Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pergentile" data-source="post: 5567926" data-attributes="member: 6671368">Consider the mana cost of Storm cards, and their general rarity.Great, I put my initiative to last (already a huge disadvantage), then must pay... 27 mana for a dragonstorm, yes? and HOPE that everyone else has played the max number of spells they can, and the opposing team is stupid enough not to have a single counter spell ready in case a &quot;bomb' drops.Do you REALLY disagree that this would be less favorable?Specifying specific unrealistic conditions where something could work does not do a good job of arguing that it is not UP.Also, if a group of four players decide to work with synergy, and focus their general strategy around poison, why should they suffer? If something is OP because of TEAMWORK then that should NOT be a problem! Have you ever played Two-Headed Giant? What are you going to do about Elves and slivers? Most of them are common or uncommon, meaning they will be cheap to play in your MtGRPG, but will be almost un-matchable.If the opposing team spends all their attacks to kill a single creature of mine with almost no offensive capabilities, it is OBVIOUSLY doing its job. Green is also the Mana color, and a Green Mage should have more mana than any other mage, if you want to be accurate, yes?In general, since you INSIST this is a team game, then should it not be based on the Two-Headed Giant game-style? It seems like you are trying to breed '1 vs 1 magic' with '4 vs everything D&amp;D'. Should it not be styled after the team-play that already exists in MtG in order for it to mesh best? It seems a lot of your perception is derived from personal experience of 1v1 play. That does not seem to be a good starting point.Wow, that is a pretty specific type of D20 system you exampled there, how does that specific example address my comment?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pergentile, post: 5567926, member: 6671368"] Consider the mana cost of Storm cards, and their general rarity. Great, I put my initiative to last (already a huge disadvantage), then must pay... 27 mana for a dragonstorm, yes? and HOPE that everyone else has played the max number of spells they can, and the opposing team is stupid enough not to have a single counter spell ready in case a "bomb' drops. Do you REALLY disagree that this would be less favorable? Specifying specific unrealistic conditions where something could work does not do a good job of arguing that it is not UP. Also, if a group of four players decide to work with synergy, and focus their general strategy around poison, why should they suffer? If something is OP because of TEAMWORK then that should NOT be a problem! Have you ever played Two-Headed Giant? What are you going to do about Elves and slivers? Most of them are common or uncommon, meaning they will be cheap to play in your MtGRPG, but will be almost un-matchable. If the opposing team spends all their attacks to kill a single creature of mine with almost no offensive capabilities, it is OBVIOUSLY doing its job. Green is also the Mana color, and a Green Mage should have more mana than any other mage, if you want to be accurate, yes? In general, since you INSIST this is a team game, then should it not be based on the Two-Headed Giant game-style? It seems like you are trying to breed '1 vs 1 magic' with '4 vs everything D&D'. Should it not be styled after the team-play that already exists in MtG in order for it to mesh best? It seems a lot of your perception is derived from personal experience of 1v1 play. That does not seem to be a good starting point. Wow, that is a pretty specific type of D20 system you exampled there, how does that specific example address my comment? [/QUOTE]

Verification