What the game mechanics should be

[Chinook]

Why would I focus on the card itself and how it functions????
I know what the card does, I know how it functions.

Perhaps you've forgotten what the thread is about in your hysterical need to insult people. I'm not crying about anything, I'm talking about what the game mechanics should be.

[Chinook]

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.

I'd explain it as an example of bad mechanics. There's no reason why the ability to be Untargettable should prevent damage from a source you walk into.

Clearly, Immaterial creatures are currently immune to damage in addition to also being Untargettable, do you like it that way?

[Chinook]

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.

What he said.

Man, I cannot BELIEVE that so many people want Rain of Fire to hit and an IMMATERIAL creature, who is basically a freaking ghost.

Just think about it. If you try to aim the creature with a Fire Bolt, you are not successful. But if you make fire drop from the sky (Rain of Fire), suddenly it hits the creature! Wtf kind of twisted logic is that?

Seems like the only way to hit an immaterial creature (a ghost) is the pretend like you are not trying to hit him.

Forget the word "untargetable" in the card. The creature is IMMATERIAL, a ghost. Nothing can hit him. Nothing. If you want to take down a creature like that you need to call Ghostbusters.

Why would we forget the word "Untargetable"? It's right there. On the card. It has a specific meaning that everyone understands.
Besides, if they are going to be immaterial in the logical sense then we might as well ignore them since immaterial things can't do damage, logically.

Mizzle has pointed out that Immaterial creatures actually have 3 abilities, only one is actually stated. They cannot be targetted, they are immune to damage and they are immune to Infection. If we're discussing what game mechanics "should" be, that is something that should not be. Better mechanics would be 3 defined abilities and if there's good reason to grant all 3 to a creature then go for it, but I would think that would not be the best call.

[cipher_nemo]

In comparison to this thread and just for fun, based on discussion of game mechanics, here's a good reason to keep avoiding MTG:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a)

If I played MTG again without knowing these changes, I'd be completely out of place. No more mana burn.. at all, combat no longer uses the stack, mulligans happen at the same time instead of first player resolving all of theirs first, and a bunch of other drastic changes.

[cipher_nemo]

I move that we quit arguing 'real time' and 'turn based'.  Any seconds?

Seconded here.

[cipher_nemo]

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.

Yup, one could play MTG by mail. But it would be rather dull and slow, lol. Player plays a spell and sends that to their opponent. The opponent sends one back that states they "passed", meaning they don't want to add anything to the stack on top of that spell. Yeah, it's possible, but I don't know anyone who would want to, lol.

[cipher_nemo]

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'.

Yeah, I don't care for "ghost" explanation either. But one thing that is confusing is the terminology in Elements. It's not consistent. "Immaterial" is confused with "Immortal" and vice versa, and "target" means different things for different cards.

I still feel Rain of Fire shouldn't hit Immaterial creatures for game mechanics/balance, but I do feel we need a terminology re-wording on cards to match how things really work. Almost every CCG out there went through something like this. MTG went through it with terminology like "interrupt"/"instant", "library"/"sideboard", "come into play"/"put into play"/"enter battlefield", etc. Elements needs a fix to its terminology to better define things for new players (even though we already know what they mean).

[cipher_nemo]

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??)

Yup. It goes both way, but most of those more active on Wikipedia are very liberal and it shows.

[cipher_nemo]

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.

I'd personally like to see cards that force a player to sacrifice (remove) N number of creatures. That would get around Immaterial. If they have quite a large number of creatures, the ones they care about are safe. If not, they lose the precious ones. So a card like this would add more strategy with determining when to play it.

[cipher_nemo]

Yep, arguing on internet forums is generally useless because some people are not here to find out the truth, they are here to "win" an argument and to get the last word. Whatever you say to them makes no difference because they will never admit they are wrong. And if they cannot come up with any counter-arguments, they resort to derailing the discussion or doing personal attacks.

ROFLOL! Interesting you should state that. Next time try to take your own advice, because I'm sick of your double standard. I'm pretty much not holding back with you anymore, or bothering with giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're rude to everyone here, and when you disagree with someone, you attack them. You've attacked mods, you've attacked new people on the forums, and others have pointed this out before (it's not just me stating that).

Generally I would have given up a long time ago, but in this case I'm not going to let you weasel out of this one on principle.

"not true" is not a very good argument. I should you should learn to admit when you are wrong. If someone says to me with a straight face that MtG is not turn based, I will assume that person is dumb as a post. And because it's it's turn based, it's not real time. Period.

Freudian slip in the second sentence there, SG?

SG, I really don't want to fight you at every turn, but you make that almost impossible with comments like those in this thread. Put yourself in someone else's shoes once in a while and it will serve you well. I have no hatred towards you, but I'm sick of your double standard. Let us both take your advice that I quoted at the top of this post from now on. Agreed?

[cipher_nemo]

p.s. You still haven't given an answer to your earlier comments about MtG gameplay being real-time because of "instants". That's what.. 4 times you've dodged the question? Admitting you're wrong is never an option for you, is it?

MTG gameplay is not "real time", as I've stated before, even with its instants. MTG online client is "real time" (as I've stated before too) in terms of software, but still not "real time" in terms of gameplay.

How many times do I have to repeat that? SG, just move on, please.

[cipher_nemo]

Man, I cannot BELIEVE that so many people want Rain of Fire to hit and an IMMATERIAL creature, who is basically a freaking ghost.

I also don't believe Rain of Fire (or any spell that hits all creatures) should ever be able to hit immaterial creatures.

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

I'd fully support future cards that specifically state they can hit creatures regardless of them being immaterial or not, but the strength of their effects should be far less than Rain of Fire and similar cards.

On oddity I've found is that Poison can still reach a player with a shield, but it can't reach creatures with immaterial.