PDA

View Full Version : Why is Hex more like MtG than the WoW TCG?



Rydavim
06-01-2013, 03:07 PM
This may have been answered elsewhere, but the search function didn't seem to like those keywords.

Some of the reasons I prefer Crytozoic's WoW TCG over MtG are the rule changes. There are three specifically that I thought were very good that are conspicuously missing in Hex.

1) You can't be screwed by bad resource luck. You will never be resource starved because you may always play any card face down and count it as a resource. This takes out an entire element of RNG. I love it.
I believe this has been addressed somewhere along the lines of beginning players being unwilling to play powerful cards as a basic resource. Not rock-solid reasoning, but okay...

2) Damage on creatures persists. There is no magical free healing at the end at the end of a turn. This allowed smaller creatures to eventually kill very large creatures, and I think helped provide balance.

3) You choose what your creatures attack. If you want to focus some things in order to kill a particular opposing creature, you may. You do not have to default to only attacking the opposing champion and hoping the blocking resolves in your favor.

If anyone could shed some light on these "changes" from Cryptozoic's historic TCG, I'd be really interested. I'd also like to hear anyone's opinions on which method(s) you prefer.

Edit: The prevailing theory seems to be that it is in Hex's best interest financially to be as similar to MtG as possible in terms of play in order to court a major target demographic.

Having played MtG for many years before discovering the less-popular WoW TCG at PAX a couple of years ago, I admit that these rules are familiar to me. Like seeing an old friend after many years, the mechanics and UI will feel second-nature. Although I will mourn the loss of Cryptozoic's more revolutionary TCG gameplay rules, I now recognize that the trade off will hopefully be a much more expansive and long-lasting community than it might have been otherwise.

Thanks for all your comments, guys!

wallofomens
06-01-2013, 03:11 PM
Well, these are not Cryptozoic's rules. The game was first handled by Upper Deck.

My guess is that CZE wanted to make the game as familiar as possible to the bulk of TCG fans (MtG fans are a lot more than WoW TCG) in order to get a bigger player base.

Marsden
06-01-2013, 03:17 PM
I'm not actually keen on any of those mechanics, but that might be because I'm an old (94-96) MTG player. Haven't played many other TCGs and nothing since about 2000.

whythelastman
06-01-2013, 03:27 PM
The following quote comes from Lead Developer Dan Clark (interview on Gamezone (http://www.gamezone.com/originals/2013/05/26/interview-hex-lead-developer-dan-clark-talks-about-the-first-mmo-trading-card-game)):


Cory Jones originally conceptualized this project 3+ years ago as the game he would love to play. Once he had the initial concept, Cory and our team thought of all the features we would love to have, why they appealed to us, and how to best make them work, all the time keeping in mind the core concept of “would we love to play this game or feature?” The amount of passion everyone on this team has for games, whether it be video, board, card, RPG, or miniature games, helps us bring those disparate experiences and mold them together into something that has broad appeal. We think players are really going to love it.

In short: this is what the makers wanted to make.

My take: MtG is the gold standard, despite it's stagnation / over-complication / horrible online experience / anything-else-what-have-you.

HEX can be MtG 2.0--taking full advantage of a completely digital experience--while incorporating the MMORPG experience that mysteriously has never previously been combined with a legit TCG. To me, the best ideas are those that make me scream, "Why didn't I think of this?" When I learned about HEX, I asked myself that very question. (Then I asked myself how much money I could reasonably spend. Then I asked myself how much money I could unreasonably spend.)

Dralon
06-01-2013, 03:29 PM
Cory talks about this a bit more in depth in the most recent interview on The Geek-all-stars. He discusses why they chose including resources in the deck instead of them going in play automatically, and some of the other differences. Interview is about an hr long, and well worth the listen. Can't recall exactly where in the interview he discusses this, but more towards the middle I think.

Hatts
06-01-2013, 03:37 PM
In the interview he mentioned they spent 8-12 months in the core mechanics arguing over various resource (and non resource) mechanics before getting to where they are now. They also believe you get curve screwed by not having the right cards on the right turn in a WoW tcg type game as well as it forces most games to end by turn 8.

I am paraphrasing from memory some details may be off.

Clawdius
06-01-2013, 04:09 PM
Honestly? I think it's probably something to do with the fact that cards like Pack Raptor stack up to massive numbers once you get a couple out on the field, so you'd really be able to basically just play them as resources and have literally no resource cards in a deck. I know that Pack Raptor is just one card, so you couldn't just have a deck with nothing but that in there, but there are seriously a lot of new strategies that incorporate adding additional cards to your deck. Take a card like Prospero, Elven Enchanter, even though it's not applicable outside of PVE. He would be giving you one card per turn while he is on the field, and there are a number of other cards in Hex that can only exist in a digital game and would make a WoW TCG style mana system troublesome.

katkillad
06-01-2013, 04:15 PM
MTG is fantastic, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement. ( Especially compared to how things work in MTGO. ) I think it makes a lot of business sense to try and make a MTG 2.0 and having it online only opens up a lot of ways for Hex to differentiate itself and create a lot of new mechanics.

Also MTG is expensive and it's nice to have a similar alternative that is half the price.

BlindMan
06-01-2013, 04:23 PM
Then I asked myself how much money I could reasonably spend. Then I asked myself how much money I could unreasonably spend.

So true.

Lazybum
06-01-2013, 04:33 PM
never played the wow tcg, granted i have a ton of packs lying around for trying to get loot cards. played mtg a ton and spent prob a ton more buying cards. really enjoyed mtg and main reason i like this game so much is for that fact.

SomeoneRandom
06-01-2013, 04:42 PM
Honestly those 3 reasons are the exact reasons WoW TCG failed compared to MtG.

Starting with choosing where you attack, this causes you to be able to bypass most things your opponents do and allows you to win games you should NEVER win just because of rushing past a superior board position. It also creates a weird prospect story-wise as to why your allies are just standing around doing nothing while you get the shit beaten out of you.

Making the decision to allow creatures to block then basically requires you to reset damage at the end of turn because without it would make you unwilling to block when you have stronger creatures and make aggressive decks far too strong. Although it makes sense for creatures to not heal, it really shifts the power level to smaller creatures because they have the advantage of being aggressive AND still being able to kill higher cost creatures.

Finally resources, although the concept of resources from any cards solves the small percentage of games that are lost to mana screw or mana flood it creates a bad experience for new players who don't want to use their good cards as just resources. Also honestly resource management is really important to deckbuilding and removing that by doing something like quests greatly lowers deck building skills, especially in limited formats.

With all three of those mechanics in the way they were for the WoW TCG it created an environment that was really a turn off for new players and made their limited format a trainwreck. These factors ended up making the game not popular and eventually floundered their customer base completely.

Rydavim
06-01-2013, 04:53 PM
Edited thoughts on comments into original post. Thanks for the feedback, guys!

Fireblast
06-01-2013, 05:27 PM
Honestly those 3 reasons are the exact reasons WoW TCG failed compared to MtG.

Starting with choosing where you attack, this causes you to be able to bypass most things your opponents do and allows you to win games you should NEVER win just because of rushing past a superior board position. It also creates a weird prospect story-wise as to why your allies are just standing around doing nothing while you get the shit beaten out of you.

Making the decision to allow creatures to block then basically requires you to reset damage at the end of turn because without it would make you unwilling to block when you have stronger creatures and make aggressive decks far too strong. Although it makes sense for creatures to not heal, it really shifts the power level to smaller creatures because they have the advantage of being aggressive AND still being able to kill higher cost creatures.

Finally resources, although the concept of resources from any cards solves the small percentage of games that are lost to mana screw or mana flood it creates a bad experience for new players who don't want to use their good cards as just resources. Also honestly resource management is really important to deckbuilding and removing that by doing something like quests greatly lowers deck building skills, especially in limited formats.

With all three of those mechanics in the way they were for the WoW TCG it created an environment that was really a turn off for new players and made their limited format a trainwreck. These factors ended up making the game not popular and eventually floundered their customer base completely.

Spot on

~

Arbiter
06-01-2013, 06:15 PM
1) You can't be screwed by bad resource luck. You will never be resource starved because you may always play any card face down and count it as a resource. This takes out an entire element of RNG. I love it.
I believe this has been addressed somewhere along the lines of beginning players being unwilling to play powerful cards as a basic resource. Not rock-solid reasoning, but okay...

2) Damage on creatures persists. There is no magical free healing at the end at the end of a turn. This allowed smaller creatures to eventually kill very large creatures, and I think helped provide balance.

3) You choose what your creatures attack. If you want to focus some things in order to kill a particular opposing creature, you may. You do not have to default to only attacking the opposing champion and hoping the blocking resolves in your favor.

1) He talks about a bit in the radio podcast people mention. Essentially, having resources that auto build just trade one form of RNG for another. I didn't play WoW TCG, but I did play UDE's VS system. There if you missed your optimum drop any time from turn 3 onward you usually lost unless your opponent was unlucky. Also, as is the case with many games with constant resource growth the power level increase was exponential rather than linear. I think proportionately I lost more games to missing drops than missing mana. It is a lot easier to tweak something you can have an unlimited amount of in decks (resources) than optimum drops. In VS, the factions without search cards for drops were much less playable than those that had them.

Auto building resources also limits the design space. Resource destruction is no longer a valid design space to really explore, as it is too significant an advantage for one person to be ahead of the other, particularly with exponential growth. Even symmetric destruction is powerful, limiting the top curve, and needs to be rare and expensive.

2) Games without automatic mana growth tend to be more linear than exponential. This means that you don't need endless numbers of lower creatures to kill one higher level one. So saving damage is less needed. Also, it hurts the design space. If you are clearing damage you can have temporary increases to power and toughness that go away at the end of the turn, and the creature lives. If damage is permanent, then a lot more things need to be permanent as well, or they are much less useful.

3) Is about creating a more interactive game. One person attacking (or ignoring) the defenders board often gets to the stage where two people are playing solo games. This way, two people are making decisions about the attack step. It also provides a more complex play experience.

And again it comes back to the design space. Attackers not choosing where to attack allows designers to make powerful, but weak creatures. It also means people need cards that deal directly with opponents creatures as they cannot rely on the creatures to do the work.


In the end, I am happy with these decisions. I think that they allow for more complex and skill based game play and deck design decisions, and also open up the design space for the card designers a lot more.

nearlysober
06-01-2013, 07:51 PM
WoWTCG was really the first TCG I played seriously, and therefore I'm obviously quite fond of it. But I think part of the reason it didn't take off in popularity as much was that it was too different.

First off, with the resources, being able to resource anything makes resourcing a non-issue. You might as well just have a counter that increases by 1 each turn.

Also, while I like the complexity of WoWTCG's combat window, selecting multiple targets, and complex chain forming... the system of individual targeting and waiting for responses online would be so slow.

And, with it being so easy to kill troops in combat with each other... it would cause people to make bad decisions.
I've seen games an Cons with 2 new players, and they'll each throw out a protector.... and 7 rounds later they each have 8 troops out because they're all afraid of attacking in and losing one of their guys.

That could happen in MtG or Hex I suppose... but with the concept that 99% of troops can block, people become more accustomed to "trading" troops

Rydavim
06-01-2013, 08:11 PM
As stated in the edit, I have played both TCGs (MtG more extensively). While I hope this thread won't turn any more antagonistic (I realize there are some hardcore MtG fans here), I wasn't suggesting that one is definitively better than another. I was more curious as to why the devs chose the traditional format that Cryptozoic has rebelled against in the past. The answer seems to clearly be a business one, and seems wise given some of the responses here.

Hex is a brand new game, even if some of the rules are familiar. Let's do our best as a community to welcome veterans of any TCGs and beginners alike. :)

stiii
06-01-2013, 08:14 PM
I love how people are claiming wow failed as it isn't as successful as magic. I guess Hex will have failed in five years time by this standard too.

Hatts
06-01-2013, 08:31 PM
I was more curious as to why the devs chose the traditional format that Cryptozoic has rebelled against in the past. The answer seems to clearly be a business one, and seems wise given some of the responses here.


I don't think it's a business decision, they think this way provides a better game. They inherited the WoW tcg system and made a deliberate choice to go away from it for Hex. I guess that could be considered a business decision, but I think it's more about making the best game possible.

SomeoneRandom
06-01-2013, 09:52 PM
I love how people are claiming wow failed as it isn't as successful as magic. I guess Hex will have failed in five years time by this standard too.

I suppose it does depend on your standards of "sucessful", WoW TCG certainly falls in perhaps the top 10 most succesful CCGs of all time and I personally really enjoyed the game. However, based on the backing it had it honestly fell a little flat. I have been in playgroups and tournaments in stores all across the country and currently play in one of the biggest stores in the country and none of them have had a big WoW scene(>8 people playing consistently). In fact, I know more people who bought the WoW TCG for loot cards than I know people who bought it to play the actual game.

Personally I define success more as the possibility of competitive play. At any game store in America you can find at least one Magic tournament a week, a large percentage will have at least one Yu-Gi-Oh tournament, and a growing percentage have Cardfight Vanguard tournaments. Others will have LCG tournaments like Game of Thrones, Netrunner, Star Wars etc. However I honestly know of none that have standard WoW tournaments, only really a release tournament for a new set.

Either way, I think Hex has a chance to be as big if not bigger than Magic. =]

DeusPhasmatis
06-01-2013, 10:15 PM
It's also worth mentioning that CZE might have a vested interest in not competing with themselves. By making Hex similar to MtG, they appeal to players who like those kinds of mechanics, who are mainly some other company's consumers. If they made it more like WoWTCG, they'd targeting people who are already giving them money.

HyenaNipples
06-01-2013, 11:03 PM
If you want to play a game with most of the mechanics being currently discussed, you can go try Might & Magic: Duel of Champions. It's a F2P online TCG. It's fun enough, but it's also horribly overpriced, and after about a week you start to see how poorly designed it is. Full of imbalance, and the infinite growth resources takes a lot out of the tactics imo.

I play it a little still, but its flaws are what started me looking for a different game, and that's how I discovered HEX in the first place. Hopefully, HEX will be a superior product.

Hollywood
06-01-2013, 11:14 PM
It's also worth mentioning that CZE might have a vested interest in not competing with themselves. By making Hex similar to MtG, they appeal to players who like those kinds of mechanics, who are mainly some other company's consumers. If they made it more like WoWTCG, they'd targeting people who are already giving them money.

Because MTGO really "competes" with IRl Magic.

Gwaer
06-01-2013, 11:19 PM
Because MTGO really "competes" with IRl Magic.
What? Those are the same game... You can cash out mtgo digital cards for mtg physical ones... How is that related? Besides, Cory talks about why they picked this system, and how long they tested different options in the geek allstars interview.

Hollywood
06-01-2013, 11:27 PM
What? Those are the same game... You can cash out mtgo digital cards for mtg physical ones... How is that related? Besides, Cory talks about why they picked this system, and how long they tested different options in the geek allstars interview.

I'm just saying, trying to say that CZE is going with a Magic-esque resource/combat system instead of a WoWTCG system to not compete with itself and trying to use MTGO vs. MTG to illustrate that point is a big ol' facepalm. If anything, the two feed each other at this point and help each other grow (MTGO PT's, IRL MTGO Championship, etc).

TheWrathofShane
06-02-2013, 12:04 AM
I never played WoW TCG, but everything in your post is what I always imagined for a new card game. I feel magic, though awesome, is not the "best" card game to mirror mostly because of landscrew/landflood. I also think no free healing would make for an awesome cardgame, and being able to attack other creatures would be pretty interesting.

But I have been a long time magic player, since onslaught block, and will play the crap out of hex regardless.

TheWrathofShane
06-02-2013, 12:07 AM
One thing unique to hex, is that permanent effects will save even though the target changes zones, be it graveyard/hand/void (flicker). So if you reduce toughness to 0, that will nearly be the same as exile, besides enter the battlefield / dies effects that could still give you some problems.

TheWrathofShane
06-02-2013, 12:17 AM
Few reasons why I never got into WoW TCG
1) **Physical cards, who am I playing with?**
2) It was world of warcraft... no thanks.
3) Didn't really know much about it, wasnt willing to invest money.

So to say wow tcg "failed" because they did it different then magic, is incorrect in my opinion.

Hollywood
06-02-2013, 12:40 AM
Few reasons why I never got into WoW TCG
1) **Physical cards, who am I playing with?**
2) It was world of warcraft... no thanks.
3) Didn't really know much about it, wasnt willing to invest money.

So to say wow tcg "failed" because they did it different then magic, is incorrect in my opinion.

Actually, the differences between the 2 (and I've played MTG since Apocalypse, WoW since its second set Dark Portal) are what made WoW so wildly popular for a time and what, in my opinion, truly could have made it rival Magic. There are a whole plethora of reasons for WoW's decline but the majority of responsibility is actually due to mismanagement, both by UDE and CZE, as opposed to flaws or lackings within the game itself.

KJ_TO
06-03-2013, 12:25 PM
The only thing that has disappointed me about the game thus far is that creatures can only attack the opposing Champion. Many other card games have done much more interesting and interactive ways of dealing damage. I always thought the main reason for MTG and damage being erased at the end of each turn is that keeping track of it was problematic, but in computer game that is not an issue.

I like all of the other ideas as they help the flow of the game and keep turns from lasting forever

+1 - Better resourcing than MTG
+1 - Single attack phase
+1 - Bar on the side illustrating the stack and show order of play for abilities and affects

-2 - Only attack the opposing champion

KJ

nicosharp
06-03-2013, 12:31 PM
-Everyone starts with the same Health Points
-Champions can't attack
-Equipment can not be equipped in PvP to deal or prevent damage
-There is more card pool possibilities with any given shard type or champion, then there were for hero classes in WoW TCG.

DeusPhasmatis
06-03-2013, 12:40 PM
Only being able to attack champions makes small troops more useful, because then your opponent can't just walk over them with something bigger. It also changes the tactics involved in attacking (i.e. which troops to hold back for defense, what kind of blocking combinations can your opponent do, etc...), and gives the defending player some agency in the combat.

KJ_TO
06-03-2013, 01:31 PM
I played Magic for a very long time. I have also played WoWtcg, Star Wars when Decipher ran it, L5R, and quite a few others. I find the MTG attack system to be very boring. I "turn my cards sideways" is not involved from a tactics perspective. I understand they have chosen to go a different way and I am really excited about many of the other changes they have made, but this one is not one I am excited about.

As far as being useful or not I would rather be the one deciding whether my little guys should be sent against a big guy or not.

DeusPhasmatis
06-03-2013, 01:58 PM
I "turn my cards sideways" is not involved from a tactics perspective.

If you're playing goldfish, or if your opponent doesn't have anything on the board, sure. In comparison, having troops of different powers, on both sides of the board, and both players having instant cast combat tricks, presents a large number of possible attacker/blocker/tricks combinations with both short term and long term consequences.

Fireblast
06-03-2013, 02:08 PM
Each MtG attack phase is like a WoWTCG one with protectors (the only ones that are interesting)

~

TheWrathofShane
06-03-2013, 02:11 PM
Never played WoW but MTG land system is not perfect, but they went with it and thats okay. Going to be an awesome game.

Moondancer
06-03-2013, 02:11 PM
The reason you are not allowed to attack other players creatures really comes down to feeling and not mechanics. Imagine your a new player you get your cool guy out on turn 5 or whatever only to have it attacked to death with whats on the field. Feels pretty bad. Now if your opponent has to use a card out of his hand to kill your creature it feels less bad, because you know you could have a card in your hand that could save it. It also makes certain abilities interesting and have both merits and flaws. Shroud for instance is good if you dont want your creature lightning bolted but bad if you want to be able to pump it or do things to it.

Fireblast
06-03-2013, 02:16 PM
Shroud for instance is good if you dont want your creature lightning bolted but bad if you want to be able to pump it or do things to it.

That's why they got hexproof :D

~

houjix
06-03-2013, 02:18 PM
Each MtG attack phase is like a WoWTCG one with protectors (the only ones that are interesting)

~

Or think of it like every Magic creature has elusive and protecor.

The thing I prefer about WoW is you can put powerful interesting effect on allies that have huge impact on the game. But they are ultimately more fragile as they can be attacked directly. That's why an Elusive ally with a powerful effect is such big deal. Elusive itself is probably the strongest keyword in the game.

hacky
06-03-2013, 02:23 PM
Or think of it like every Magic creature has elusive and protecor.

The thing I prefer about WoW is you can put powerful interesting effect on allies that have huge impact on the game. But they are ultimately more fragile as they can be attacked directly. That's why an Elusive ally with a powerful effect is such big deal. Elusive itself is probably the strongest keyword in the game.

Nope., While Elusive is strong, Ferocity is the strongest keyword in WoWTCG. :)

In fact, even Untargetable proves stronger than Elusive in practice. Even more so for Spellshield (Untargetable by opponents).

Moondancer
06-03-2013, 02:27 PM
That's why they got hexproof :D

~

Well hexproof is a different story a mechanic i think they should never have introduced or keyworded.

Moondancer
06-03-2013, 02:28 PM
One of the more interesting choices about the current resource system in hex is the lack of being able to have utility lands. Stuff that you can use as a resource but also get another effect out of.

DeusPhasmatis
06-03-2013, 03:04 PM
One of the more interesting choices about the current resource system in hex is the lack of being able to have utility lands. Stuff that you can use as a resource but also get another effect out of.

Resource cards could create other cards when played. Cards with utility effects. Think digital!

Tyrfang
06-03-2013, 03:11 PM
Those would just be 0 cost artifacts, or resource cards that have an effect as the come into play to create a token that has x effect.

KJ_TO
06-04-2013, 11:27 AM
In comparison, having troops of different powers, on both sides of the board, and both players having instant cast combat tricks, presents a large number of possible attacker/blocker/tricks combinations with both short term and long term consequences.

The meaning in what I was saying is flooding the board with guys and all out attacking is not tactical in a fun way to play. I don't think they turn cards sideways in goldfish unless you mean the pond as I have not played goldfish in a long time. I have played both MTG and WoWtcg. In magic you ha a lot of turns where people don't attack unless they have an obvious advantage. In WoW where you can attack creatures there is rarely a turn you don't attack into the hero or trade guys to change the board state.

If the only thing my creatures can attack is the opposing hero they are very one dimensional. I am highly reliant on removal spells at that point as they are the only way I can directly interact with an opponent's creatures. If my creatures are able to directly interact with my opponents creatures then even if I lack a removal spell I can still try to deal with them in another way.

Another item with this is it limits things later. In WoW things sometimes have a keyword that makes it so they cannot be attacked, but you can target them with removal. Or you have the other option where sometimes they cannot be targeted but they can still be attacked.

Since nothing can be attacked and your only hope is to get your opponent to put something in the way to kill it you need to ahve alot of removal and if you make something so it can't be targeted by removal its power level is insane at that point.

Anyways they ahve chosen to go the MTG way. It is limited from a tatical perspective. It is too bad.

DeusPhasmatis
06-04-2013, 11:51 AM
It's limited from a vanilla troop tactical perspective. If all you have are Grizzly Bears (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=129586), then there isn't a lot to think about. Wild Mongrel (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=201826) is different.

It makes weak utility creatures playable, because your opponent can't smush your Merfolk Looter (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=220179) with just anything; they need some specialized response. Like Shock (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=245184), Terror (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=202486), Royal Assassin (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=236464), Prodigal Sorcerer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=221111), etc...

theophanya
06-04-2013, 11:53 AM
It's also worth mentioning that CZE might have a vested interest in not competing with themselves. By making Hex similar to MtG, they appeal to players who like those kinds of mechanics, who are mainly some other company's consumers. If they made it more like WoWTCG, they'd targeting people who are already giving them money.

Spot on!

Moondancer
06-04-2013, 11:58 AM
It's limited from a vanilla troop tactical perspective. If all you have are Grizzly Bears (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=129586), then there isn't a lot to think about. Wild Mongrel (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=201826) is different.

It makes weak utility creatures playable, because your opponent can't smush your Merfolk Looter (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=220179) with just anything; they need some specialized response. Like Shock (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=245184), Terror (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=202486), Royal Assassin (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=236464), Prodigal Sorcerer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=221111), etc...

Couldn't have said it better

houjix
06-04-2013, 12:12 PM
It's a different game with different ways of balancing things. Elusive let's weak utility creatures have a home in WoW as they will function just like a Magic creature.(It has a Tim as well, 3 cost 1/1 elusive, tap to ping) But WoW can also have creatures without elusive that have ridiculously powerful effects, that if properly supported through protectors or attacking your opponent's creatures, can have a bigger impact on the game than an equivalently costed Magic creature.

Some things are better in WoW, others in Magic. It's a matter or preference. Neither is really the better game.

KJ_TO
06-04-2013, 12:13 PM
In a game like this a Royal Assassin would be very very powerful because you need targeted removal to deal with him. He becomes much less formidable and your Grizzly Bears become overall much better because they have more utility in them.

I'm going to guess since both Moondancer and DeusPhasmatis joined recently that you are most likely MTG players (And that isn't a negative thing). I would ask you to (if you have not) try playing a game where creatures can interact with each other. It truely does open up alot of options and in my opinion is more fun. I enjoyed MTG when i played and it is both very successful and the benchmark because of that to which other games are compared. In addition there is a much larger player base to court for dollars. These do not however equate to it being more tactical or fun to play.

Basically I'm saying empower the Grizzly Bears of the world and not make them so one dimensional. Needing a "Specialized response" for a 1/1 creature seems very involved. Considering Grizzly Bears can swim and that Merfolk Looter is probably tasty.

DeusPhasmatis
06-04-2013, 01:42 PM
I played a lot of the Versus System TCG, where creatures attack other creatures directly. It was interesting, but I had fewer options as the defender. It also harshly punished being behind the resource curve because it was difficult to protect smaller creatures from your opponent's larger ones.

I wouldn't say such systems are intrinsically better.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 02:36 PM
I love in MtG how dropping a 3/3 when your opponent have 2/1 and 2/2 and such makes him have a choice.
Trade cards for damage or wait.
While in WoWTCG you're just having your hero destroyed and then you have to "trade".

This is why WoW is more toss dependant than MtG and leads to bad experience as I think like 80% of the constructed games in WoW would have the same issue if you inverted the players.
The cards and the matchups play themselves.

Not curving out and having to CHOOSE which spells to cast and in which order make the decision tree bigger.

~

stiii
06-04-2013, 03:18 PM
I love in MtG how dropping a 3/3 when your opponent have 2/1 and 2/2 and such makes him have a choice.
Trade cards for damage or wait.
While in WoWTCG you're just having your hero destroyed and then you have to "trade".

This is why WoW is more toss dependant than MtG and leads to bad experience as I think like 80% of the constructed games in WoW would have the same issue if you inverted the players.
The cards and the matchups play themselves.

Not curving out and having to CHOOSE which spells to cast and in which order make the decision tree bigger.

~

Man you really are so bitter about wow.

Everything you said about magic also applies to wow. You could trade your two guys for the 3/3, you could race. The guy with the 3/3 could trade or race.

hacky
06-04-2013, 03:22 PM
Man you really are so bitter about wow.

Everything you said about magic also applies to wow. You could trade your two guys for the 3/3, you could race. The guy with the 3/3 could trade or race.

100% this. I've seen your posts lately, Fireblast. Your negativity in regards to WoW is making you say ridiculous and untrue things.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 03:27 PM
It's my opinion, the game was great for 4 years, then good, then bad.
It's my feelings about it, there are flaws due to the resource system, the powercreep of allies, and devalue of spells/quests.

The game is becoming less popular for a reason, I can understand you want it to last a bit more, but you're the ones blindfolded.

~

wolwerine
06-04-2013, 03:53 PM
i think wow tcg is a better game than magic. the 3 to 4 first blocks were just great and it was a blast for a control player like me (i want a divine spirit in hex :p)

but i must tell i can't say fireblast is wrong there . the game is becoming a coin flip . the new card design and the 1 game matches are slowly killing the game. that and the overpowered card in low print sets that you must have to be competitive.

stiii
06-04-2013, 05:18 PM
It's my opinion, the game was great for 4 years, then good, then bad.
It's my feelings about it, there are flaws due to the resource system, the powercreep of allies, and devalue of spells/quests.

The game is becoming less popular for a reason, I can understand you want it to last a bit more, but you're the ones blindfolded.

~

And you are the guy who didn't refute my points.

We get it you don't like wow tcg any more. What you say still has to make logical sense. Your example also doesn't really support what you are saying either. You are saying wow is bad because of the game design. This has always been true, it didn't suddenly change.

The fact you complaining there is little skill in wow suggest to me instead that you are bitter because you never did well and think you deserved to do well. You can put CHOOSE in caps all you like but it doesn't really make sense. In wow to curve out you have to row a bunch of cards and your spells have more spells in them to pick from. The decision tree from having to row a card for the first four turns is huge. The very fact you are seemingly unaware of this suggest you weren't very good at wow and this contributed to you losing a lot and then blaming it on luck.

Note how I explained my logic rather than just saying things then avoiding explaining why things were true.

stiii
06-04-2013, 05:19 PM
i think wow tcg is a better game than magic. the 3 to 4 first blocks were just great and it was a blast for a control player like me (i want a divine spirit in hex :p)

but i must tell i can't say fireblast is wrong there . the game is becoming a coin flip . the new card design and the 1 game matches are slowly killing the game. that and the overpowered card in low print sets that you must have to be competitive.

I will admit the game is worse and divine spirit was awesome, but it is hyperbole to suggest that it is all random the same small group of players is still winning most events.