What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

CHESS?!!? Magic has barely any decision points. It's a game about top-decking.

I actually wish it was more like poker cuz my favourite endorphin-firing moments of Magic is when you have those rare opportunities to bluff. When you pull those off and sneak in damage, or opponent plays the suboptimal card cuz you've left mana open for no good reason... those moments are fun.

Shellhead wrote: The central flaw of Magic is the card flow. You get an opening hand, and then normally draw just one card per turn. The fact that a significant portion of your deck must consist of boring mana cards can occasionally cause a deck to fail simply due to a bad starting hand. Mana also goes from precious commodity early in the game to dead weight late in the game, making those subsequent hand draws potentially very frustrating. I believe all of Garfield's subsequent design allowed for more dynamic card flow, from Jyhad to Keyforge.

Now this I think is actually a valid issue. The way the relative value of land decreases over the course of the game. Drawing a land on turn 2 is desirable. Drawing a land on turn 10 can be GG check off one in the L column. There are fixes (a simple Fireball or anything that has an X CC or effect, cards that let you sac lands, cards that make tokens based on number of lands, etc.).

But you still run into that problem where you just need a 1-drop creature to block terminal face damage and you draw...a swamp. Or you wind up simply with more mana than you can even use because you are down to 3/2/1 card hands.

This has always been and still is I think the #1 problem with MTG, that it’s resource curve eventually outstrips the game. I think the one big design flaw -is- putting the resource cards in the deck, which was done because the design concept was that the game was completely portable and could be put in a pocket and played during downtime at a convention or whatever. So from that perspective, it makes sense. From a competitive or higher level design one...it doesn’t really.

And that’s why so many games- Keyforge included- have worked out ways to NOT put the resources in the deck. This goes way back to all the second-gen CCGs. In fact, off the top of my head, Pokemon is about the only other standout, still-played game that does this.

I thought Hearthstone solves it best with its crysta mechanic, but I think the suits in Keyforge are even better.

Even though its (mis)characterized by godly hands that win on turn one or turn 2, the older formats with the good blue cantrips and fetchlands do a lot to mitigate luck. Watching guys like Reid Duke or Luis Scott Vargas play control and midrange decks in these formats gave me much more respect for the depth of the game.

Michael Barnes wrote: This has always been and still is I think the #1 problem with MTG, that it’s resource curve eventually outstrips the game. I think the one big design flaw -is- putting the resource cards in the deck

I think this is a really great way to put it. And it's true, from the top of my head all other Garfield games have the main resouces outside of the deck and have a far higher card per game ratio.

It seems to me that Garfield really worked on this aspect and improved it on his games, at least from his perspective. Consider this:

Magic: Resources in the deck, Life total, Milling as alternative win condition, no way to draw, no cardless actions.
VTES: Resources and life are one and the same. Action-providing cards come from a secondary deck. No milling. Most cards are costless. Draw as you play, Vampires can perform actions without cards.
Battletech (Not played): Deck doubles as life. Resources go in the deck. Draw two cards per turn. It uses both counters and dice. At a glance, this looks like an earlier design.
Netrunner: Resources outside of the game. Win condition is IN the deck. Actions don't require cards, spend action points to draw, gain resources, main action of the game doesn't require any cards to be played.
(...)
Keyforge: No resources, win condition outside of the deck. No cardless actions (Garfield considered Netrunner's economy too complex). Draw as you play. A mechanism (play one suit) controls the economy while balance is provided by the lack of deckbuilding.

I mentioned this on Twitter but it's a real shame how everyone seems to follow Magic's principles without question when not even Garfield tied himself to them. I would love to see more games follow Netrunner steps and make the hand, the board and the discard pile all different places you can interact with.

Space Ghost wrote: Naturally, the throw away disclaimer is that all card games are luck based, so there will be wins/losses based on luck. But, like almost every other card game, MtG, over time, rewards people with more skill.

I think you can split my problem with luck in Magic on several levels:

1) Luck makes the game unplayable. As in, if you get no lands, you just can't play. It's not that you lose, it's that you have nothing to do.
2) Metagame luck is very high. You can go to a tournament with a Tier 1 deck and just get steamrolled by a bad matchup. And it's not a sign of a bad deck choice, the range between matchups is very high. Like, it's compeltely normal to just be faster than the other deck and win. I didn't think of this
3) Luck forces you to play on the edges of the design. That is, it forces you to play the "does he or doens't he" bluff or the "I can only win if I get X, so I'll play that path and hope for the best". That's not very fun.

But it's true that luck is often overstated and very often a problem with how people play. For example, players will kill things very fast and then rely on topdecks to keep things going instead of sacrificing some life to hit a better card. Players also tend to overextended instead of playing a turn or two longer.

Michael Barnes wrote: So I think when we talk about MTG flaws- and there definitely are some- I think it’s critical to acknowledge that the randomness is a fundamental part of the concept and design- not an error or demerit.

I think this is more of a difference in values. For me it's something that damages the things I like in the game, while the drama or the let's ay emotions of it are something I find less interesting.

I also disagree with the idea of everyone being able to beat anyone with some regularity is good design, which I know both Garfield and Rosewater share.

Jexik wrote: Even though its (mis)characterized by godly hands that win on turn one or turn 2, the older formats with the good blue cantrips and fetchlands do a lot to mitigate luck. Watching guys like Reid Duke or Luis Scott Vargas play control and midrange decks in these formats gave me much more respect for the depth of the game.

It's actually interesting how Vintage and Legacy have become slower over time. It's simply not worthwhile to gamble on a fast combo and have a rough time with disruption when you can play a bit more fair and win more often.

Erik Twice wrote: I mentioned this on Twitter but it's a real shame how everyone seems to follow Magic's principles without question when not even Garfield tied himself to them. I would love to see more games follow Netrunner steps and make the hand, the board and the discard pile all different places you can interact with.

Good point!

Michael Barnes wrote: This has always been and still is I think the #1 problem with MTG, that it’s resource curve eventually outstrips the game. I think the one big design flaw -is- putting the resource cards in the deck, which was done because the design concept was that the game was completely portable and could be put in a pocket and played during downtime at a convention or whatever. So from that perspective, it makes sense. From a competitive or higher level design one...it doesn’t really.

And that’s why so many games- Keyforge included- have worked out ways to NOT put the resources in the deck. This goes way back to all the second-gen CCGs. In fact, off the top of my head, Pokemon is about the only other standout, still-played game that does this.

I thought Hearthstone solves it best with its crysta mechanic, but I think the suits in Keyforge are even better.

I think that is an interesting point, but debatable (like everything else).

I see the decisions about mana -- both how many mana generating cards to include and how many colors to include a key component to deck constructing. You get into a trade-off between consistency and efficiency, some of that balance can be ameliorated via skill. The better you get, the more you can hone in on the exact land distribution. This is an aspect that is completely lost in games like Hearthstone. I absolutely hate the "1 crystal/per turn" structure -- to allow this, they had to artificially constrain each class/class power combos to only certain cards. I like that in Magic, I can play with any combination of cards in any deck -- I just have to be clever about how I create my mana base.

As far as the resource curve outstripping the game, ideally the game should be over by the time you start piling up lands. I would say this -- for the majority of the games (80%), you shouldn't be in a situation where (a) you don't have enough lands to get going in the beginning, and (b) you are just top-decking and playing lands waiting for something to happen. If this is happening more than 1 out of 5 games, then you probably have a poorly designed deck. Ideally, there should be no wasted mana in the early game (and as a somewhat of a purist, I am disappointed by the elimination of mana burn).


*My general disclaimer is that I only play Vintage and Legacy, so I can't really speak to the current state of Standard.

Jexik wrote: Even though its (mis)characterized by godly hands that win on turn one or turn 2, the older formats with the good blue cantrips and fetchlands do a lot to mitigate luck. Watching guys like Reid Duke or Luis Scott Vargas play control and midrange decks in these formats gave me much more respect for the depth of the game.

I agree with this 100%. Midrange/control is what I find the most interesting. Vintage/Legacy has slowed way down -- for years, I played a "budget" Type I deck that was based around Chains of Mephistopheles and some other commons -- very black control oriented, combined with discard and The Rack. I ended up winning my Moxen in tournaments with that deck. But, I started with just a Mox Jet as the only "highly desired" card. Everything else was things like Megrim, Teferri's Puzzle Box, Anvil of Bogarden, Howling Mine, etc. So you can definitely be competitive without high dollar cards

Now, I am onto a Jace themed deck that focuses on milling the opponent as the main win condition. And, I just made a Red-Control deck that I have yet to test out.

For Legacy, several decks: mono-black discard, suicide black, an all land deck, an all Wall deck, a mono-blue wizard deck, a life gain deck that is annoying, and a pseudo-gimmicky Kavu deck that can explode and win very early.

In any event, I think that anyone who says that it is all about top-decking with few decisions isn't playing the same type of Magic that I have been playing. I think that it can be some of the most mentally exhausting and exciting game play -- full of bluffing and just generally high levels of play. The stack (and manipulation thereof) makes it much more deep than similar card games. There have been games where I have lost because I didn't tap my lands/artifacts in the right order, or maybe play the wrong instant first, or use the wrong colored land for a colorless mana. So much of the game is about playing with precision.

Erik Twice wrote:

Space Ghost wrote: Naturally, the throw away disclaimer is that all card games are luck based, so there will be wins/losses based on luck. But, like almost every other card game, MtG, over time, rewards people with more skill.

I think you can split my problem with luck in Magic on several levels:

1) Luck makes the game unplayable. As in, if you get no lands, you just can't play. It's not that you lose, it's that you have nothing to do.
2) Metagame luck is very high. You can go to a tournament with a Tier 1 deck and just get steamrolled by a bad matchup. And it's not a sign of a bad deck choice, the range between matchups is very high. Like, it's compeltely normal to just be faster than the other deck and win. I didn't think of this
3) Luck forces you to play on the edges of the design. That is, it forces you to play the "does he or doens't he" bluff or the "I can only win if I get X, so I'll play that path and hope for the best". That's not very fun.

But it's true that luck is often overstated and very often a problem with how people play. For example, players will kill things very fast and then rely on topdecks to keep things going instead of sacrificing some life to hit a better card. Players also tend to overextended instead of playing a turn or two longer.

I think those are fair points. I think that the biggest mistake people make when playing is not viewing life as a resource. As to your points about luck:

(1) This just shouldn't happen too much. I mean just a simple thing like having 20 lands in a 60 card deck, you have a 75% chance of having at least 2 lands in your opening hand of 7. If you are going second, that goes up to an 82% chance of having two lands. You have an 85% chance of getting 3 lands in your first 5 turns (e.g., first 12 cards).

(2) I don't know if this is consistently true. There are weird times when one deck is dominant -- like the famed Black Summer when Necropotence dominated everything -- however, that is rare. Usually, there are sets of Tier 1 decks and it is likely that their will be trade-offs among the different decks in the same Tier. Local metas can be odd.

(3) I think the "I can only win if I get X" is more indicative of poor deck design or just a poor matchup. I think that the "bluff" aspect of Magic (or any card game, from Bridge to Gin, etc.) is a good part of the design.

I think this is more of a difference in values. For me it's something that damages the things I like in the game, while the drama or the let's ay emotions of it are something I find less interesting.

I also disagree with the idea of everyone being able to beat anyone with some regularity is good design, which I know both Garfield and Rosewater share.

I think that depends on how you define "regularity". I think that in any card game, the better player can lose. However, in the long run, the best players almost always win in Magic.

I hear what people are saying about land’s importance to strategy and deckbuilding, but I can’t agree with it. Deck building for economy is the most annoying part of deck building. Coming from Game of Thrones, I want to include to play cards that do things. I want Brienne and Valyrian swords and dragons breathing fire, not Gold Mines and fiefdoms. Cards that pay for things are boring, and I think Thrones has one of the more innovative and exciting economic systems in the plot deck where you balance gold against the ability to go first against powerful abilities for the turn.

I think it’s telling that the biggest CCG releases of this and recent years have opted for an action economy (Keyforge, Warhammer) over a gold or mana economy.

Gary Sax wrote:

Erik Twice wrote: I mentioned this on Twitter but it's a real shame how everyone seems to follow Magic's principles without question when not even Garfield tied himself to them. I would love to see more games follow Netrunner steps and make the hand, the board and the discard pile all different places you can interact with.

Good point!

I agree with this. I think that one potential mistake is to assume that Garfield is trying other designs in an attempt to "fix" Magic. He might just be trying other stuff out. Evolution of game design principles doesn't necessarily imply improvement -- just difference, exploring the potential design space.

Erik Twice wrote: I think this is a really great way to put it. And it's true, from the top of my head all other Garfield games have the main resouces outside of the deck and have a far higher card per game ratio.

It seems to me that Garfield really worked on this aspect and improved it on his games, at least from his perspective. Consider this:

Magic: Resources in the deck, Life total, Milling as alternative win condition, no way to draw, no cardless actions.
VTES: Resources and life are one and the same. Action-providing cards come from a secondary deck. No milling. Most cards are costless. Draw as you play, Vampires can perform actions without cards.
Battletech (Not played): Deck doubles as life. Resources go in the deck. Draw two cards per turn. It uses both counters and dice. At a glance, this looks like an earlier design.
Netrunner: Resources outside of the game. Win condition is IN the deck. Actions don't require cards, spend action points to draw, gain resources, main action of the game doesn't require any cards to be played.
(...)
Keyforge: No resources, win condition outside of the deck. No cardless actions (Garfield considered Netrunner's economy too complex). Draw as you play. A mechanism (play one suit) controls the economy while balance is provided by the lack of deckbuilding.

I mentioned this on Twitter but it's a real shame how everyone seems to follow Magic's principles without question when not even Garfield tied himself to them. I would love to see more games follow Netrunner steps and make the hand, the board and the discard pile all different places you can interact with.

I didn't realize all those were his. One other mechanism that's been tried is the play a card face down to act as a resource, one per turn. I found that to be awful as then luck because being able to play a card with a cost equal to the turn number.

Of course my favorite card game apparently wasn't too popular, Babylon 5 CCG. You started the game with 4 influence, an Ambassador, and four cards max one of each type (character, fleet, agenda, event, aftermath, conflict, etc.) picked by you. You could spend 3 influence to build one up to a max of 10, past 10 you had to win conflicts or get them some other way. Victory at 20 power (influence + raw power) or by completing a major agenda. There were ways to build to 10 fast, but you had to sacrifice other things to get there (a variant Londo started at 7 but had no card hands, one weak ambassador built two the first round, some agendas would help you build faster but agendas are really valuable and you were sacrificing that slot).

Question. What's a good way to dip back into Magic after a long separation? Is buying a couple cheap 1000 card lots off ebay viable for family play?

It would be interesting to look back at past CCGs and see which of them might have been more successful as fixed, LCG style products.

Michael Barnes wrote: It would be interesting to look back at past CCGs and see which of them might have been more successful as fixed, LCG style products.

Probably none. As much as consumers recoil at CCGs in theory, no LCGs have done as well as Magic. Even Hearthstone has random packs, and you don't even open anything real. Hearthstone stopped doing those adventures which was the closest thing to a hybrid LCG model.

Then again I don't actually have the sales numbers for 1st and 2nd edition game of thrones, Android Netrunner, or Plaid Hat's recent offerings. LCGs inevitably collapse under their own weight. But maybe they just need rotation?

Someone who 'wasted' thousands on MtG in the 90s can now play Vintage and/or buy an Audi, while someone who has everything for Summoner Wars can buy it for 70% off from FFG. The secondary market creates the value for consumers, better than nearly any library full of board games can.

bendgar wrote: Question. What's a good way to dip back into Magic after a long separation? Is buying a couple cheap 1000 card lots off ebay viable for family play?

If you're interested at all in Commander as a format, it's probably better to get a couple of those preconstructed decks instead. They usually hold value pretty well and are fun. Wizards has other introductory decks each time a set comes out. I wouldn't buy a random lot online.