[M10] Possible Rule Changes? ('Cast spells', 'battlefield', no mana burn, more)

[gilrad]

Saying "what's good for Wizards is good for us" IS a valid argument, however in this particular case, I would say it is not a very strong one. We benefit indirectly from Wizard's success, so any benefit Wizards sees is going to be somewhat mitigated by the time we see it.

For cases like "play a spell" to "cast a spell", the expected benefit is large, so we will probably see some degree of its effect on our local playerbase. For something that will have a relatively minor effect on introducing new players such as the axing of Manaburn, however, I wonder if we will even notice the difference it will make on our local playerbase (the degree of effect, however, is a purely hypothetical point as the manaburn change is going to be piggybacking on a numberof other high profile changes, so we can't actually measure the change it will have).

Now as for signets and karoos... Well yeah, it removes the risk of using them, but risk/reward asessments is one of the things that makes Magic such a vibrant and robust card game. To reduce the risk of a large number of mana sources is to remove the degree of consideration that goes into them. Now, if you want turn two manafixing, there's no reason why you wouldn't run ravnica bouncelands or signets. If you're playing elves and want mana acceleration, there's no reason why you wouldn't run effects that add mana for each elf in play.

[Pharmalade]

The easiest way to impliment the mana burn change, should it prove to be more than rumor, would be to keep "mana burn" as a game action, but only have it apply as specified. For example...

Spectral Searchlight
Artifact
: Choose a player. That player adds one mana of his or her choice to his or her mana pool. This mana causes mana burn.

This would apply to any old card that was designed with burn in mind, removed from those where it has no application as with Heartbeat of Spring, and any new card designed where mana burn would be part of the strategy.

Rather than the phrase found on those snakes from Kamigawa block.

Lava Cave
Land
: Choose a player. That player adds his or her choice of or to his or her mana pool. This mana causes mana burn. If this mana is unspent, Lava Cave doesn't untap during your next untap step.

[Blinking Spirit]

Originally Posted by Pharmalade

The easiest way to impliment the mana burn change, should it prove to be more than rumor, would be to keep "mana burn" as a game action, but only have it apply as specified. For example...

Spectral Searchlight
Artifact
: Choose a player. That player adds one mana of his or her choice to his or her mana pool. This mana causes mana burn.

This would apply to any old card that was designed with burn in mind, removed from those where it has no application as with Heartbeat of Spring, and any new card designed where mana burn would be part of the strategy.

Rather than the phrase found on those snakes from Kamigawa block.

Lava Cave
Land
: Choose a player. That player adds his or her choice of or to his or her mana pool. This mana causes mana burn. If this mana is unspent, Lava Cave doesn't untap during your next untap step.

From the point of view of a hypothetical player who's never known a M:tG in which mana burn is the norm, this seems like a very strange game action. It's so narrow and specific; why would the designers bother writing up special rules for it?

[Verbal]

The thing is, it closes just as much design space as it opens. Look at cards like mistbind clique; with no manaburn it's a complete dork.

[Korinthe]

Originally Posted by mxyzptlk

Braid of Fire

And the entire point of this card is?

Paying for cumulative upkeeps with this reverse cumulative upkeep, else to activate cards like Chimeric Staff during your upkeep, or to play progressively higher casting-cost Instant cards with in the casting cost, or to build up something like Helix Pinnacle that much quicker. It is a creative card, and a fun card, and in the right builds/formats a potent card, but not a power-card. It is not, however, worthless, or nearly-so, such as a 1/1 flier with a crappy ability that costs 5 mana.

[Korinthe]

Originally Posted by Verbal

The thing is, it closes just as much design space as it opens. Look at cards like mistbind clique; with no manaburn it's a complete dork.

Why? Why is it a complete dork? Removal of mana burn does NOT cause mana to float forever, until the end of the turn, or even past the current phase. All it does is prevent you from taking damage for each unspent mana purged from your mana pool at the end of a phase. Period. The end. Mistbind Clique is not changed on iota by removing mana burn.

[vairoletto]

i think it would be stupid to just errata all cards that were meant to work with mana burn, i'm sure there are a lot more cards that those that have already been mentioned, even cards like Orim's Chant or the new card Silence should have an erata, back in the days i'm pretty sure i caused some serious mana burns with a chant in response to a dark ritual.

It's not a change that is going to bring more benefits than problems to the game, i dont think it's a smart move.

[Gojira X]

Originally Posted by Unkle-J

Not really, dumping your hand doesn't neccesarily hurt you. Mana burn does.

I think the point was that mana burn makes doing a "life matters" theme as unworkable as if being able to dump your hand makes threshold, madness, or hellbent too easy. But to your retort, if mana burn were to be around in such an environment (i.e. getting down to, staying below, a life total), hurting yourself wouldn't actually hurt you.


I've never been on either end of a mana burn loss, but I have found mana burn to be annoying. I can see why some people don't want it to go, but if you think about the aforementioned "hand size/no cards in hand matters" designs, there probably are some interesting things that can be done.

It may not be consolation, but over-tapping land is punishment for carelessness in and of itself. That was mentioned before, but the game can come down to who makes the least mistakes and there is still plenty of room to make them without mana burn.

[urweak]

I guess Forbidden Orchard gets alot better in oath. The removal of mana burn is lame, why even bother. Why not just remove the discard phase, or cut out the second main phase, why not just rewrite the whole game?

[Makaro]

Originally Posted by urweak

I guess Forbidden Orchard gets alot better in oath. The removal of mana burn is lame, why even bother. Why not just remove the discard phase, or cut out the second main phase, why not just rewrite the whole game?

The degree to which removing mana burn affects the game is far less than removing the discard or second main phase, and you know that.

Regarding mana removing mana burn - where did this information first appear, anyways?

[extremeicon]

Originally Posted by Makaro

The degree to which removing mana burn affects the game is far less than removing the discard or second main phase, and you know that.

Regarding mana removing mana burn - where did this information first appear, anyways?

About a 100 posts back:

Originally Posted by urzassedatives

The new tidbit is that mana burn is going the way of the dodo. (I smell mass errata)

This could be good or bad. It opens up design at least, and allows for more interesting plays to be made. (Upkeep clique, resp tap my lands and hope for goddraw with nothing to lose if I don't get it, etc)

[General_Mills]

If anything, removing mana burn would remove the necessity for players to think in certain situations. Having to decide whether it's worth it to take the point to play a body with something like Heartbeat out no longer is an issue. I don't mind the other changes so much (though battlefield seems kind of pointless), but getting rid of mana burn removes a layer of thought. I don't especially care for that.

Plus, with no mana burn, my absolute favorite multiplayer play of all time could never have happened (someone actually did this):

Guy: Swamp, Dark Rit, go.
Everyone else:
Me: Are you sure you want to do that?
Guy: Yeah.
Me: Really? You're positive? You can take it back if you want.
Guy: Yes, I'm sure. Can we just get on with it already?
Everyone else:

[Obs Kaennus]

Originally Posted by Makaro

Regarding mana removing mana burn - where did this information first appear, anyways?

Follow this,...

Originally Posted by urzassedatives

The new tidbit is that mana burn is going the way of the dodo. (I smell mass errata)

...it leads to where it all started.

Originally Posted by Gojira X

I think the point was that mana burn makes doing a "life matters" theme as unworkable as if being able to dump your hand makes threshold, madness, or hellbent too easy. But to your retort, if mana burn were to be around in such an environment (i.e. getting down to, staying below, a life total), hurting yourself wouldn't actually hurt you.

I've never been on either end of a mana burn loss, but I have found mana burn to be annoying. I can see why some people don't want it to go, but if you think about the aforementioned "hand size/no cards in hand matters" designs, there probably are some interesting things that can be done.

Pointed already, several times: mana burn implies no obstacle to hypothetical "life matters" theme: there are already many ways to lose life... for profit. So why would anyone will to lose life for nothing?

Also, just like discard strategies the price player would be paying to get the power boost in cards might simply be not worthy enough; think of any hellbent or threshold strategy: how many times do you see players dumping three or more cards to power up a single card (or even a couple of them)? I guess not very often, and if even when you do, I'm sure it doesn't feel broken at all...

..and do you know why?

Simply because dumping your own hand it's a better deal for your opponent than it is for you...

Same happens with life: you can afford to lose some, but no one will voluntarily put him/herself under 10 life just to get a bonus for a random card unless said bonus it's just broken...

Good Luck!

[Horseshoe_Hermit]

Originally Posted by FoxBat

You're wrong to dislike so many of them!

I didn't say I dislike many of them. I didn't even say I dislike any of them.

I said I dislike seeing so many of them. The dislike is aimed at the number of the class, not the elements.

Oh and if they rename any zone to the battlefield I will kill a kitten.

[DalkonCledwin]

Originally Posted by urzassedatives

I just had some more information come in, also mentioning the name 'battlefield' and the naming of the rfg zone.

The new tidbit is that mana burn is going the way of the dodo. (I smell mass errata)

This could be good or bad. It opens up design at least, and allows for more interesting plays to be made. (Upkeep clique, resp tap my lands and hope for goddraw with nothing to lose if I don't get it, etc)

I am sorry, but WHAT???? no more mana burn? that makes absolutely NO SENSE, not to mention it makes so many already GOOD cards broken....