. There are plenty of things that produce mana in increments other than one.
Stealth? Really? Could you show me where some designers said "We are not removing mana burn to open design space"? Because it seemed to me they were pretty up-front about that being one of their motivations. Because an action can only ever have one reason. It can't be that they had more than one consideration, all of which pointed in the same direction - or, even more accurately, they had more than one consideration, some pointed in one direction, others pointed in another, and the net direction of the considerations pointed in the direction of removing mana burn.
The latter two of which being unfortunate not to have in quality but that's an argument for another thread.
Sounds like the player in question shouldn't have bounced his non-karoo land, or should've tapped it for mana before bouncing it, or else has to weigh whether or not taking 1 damage is worth waiting until the next turn when he can drop that normal land again. The thing is that getting yourself to the point where all your lands are Golgari Rot Farms is something the player does, not that the game forces him into.
So you're basically arguing that Wizards needs to adjust the rules to cover for people who aren't good at the game.
I'm sure you could find "plenty" of people to back up anything if you looked. I don't really care about argument from numbers. I care about the degree of "not fun" which is necessary for people to make rules changes. Is it, for example, "not fun" for your opponent to complicate your combat decision-making by waiting until after he attacks to play sorcery-speed spells? Then we should remove the postcombat main phase. Is it "not fun" for a particularly tricky opponent to abuse the intricacies of how the stack works, stymieing new players by making use of rules they don't understand? Then let's make the stack resolve entirely top-down once players are done putting things on it. Is it "not fun" for your plays to be interrupted by your opponent? Then let's make all spells only castable on your own turn with very little exception.
And I'm 100% sure you could find people who would applaud loudly if any of those changes were made.
Your acting as if an exception is common place.Thanks for countering your own point too.Its impposible to sustain such a massive creature by one mana.A single mana isn't a potential for an incredible amount of energy.
Well golly i guess your right on that one,they never did explain it.And it most certainly wasn't called The Mending or anything like that.:rolleyes:
If you haven't read the book let me fill you in.During the events of the time spiral block the multiverse was starting to collapse,old school PW sacrificed their sparks to stop it.The multiverse started to heal itself,but was changed some.Hence why PW are no longer immortals with god like powers.It even affected the events of Lorwyn as Oona thought the changing multiverse would change her so she created Maralen,well the one we know of anyway,as a vessel to transfer herself over to should a change start happening.And it was stated the the Mending is what caused Alara to shift back into a whole plane again.
The multiverse changed and excess mana no longer hurts anyone.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
I'm still talking about mana burn here.
With mana burn I'd have even more excuses to run sorin markov!
Flavorfully, you're a mighty planeswalker. I'm sure those guys know how to let mana flow out of their bodies without channeling it into a powerful spell and won't just try to keep it in until it breaks out.
...you know nothing of me. I post about flavor and story all the time on these boards, and have given many statements, analyses, and editorials to this effect. I have read the books, including the Time Spiral Cycle; the only one WotC released I haven't read the content of is Test of Metal, and that's currently in the mail!
No, you are completely wrong. The Mending would have explained things, but they never said that, nor did they even imply that. It's mere fan wank; legitimate fan wank until the time comes they give an official answer, but fan wank all the same.
(and now for the rant)
And furthermore...how is the fact that you could cast a Dreadnought but are not going to have any effect on the actual mana you draw?! Huh?! If you tap a Plains for :symw:, it doesn't matter if the card you hold is an Eager Cadet, a Myr Mindservant, an Isamaru, Hound of Konda, or of course the freaking Dreadnought! It's still exactly one mana! It's not an exception, it's a simple mathematical value!
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
I see this as sort of the opposite of the damage-doesn't-use-the-stack argument. That did have large and frequent play interactions, and its removal dramatically changed combat and a number of cards. You can argue convincingly for either side. But mana burn? Besides nostalgia, there's nothing to miss about it. It applied only rarely, and when it did it wasn't interesting.
That being said, I've joked with my playgroup how I want this card:
Mana Burn Is Back! 3R
Enchantment
Mana burn is back.
In other words, yes to my statement.