Magic the Gathering: somebody please explain its appeal

[MHaye]

Originally Posted by Grumman

That's just stupid (on Wizard's part, not MHaye's). Their own rules say it should work, even if it is a state-based action. Losing when you have 0 or less life is also a state-based action, and Platinum Angel lets you keep playing.

The rules don't say it should work. For starters, you're conflating State Triggers and State-Based Actions, which are two very different things. The rule I quoted points that out.

Platinum Angel works on certain SBAs (by making them not apply to you), but does nothing to prevent triggered abilities from triggering.

Wizards tends to keep the number of state-triggers down because they are inherently complicated, and each set has a "complexity budget" if you like, that they don't really want to exceed. (It's a new-ish concept).

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by MHaye

Sorry Max, but your combo (fun as it looks) never worked, even before mana burn was removed.The nontechnical summary: Transcendence tries to make you lose, and Platinum Angel stops you losing. So Transcendence tries again.

Repeat ad nauseam.

The technicalities.

SPOILER:

Transscendences second ability is not a normal trigger - it is a State Trigger. State Triggered Abilities fire whenever the gamestate matches the trigger condition. To make them work at all there's a special rule that says the STA does't fire again so long as there is an instance of the ability on the stack.The ability resolves, and tries to make you lose. You don't because of the Angel.

Then, because your life is still 20 or more, Transcendence fires again.

Consequently you had a loop of mandatory actions, and the game is a draw.

A pity, because the rest of it is clever.

So you have to disenchant transcendence in response to the first "you lose the game" trigger. Then that trigger resolves, does nothing due to platinum angel, and then you're good to go.

[President Johnny Gentle]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

And the play difficulty aspect is totally understandable; having a deck like you described is a bit rude unless the player was simply so poor that he couldn't afford a real deck at all.

I think the issue is he usually used it against players who knew the cards as well as he did.

[Cliffy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I have lots of friends that play Magic, but honestly I could just never get over the collectible aspect of it. It seemed to just be designed around a kind of rent-seeking behavior on the part of WotC. I don't have a problem with a game company making money; only with games seemingly designed to extract a tax on the players...

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. It's their property -- of course they seek rents on it.

No one suggests Magic is the cheapest game out there, and the collectable aspect of it is right there in the name. But lots of casual games allow proxies. The reason not everyone does it all the time is that then everybody just has a deck of the 10 best cards and the game is a lot more boring. The major tournaments don't allow proxies of course because they're subsidized by either Wizards or the big vendors in the secondary market, who do it to increase popularity of the game in order to increase sales. But there's nothing untoward there.

--Cliffy

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Cliffy

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. It's their property -- of course they seek rents on it.

Like I said, it's just my opinion. Of course it's their property and they can do what they want with it. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. Dominion and other deckbuilding games don't have the same problem.

Originally Posted by Cliffy

No one suggests Magic is the cheapest game out there, and the collectable aspect of it is right there in the name.

Heh, I never made the connection between "gathering" and "collecting" before...

Originally Posted by Cliffy

But lots of casual games allow proxies.

Right; others have pointed this out, so ignorance fought. The friends that play never use them, so I wasn't aware that they even existed.

I did do a search for blank Magic cards, and only came up with fairly expensive semi-official ones. I'm (not really) surprised that you can't just buy a deck of blank cards with enough space for the full description and such.

Originally Posted by Cliffy

The reason not everyone does it all the time is that then everybody just has a deck of the 10 best cards and the game is a lot more boring.

Now this is where I get confused. Others have argued that the game doesn't really have these super-powerful cards, or at least that the're banned or limited in a certain way. Also, there are so many complexities and interactions that these kinds of minmaxing strategies aren't that useful anyway.

What you're saying is that the only reason decks aren't boring is because players don't have infinite budgets. For some reason I think others would disagree. It sounds like a really bad way of enforcing game balance.

Originally Posted by Cliffy

The major tournaments don't allow proxies of course because they're subsidized by either Wizards or the big vendors in the secondary market, who do it to increase popularity of the game in order to increase sales. But there's nothing untoward there.

Well, there's nothing dishonest there. I wouldn't say there's nothing untoward there. Again, IMHO, "real" games don't discriminate against players with fewer resources, or at least try to minimize the effect. Even in games like the Olympics, there is a lot of criticism over the fact that some competitors (like the US teams) have access to better technology.

And yes, I understand that there are many different tournament formats and that not all of them require expensive and rare cards. I just think it a bit unpleasant that all of the formats aren't that way.

[gonzoron]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I did do a search for blank Magic cards, and only came up with fairly expensive semi-official ones. I'm (not really) surprised that you can't just buy a deck of blank cards with enough space for the full description and such.

This product would never sell well for one simple reason: Basic Land cards. They are necessary to play, so Wizards makes sure that tons of them are available. So every serious magic player (and most casual ones) has a ton of them sitting around. Why buy blanks when you can sharpie up a useless land? (or on the extreme side, print out a picture of the card on paper and put in in a sleeve, backed by a basic land.)

[hogarth]

Originally Posted by gonzoron

This product would never sell well for one simple reason: Basic Land cards. They are necessary to play, so Wizards makes sure that tons of them are available. So every serious magic player (and most casual ones) has a ton of them sitting around. Why buy blanks when you can sharpie up a useless land? (or on the extreme side, print out a picture of the card on paper and put in in a sleeve, backed by a basic land.)

A friend of mine made his own proxies by buying a bunch of decks of really cheap playing cards and writing on them.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by gonzoron

Why buy blanks when you can sharpie up a useless land? (or on the extreme side, print out a picture of the card on paper and put in in a sleeve, backed by a basic land.)

Yeah, I guess so. I was just thinking that truly blank cards might be a little clearer, especially if you sent them through your printer. But the paper+sleeve trick solves that problem as well.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Well, there's nothing dishonest there. I wouldn't say there's nothing untoward there. Again, IMHO, "real" games don't discriminate against players with fewer resources, or at least try to minimize the effect. Even in games like the Olympics, there is a lot of criticism over the fact that some competitors (like the US teams) have access to better technology.

Lots of games discriminate against players with fewer resources: poker, blackjack, roulette. Hell, good luck playing polo on a budget. That doesn't make them not "real" games.

One of the things that was cool about Magic when it started was the meta-game: collecting cards was, itself, part of the resource management of the game. Back when I was in high school (and Ice Age was the hot new expansion), tracking down that one card you needed to complete your killer deck was a big part of the over-all gameplay, whether by lucking into it in a booster pack, or wheedling a good deal out of someone who has the card and is willing to trade it. Card scarcity was an interesting mechanic that's been almost entirely lost in the current manifestation of the game, where you can go online and have any card you want delivered to your front door.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Miller

Lots of games discriminate against players with fewer resources: poker, blackjack, roulette.

That's not inherent to the games, though--those examples work the same way whether you play with real money or not.

Originally Posted by Miller

Hell, good luck playing polo on a budget. That doesn't make them not "real" games.

Like I said, it's just my opinion, and I'll happily admit that many other games have the same problem, and that it's also a matter of degree. I said "real" only because I don't know what better word to use. Surely you'll agree that a pure pay-to-play game, with no skill at all, isn't much of a game at all. Obviously Magic doesn't fall into this category, but it also obviously falls a bit farther along the spectrum than self-contained card games.

This is getting a bit philosophical, but I view games as being idealized abstractions separate from the real world, and that half their point is to, for a few hours at a time, live in a place where all the unfairness and cruelty and ugliness of the outside world isn't present. Outside influence--whether via money or otherwise--contaminates this purity.

But hey, different strokes for different folks.

Originally Posted by Miller

One of the things that was cool about Magic when it started was the meta-game: collecting cards was, itself, part of the resource management of the game.

I can comprehend the allure even if I can't share it. I don't enjoy either collecting or meta-gaming in general.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Yeah, it's sad that it doesn't work anymore. I thought I could get around with Omnath, Sleight of Mind and Celestial Dawn, but it doesn't quite work.

I think it works with Omnath, Sleight of Mind, Deep Water, Life and Limb, something to turn Mox Lotus into a creature, and something to give the Mox Lotus the Saproling Creature type (plenty of options on the last two).

I haven't walked that through all the continuous effects layers, so maybe it doesn't actually work. I think that since it relies on an Un-card, it's arguably good enough.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

That's not inherent to the games, though--those examples work the same way whether you play with real money or not.

Sure, but you can do the same with Magic. I've had plenty of fun playing the game with friends who never bought a single card in their lives - they used decks I've constructed, or built their own out of surplus cards.

Actually, one of my most fond memories of Magic was when a group of friends and I started an informal Magic league amongst ourselves. We were strictly limited to how many cards we could buy (I think it was two boosters a month) and we were only allowed to use cards bought for the purpose of the League. It created a closed environment that hugely deformed individual card value. I had an all blue deck that was pretty successful, until a friend got a rare in a booster pack that, while normally not that powerful, could completely shut down my deck, and I didn't have any cards in my collection that were much use as a counter. The card was so dominating in that format that, when I won it from him as an ante, I immediately burned it in front of everyone. Hugely cathartic - and it was over a card that you can buy today online for less than quarter, despite it being an out-of-print rare.

Like I said, it's just my opinion, and I'll happily admit that many other games have the same problem, and that it's also a matter of degree. I said "real" only because I don't know what better word to use. Surely you'll agree that a pure pay-to-play game, with no skill at all, isn't much of a game at all. Obviously Magic doesn't fall into this category, but it also obviously falls a bit farther along the spectrum than self-contained card games.

One thing about Magic is that having a bigger budget for cards is only an advantage up to a certain point - it's still a pretty high buy-in point, but once you hit that, the returns for dumping more money into the hobby start to diminish rapidly.

This is getting a bit philosophical, but I view games as being idealized abstractions separate from the real world, and that half their point is to, for a few hours at a time, live in a place where all the unfairness and cruelty and ugliness of the outside world isn't present. Outside influence--whether via money or otherwise--contaminates this purity.

But hey, different strokes for different folks.

That's an interesting view of gaming. I don't think I've ever encountered it before - certainly, I've seen the reverse far more often. I've been trying to get my boyfriend into board and card games. I think he'd really enjoy it, but his experience of board gaming is shaped by the games he used to play with his family, which usually ended up in shouting matches and bitter recriminations. I keep telling him, "That's not a function of board games, that's a function of hanging out with your family," but he's not entirely sold yet.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

This is getting a bit philosophical, but I view games as being idealized abstractions separate from the real world, and that half their point is to, for a few hours at a time, live in a place where all the unfairness and cruelty and ugliness of the outside world isn't present. Outside influence--whether via money or otherwise--contaminates this purity.

Sounds like you're a drafter.

[stpauler]

I just got an email from my local gaming store:

THE SOURCE IS BUYING MAGIC THE GATHERING!
Simple Offer for Your Extra Commons & Uncommons
Starting today, the Source is buying any bulk MTG commons & uncommons. Here's the dealio: We are buying bulk by the inch! We will take commons & uncommons and pay you .25c per inch! So, for example, if you bring in 10 inches of commons and/or uncommons and we'll give you $2.50 for the stack! This is a limited time deal and given the flood we're expecting, it probably won't last for long! So don't wait!

They make that sound like such a deal, are the cards quickly devalued?

[Shooby]

Originally Posted by stpauler

I just got an email from my local gaming store:

They make that sound like such a deal, are the cards quickly devalued?

I've quit Magic (on the wagon for 4 years now), but yea, most commons and a healthy chunk of uncommons are pretty much worthless. Unless they're either rare (due to being old), in a tournament deck, or are cornerstones of a trendy casual deck, most non-rares are just considered bulk cards. Players will often give them away for free to even mild acquaintances (I know I did).

For a casual player looking to make random non tourney-worthy decks to play with, this state of affairs is awesome.

[Cliffy]

The collectable value of a pack in in the rare/mythic rare card (and/or a foil, if you got one, which IIRC is one pack in eight), some small percentage of which are worth quite a bit on the secondary market, although their value does tend to go down when the card rotates out of the Standard tourney format. (This weekend I opened a $30 card in a pack I'd bought on a whim while at Target picking up sunscreen.) Certainly, the average value of all the rares printed is less than the four bucks a pack costs, but the jackpots are out there.

But it's a mistake to equate the value of a pack with the collectable value of the pack. (Although plenty of Magic players do this -- it's annoying.) That's why you have "limited" play formats where you all open a bunch of packs and construct a deck out of those cards only. Nobody who isn't really bad at math buys packs to make money, but neither does anybody expect to recoup their losses by selling the commons and uncommons. Those cards are in the pack to play with, not to hold value.

To make things more concrete -- a "draft," the most common format people use when opening packs, requires three packs per person. That's $12, the same as a movie ticket. But a draft can last longer, you leave with a bunch of cards in your pocket instead of just memories, and you've got a chance of pulling a card you can sell for twenty bucks or more.

Anyway, the quarter for an inch is a good deal in certain circumstances. The player who drafts every weekend is going to be drowning in cards, some of which he'll put in various decks, but plenty of which he won't be using again. If he has the patience to cull out the handful of uncommons that are saleable for a quarter, it's not a bad way to clear out some space.

The store will eventually sell the cards it gets for a quarter apiece -- which seems like a bad deal for the player who sold them at a 20th of that price, but the store has to carry the inventory, overhead, and risk of loss (legit when we're talking pieces of shellacked paper) and it's got access to the customers that need a specific hole filled -- that is, it's got the ability to make sales that the player never would. Plus, it'll probably dump a bunch eventually.

--Cliffy

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by stpauler

I just got an email from my local gaming store:

They make that sound like such a deal, are the cards quickly devalued?

That's a pretty standard price for bulk cards. Comes out to about $1 per 250 cards.

[gonzoron]

Occasionally an uncommon will be so darn good that it goes up in value once it's been out of print for a while, especially if people are playing it in Vintage or Legacy. I sold my Sensei's Divining Tops last year for like $8 each. (They were about 7 years out of print). Heck, Force of Will is uncommon, and it's such a powerful Legacy staple that it sells for $75 or so last I checked. In extremely rare cases, a common can do the same, but it's got to be really old, really powerful, only printed in one or two sets, and unlikely to be reprinted. Chain Lightning is in the $15 range, and that's an 18 year old common card.

But the vast majority of Uncommons and Commons are in such surplus that they don't crack 50 cents.

In a given pack, you usually get 1 rare, 3 uncommon, 10 common. So there's about 3x as many copies out there of each uncommon as there are for each rare, and 3x again from common to uncommon. On top of that, common and uncommon are usually (at least in modern sets) the most simple cards, so they get reprinted more often.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Miller

That's an interesting view of gaming. I don't think I've ever encountered it before - certainly, I've seen the reverse far more often. I've been trying to get my boyfriend into board and card games. I think he'd really enjoy it, but his experience of board gaming is shaped by the games he used to play with his family, which usually ended up in shouting matches and bitter recriminations. I keep telling him, "That's not a function of board games, that's a function of hanging out with your family," but he's not entirely sold yet.

Well, I have to laugh. Some friends/coworkers and I were chatting about so-called free-to-play video games that really do require buying items to progress past a certain point. I had expressed a similar opinion as I did here, but only in a vague way. One friend then stated "it makes them a philosophically impure abstraction". Ha! I hadn't used any of those words in the conversation and yet he almost perfectly summarized my earlier post, even down to the wording.

So I guess the view isn't all that uncommon. I think most gamers understand the basic idea--after all, just about the most despised player is the cheater. They are the ones that break the abstraction and ruin our perfect simulated reality. Of course, we have laws in the real world, but the consequences for cheating in the real world are, proportionally, far less. A minor cheat in a game is an instant loss--a death sentence, essentially. Hell, it's the equivalent of several death sentences, with reincarnation in between, due to the loss in reputation. A minor violation of the law--not so much.

Of course, pay to play isn't cheating, but at least in its stronger forms it has the same whiff.

[Johnny Bravo]

Originally Posted by gonzoron

Chain Lightning is in the $15 range, and that's an 18 year old common card.

*blinks and goes hunting for his old magic cards*