Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:58:32 +0000 From: Paul Barclay Subject: [O] NetRep Reply 500 ======================================================================= NetRep Reply number 500 to the Magic: the Gathering List ======================================================================= This reply covers the digests: MTG-L Digest - 22 Nov 1999 to 23 Nov 1999 Older replies may be found at: http://www.second-hand.demon.co.uk ftp://ftp.magic.asuka.net http://yavapai.ccgnews.com http://www.en.magic.asuka.net http://www.thedojo.com/backpage-rulesregulations.shtml I'll start this 500th reply as I mean to go on. ***PANTS*** I messed up the Seraph question. See the bottom of this reply for details. LONG ANSWERS: ======================================================================= [Robbert Boer, asking about the Phyrexian Defiler] >sacrifice Phyrexian defiler target creature gets -3/-3 untill the end of the >turn > >If you sacrifice it and the creature you target is a 2/2 creature, does it >go to your opponents graveyard, or does it just get havily drugged? It will go to the graveyard, as it's now a -1/-1 creature, and therefore dead. The same would be true for any creature with 3 or less toughness. ----- [Tod Tinlin, talking about rules development] >So why not make the rules general enough in the first place so that any card >changes can be handled within this rules set? Been done before. It was called "Alpha". It failed. The Magic rules have got progressively more restrictive at each major rules change, and have got better at each major rules change. Coincidence? Maybe.... NOT! >> This is the opposite case to M:tG. The costs of getting something right >> first time (R&D charged hours) are infinitely more than the costs of >> fixing things after they're released (NetRep and guru free hours), and >> the effect of bad products is minimised, as the people who use the >> products cannot tell that it is a bad product. Often, things that are >> poor ideas from a purely design point of view become very attractive >> when looked at from a marketing or financial point of view. > >Only in the short term. Customer dissatisfaction will eventually bite you in >the rear on this one. I'd be well willing to gamble on that. >People aren't this stupid, even though they act like it a >lot of the time. "People who use the products cannot tell that it is a bad >product."?!?! Yes. Selling to the uninformed can be very lucrative. Most of the people who buy stuff are not fully informed. Estate Agents make a huge amount of money from this. Works for software companies too, in a slightly different way. However, this isn't WotC's strategy. It has recognised that it needs to keep the informed customers (tournament players etc) as well as the less well informed players. It does that through the organised play program. > Please, that is rather insulting. Yes, as a matter of fact, we >CAN tell it's a bad product, that's why you see so many complaints on this >list, and so many people dropped the game after years of enjoyment. You're not a member of the uninformed. Most, if not all of the people on this list aren't covered by any of those comments. In fact, almost nobody who reads this will be covered. We know what the problems are, and we still play, but we probably don't buy a huge amount of cards anymore (but most of us did at one stage). >Take the copy cards, for example. You are telling me if the rules team and R&D >had sat down for a total of say, 1,000 Man hours initially, at the beginning of >the game design getting these rules right, that this cost hasn't already been >surpassed in the number of questions and man-hours spent by customer service >and net reps answers, on-going cost of the R&D team RIGHT NOW with STILL having >to get the copy card rules right, man-hours for errata, additional cost in the >maintenance of the Oracle database. et al. Yes. >Sorry, I don't believe this statement. I don't say this for your benefit Paul, >as I believe you already have an inviolate mind set, but I rather say this for >the edification of members of the list who may be future product developers and >designers. If I can enlighten one person as to the benefits of good design >over product release pressure, I will be exstatic. Magic is an _amazing_ design. It's just about at the pinnacle of clever design. Let me just let that sink in for a minute, then let me explain why. You're thinking as a software/hardware engineer (and you don't need to tell me how right you are in those cases - I've done more than enough work on the hardware side myself). Magic is not comparable with software or hardware at all. What it is comparable with is an oven. Take another minute here, to realise that I _did_ mean "oven". If anything is wrong with the physical characteristics, then the oven simply doesn't work - this is the same as there being stupid errors on the actual cards, or printing/packing errors. So these errors are really bad. Now, try to describe what you do with the Oven. Probably, you're at the newbie/scrub level of Oven use. Some people reading this may be competent Oven users, but I doubt anyone will be a NetRep level Oven user (or even good enough to be an Oven judge). However, whatever level you're at, you're probably quite happy with it. The same applies to Magic. You don't have to deal with more than the basics to enjoy the game (and the basics are very well defined, and always have been). ----- [Erik Wiseman, asking about defective stuff] >Paul, you DO realize that this statement reads: "Wizards is willing to >knowingly ship it's customers defective products because they have >established a system of retroactively rewording the cards/rewriting the >rules in order to fix the problems later and their customers are too >stupid to tell a defective product from a good one." ? No. Whether a product is defective or not can only be determined by its customers. People don't think that Magic is defective (at least, the majority of people don't). ----- [Peter Jahn, asking about Misdirection] >I cast Summon C Frog. My opponent casts Counterspell, targeting CF. In >response, I cast Misdirection, retargeting the Counterspell to aim at the >Misdirection. Both players then pass, and the stack starts to resolve, >Misdirection first. > >Now, until my Misdirection resolves, the Counterspell still targets CF. >Then Misdirection resolves. It changes the target of Counterspell, but >since the new target (Misdirection) is no longer on the stack, Counterspell >has no legal target and is countered. Correct. >Misdirection only has one target - Counterspell - and does not target the >target at which it points its target. Correct. >To use another example, >I have 2 creatures, Crunchy Frog and Anthrax Ripple. My opponent attempts >to cast Shock targeting Crunchy Frog. I Misdirect Shock to Anthrax Ripple. >The Misdirection targets Shock, but does not target Anthrax Ripple. >Misdirect changes the target of Shock from CF to AR. Correct? Yes. >The new target of the spell being targeted by Misdirection still must be >legal, correct? In mean, you cannot cast Misdirect to change the target of >a spell to an illegal or unavailable target, can you? Correct. All the rules for choosing a target apply (remember that you're choosing a target for a spell you probably don't control, so you end up >My question, and here's where I get really confused, is Misdirection still a >legal target at the point at which Counterspell is retargeted? Yes, it is. It's still a spell on the Stack. ----- [Jeff Jordan, pointing out a real piece of PANTS] >>>"a 1/1 which is killed by a seraph, returned by lifeline, would go >>>to the seraph" >> >> No, it was "A 1/1 is killed by a Seraph while there's a Lifeline in >> play. Who gets the 1/1?" The answer is that it depends whose turn it >> is - the active player will always get the 1/1. > >Wouldn't the non-active player get it? His trigger stacks on top of >the main player's. The main player's effect won't find it, just like >the Diabolic Servitude example you gave. *PANTS*. I messed up. Of course the non-active player would get it. Paul. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Paul Barclay -- paul@second-hand.demon.co.uk -- Mobile: 0958-980180 - - DCI Level III judge -- http://www.second-hand.demon.co.uk/index.htm - - Official MTG-L Network Representative for Wizards of the Coast, Inc -