5 ms·

Well, that gets weird. It can have shortcuts and also won't have shortcuts. If you play Commander or multiplayer, then its usually a heck of a lot less formal.

Well, that gets weird. It can have shortcuts and also won't have shortcuts. If you play Commander or multiplayer, then its usually a heck of a lot less formal. Ive also played some local tournament games where the players were good-natured and we all just had fun. Then I've played some tournaments locally and at Gencon that were methodical and clockwork style "Please indicate what you did, step by ste-COUNTER". Or you get the priority police up and running, where you have to explicitly pass priority. I hate those games with a passion - it just drains the fun out via rules-lawyering. I've not played in a few years, primarily because the game was feeling much more like 'loot crates' that I've railed against prior. And with $3.50/pack, I didn't feel like I was getting enjoyment. You either buy buy buy, or get left in the dust and destroyed in games because you didnt buy buy buy.

literallycancer 9y ago
>"Please indicate what you did, step by ste-COUNTER" What's the advantage over simply specifying the moment you wanted to react out of the last batch of actions (like a normal person)? If the opponent skips too many steps and gives up some critical information as a result -- his problem.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  Because that leads to bad feels; did you counter X because you know I have Y in my hand now? I always try to explicitly pass priority after spells even in causal settings when I mean to.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    In a way, its an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Sure, I can construct a "infinite beatdown deck" that you lose 99% of the time. And guess what? I'll win. And that next game, they'll say "ditch that deck or you aren't playing". These days, I play explicit decks that have a neat theme and good win conditions (I have 2 decks left). They dont use infinite combos (they win, but are unfun), and I play to have a good time. If I lose, it was because I had some good threats and a blast of a game.

literallycancer 9y ago

>"Please indicate what you did, step by ste-COUNTER" What's the advantage over simply specifying the moment you wanted to react out of the last batch of actions (like a normal person)? If the opponent skips too many steps and gives up some critical information as a result -- his problem.

mattnewton 9y ago
Because that leads to bad feels; did you counter X because you know I have Y in my hand now? I always try to explicitly pass priority after spells even in causal settings when I mean to.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  In a way, its an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Sure, I can construct a "infinite beatdown deck" that you lose 99% of the time. And guess what? I'll win. And that next game, they'll say "ditch that deck or you aren't playing". These days, I play explicit decks that have a neat theme and good win conditions (I have 2 decks left). They dont use infinite combos (they win, but are unfun), and I play to have a good time. If I lose, it was because I had some good threats and a blast of a game.