What the game mechanics should be

[cipher_nemo]

Problem is that a card like this passes priority between the players in the middle of a turn, which the current PvP system can't handle. Perhaps a permanent that would force the player to sacrifice a creature at the beginning of their turn or something would be a more viable option.

Ah, good point! I didn't take that into consideration as it would require a pretty big change in code and the way the server and clients talk to each other.

[Daxx]

Daxx, you can't play M:TG by mail.

The main phase(s) where both players can use abilities and cast spells (one player having a more limited set of possible spells) can't be played by mail, at least not without arbitrarily forcing the game fully into a turn based box.

Yes, it can. It's all about passing priority. Do you actually understand how that game mechanic works? If you don't, then that's fine, but at least take your time to research what the priority system actually does. The main phases are completely governed by taking turns (or declining to take a turn). It's right there in the rules. See this article (http://mtgsalvation.com/794-priority-and-the-stack.html) for a few more details, and check out Rule 115 in the comprehensive rules.

Yeah, I'm done here. There's no point arguing about a game with someone who doesn't know the rules. Have fun with the rest of the thread.

[Essence]

I think that Immaterial creatures should be fully affected by shields, too.

[Essence]

When we define real-time as a game mechanic, we are necessarily setting it in opposition to the concept of turn-based.

QFT.

Immaterial as an ability makes creatures "untargetable". This is a common ability in other games, most famously in M:TG as has been brought up.
The natural counter to not being able to "lock on" to a target is to blanket attack an entire area.
There is no way for a "Rain of Fire" to individually target everything, that's nonsense.
Those in favour of the current implementation have interpretted the ability as a Damage Immunity. That kind of a change would be fine, but that should leave the card open to any removal effects that may not rely on damage. Plague/Infection should then counter these cards.

Q.F.T.

I say:

-Rain of Fire is just firing a Fire Bolt at every enemy, compressing up to 23 cards into one at the cost of lack of damage rampup.
-Except for the ones you can't target with the single Fire Bolt.

On the other side:

-If RoF hit Immortals, it'd be a cheap roast. This shouldn't be possible, as Immortals would roll even lower in the metagame or so, for the card that counters them has about 2 copies of itself in any worthwhile Raynebow deck.

This is just awful reasoning.  Rain of Fire is a far cry from 'firing a Fire Bolt at every enemy'.  The damage from RoF doesn't ramp up with extra quanta, and more importantly, the text of the card doesn't use the word 'target' at all -- which means that being 'untargetable' shouldn't affect RoF, period.

The proper change is not to reword RoF; it's to give Elite Immortals 4 HP and let RoF kill off Morning Glories with ease, and Elite Immortals and Elite Phase Dragons with more difficulty.

If we're giving each other advice on how to deal with an Immortal deck, then your answer is perfect, but if we're discussing the design of the game, your answer is sorely lacking.

Q.F.T!

Daxx, you can't play M:TG by mail.

Totally untrue.  I've done it before.  It just takes about a week to complete a standard turn. Lots of "Pass Priority.  Go."  Messages.

[Essence]

I understand the arguments that Rain of isn't "targeting" anything directly, but I don't see the mechanics supporting that.

The argument is that 'target' is a game term with a specific meaning.  RoF doesn't use the term 'Target', therefore it shouldn't be limited by an ability that says "X cannot be targeted".


The whole argument about "immaterial means it's a ghost" is stupid.  "Immaterial", like 'target', is a game term with a specific in-game meaning that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it's generally-accepted dictionary meaning.  In this case, 'Immaterial' == 'untargetable'.

By the 'but it makes sense' "logic", a Vampire would be able to turn other creatures into vampires by draining their blood, and can't exist in daylight/cross running water/enter your home without being invited in.

If you accept 'Vampire' as a game term with a special meaning, you have to accept that 'Immaterial' has a similar connotation: it has the definition given to it on the cards, and nothing else.

[Evil Hamster]

You can bash Wikipedia all you want (it's the "cool" thing to do) but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is right.

Slight OT here-

Don't trust Wikipedia for any political articles at all. They let liberal democrats write their own pages then lock them so they can't be edited, while for any conservative they write completely false accusations as fact and if the people accused attempt to fix the article by deleting or editing false info- the fix is undone by the admins and called "vandalism". (Seriously- they call Communist News Network a "neutral" source??)

OK back on topic guys

[jmizzle7]

But then how do you explain the fact that immaterial creatures are unaffected by Fire Shield? This is the only shield that doesn't prevent damage whose effect is ignored by immaterial creatures.

[jmizzle7]

Evil Hamster and I have already told everybody to keep this post on topic. If the bickering continues, the off-topic posts will be deleted.

[jmizzle7]

The thread isn't a discussion on what the game mechanics are, but rather what they should be. Having said that, it seems as though the most controversial of the poll is obviously the concept of immaterial creatures. Scaredgirl covered the basics of what immaterial status on a creature means, and I will elaborate only to extend the definition of the mechanic to include that no immaterial creature can be buffed, debuffed, or in any way removed from play once it has entered play. Immaterial = immortal.

I don't see anything wrong with the immaterial mechanic, as it just provides another wrinkle to the game that makes it interesting and fun to play. In the future, who knows... maybe it would be kind of fun to include Wrath of God effects as a counter-measure to immaterial creature spam decks, if they exist.

[jmizzle7]

Rain of Fire is a far cry from 'firing a Fire Bolt at every enemy'.  The damage from RoF doesn't ramp up with extra quanta, and more importantly, the text of the card doesn't use the word 'target' at all -- which means that being 'untargetable' shouldn't affect RoF, period.

The proper change is not to reword RoF; it's to give Elite Immortals 4 HP and let RoF kill off Morning Glories with ease, and Elite Immortals and Elite Phase Dragons with more difficulty.

Immaterial creatures aren't only unable to be targeted, they are also immune to damage and infection. This is why RoF doesn't (and shouldn't) affect them.

[jmizzle7]

Basically, I agree with the winning options, except for getting quantum back. It is fair that we don't get quantum back, It's a consequence of being too rash.

I agree with you only to the point that the top row of creatures conceals the creatures' abilities. You shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of clicking on a card only to find out that it just gave your bone dragon the gravity pull status (or worse, hatching it into a 0/2 with dive), thus losing the quanta required for the ability and potentially losing the creature entirely. But this is a different topic entirely.

[rawr]

Basically, I agree with the winning options, except for getting quantum back. It is fair that we don't get quantum back, It's a consequence of being too rash.

I don't think we should be encouraging people to be slower...  Everyone in PvP, be as rash as possible.  (But get it looked at by your doctor if it lasts more than 3 days.)