Symetrical Turns
Challenges and Articles forum
Posted on Nov. 19, 2015, 5:37 a.m. by kengiczar
So I got to thinking, part of the reason modern is so brutal is how mana is tied to turns. Anyone on the draw who tried to mul for discard against T3 Natural Tron can attest to that. I got to thinking, what if there was a more Symetrical turn system?
- Players have the same untap step
- Players have the same upkeep
- Players have the same draw step
- Players have the same main phases
- Players have the same combat steps
- Players have the same End Step
Rule 1: If one player plays a land everything is stopped, even ETB triggers do not come into existence yet, and the other play has a chance to play their land for turn. This does not count for additional lands or lands that come into play or are allowed to due to an effect of a spell or ability. Simultaneous ETB triggers created by lands entering the battlefield this way only check themselves and the board state before the opponents land would come into play.
Rule 2: During Declare Attackers step each player may declare attackers, and after this is done, they make redo their attackers ONE TIME. Re-deciding your attackers is similar to state based actions in which the entirety of the game is suspended. Any triggered abilities that would be put onto the stack due to attackers being declared is also suspended and not put onto the stack until both players are done making amends to their blockers.
Rule 3: During Declare Blockers step each player may declare blockers, and after this is done, they made redo their blockers ONE TIME Re-deciding your blockers is similar to state based actions in which the entirety of the game is suspended. Any triggered abilities that would be put onto the stack due to blockers being declared is also suspended and not put onto the stack until both players are done making amends to their blockers.
Rule 4: Any time a player wishes to cast a spell at sorcery speed they must alert the opponent. Put the card face down. The opponent then decides if they would like to cast a sorcery speed spell. If the opponent does they choose a card from their hand and place it face down. If they do no want to cast a spell they do nothing. Once all cards are face down they are cast as normal.
Rule 5: Any time a player wishes to cast a spell at instant speed they must alert the opponent. From there follow the procedures as written in rule #5.
Rule 6: Players may not proceed to the next phase until all opponents are also ready to proceed to the next phase, or opponent's are no longer capable of making plays. If you control another players turn allow them up to 15 seconds in each phase to make notes if they desire.
So this is all pretty rough, but I thought it might be fun. I honestly can't say for sure if it would be a good thing or a bad as I have never tried it. If anybody has tried playing like this lemme know how it turned out.
In your first scenario what would happen is Wrath wouldn't see the Monastery Swiftspear since they were cast at the same time. I suppose you could require all players to choose all spells they would like to cast at once during main phase 1. This way the control player can't say no and then after swiftspear resolves cast supreme verdict.
In your second scenario this is already covered. All attackers are declared at once, then a redo is allowed, then you move to the declare blockers step. All blockers are declared, a redo is allowed, then game functions as normal.
In your third scenario they resolve simultaneously. If you were down to one creature with call on it it would be sacrificed or you would take 2. THen you resolve call to the kindred and mogi. Att this point it doesn't matter if your creature would bounce mogi because his ability already went on the stack.
November 19, 2015 6:24 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
Lets try this again with a bit more explanations on what I see as problems since I am unsatisfied by your answer. The current implementation of the stack requires one thing to resolve at a time. Things resolving simultaneously causes issues.
In my last example you even resolved Mogis' ability before the Call. The take 2 or sac a creature is his ability and you said it happened before the Call resolved. I Know that abilities exist independent of their sources once on the stack. That wasn't the question. Suppose Player A has 3 Master of the Pearl Trident out one of them enchanted with Call to the Kindred. Do they have to sac one of the Masters or can they reveal a Coral Merfolk and sac it. What if two of the Masters are enchanted with Calls.
ALso my second scenario was not covered at all. How do you propose a physical game require both players to declare their attacks/blocks with 0 knowledge of what the opponent did. One player is going to have to physically move their cards or verbally declare attacks/blocks first. I would like to know how you propose that it is done truly simultaneously with neither side lagging by even a second.
November 19, 2015 6:50 a.m.
In order for the attack/block phase to work I suppose you'll need to place some divider on the table as to prevent the opponent from seeing what cards you decide attack/block
November 19, 2015 6:54 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
Needlessly complicated and unintuitive.
What you're basically proposing is a complete restructuring of many rules and a purposeful disregard for a system that works in an attempt to use the rules to counteract the strength of good decks. It's inadvisable from both a game design and game management perspective. Decks should be balanced by other decks and occasionally by bans/unbans.
This strategy also takes away much of the merit of reactive cards and strategies, which play mental chess with their opponents in order to mitigate certain plays and strategies. Now, you propose to allow redos and safe zones for players to let their inner Timmy out and artificially protect them from their own mistakes.
November 19, 2015 8:06 a.m.
GeeksterPlays says... #7
There would be so many problems with this I don't even know where to begin.
It's not possible for each player to decalre attackers in secret, unless you literally wrote them down on paper then showed each other at the same time, and even then you're suggesting that can be changed afterwards anyway, and who the hell wants to do that every attack/block phase?
The only reason to re-do an attack phase is if you made a mistake and didn't make the optimal attack or block choices; so what you're essentially wanting is a chance to fix your mistakes, instead of learning from them and then not making them in future.
How would Instant spells work if everything is face-down until the stack is resolving them? How can I counter a spell if I don't know what the spell is until it is resolving?
I cast a Murder at your creature, and you cast a Gods Willing - who's resovles first? Without an "Active Player", "Priority" and "Response" plays it becomes a mess that can't be sorted.
Could you play chess with simultaneous moves? Checkers? Connect 4? Poker?... very few games can work with simultaneous actions, because as human beings we base our actions on what we've seen before, it's how we work on a most basic level.
I appreciate people trying to find other ways to play (it's why we have things like 2HG, EDH etc.) but you can't mess with the core rules otherwise it all goes to hell.... and if I'm honest, from the tone of your opening article it sounds a bit like you keep losing to players with better Modern decks and want to change the rules to make it more "fair" on you... sorry if that's not the case but it seems like it.
Gidgetimer says... #2
Timing, priority, and the stack would have to be completely rewritten to accomplish this. There is also the problem of when both players have something trigger at the same time what order they resolve in. Let me provide a few examples of complications caused.
Player A wants to cast Monastery Swiftspear, they place it face down and ask if Player B would like to do anything. Player B decides that now would be a good time to Supreme Verdict and decides to cast it at the same time. Does the Swiftspear survive?
Player A decides to leave their big guy back to block but Player B Doesn't attack with anything. Seeing this Player A decides to attack with everything. At which point Player B decides to swing the team on his "redeclare" too. One player is going to physically move their cards first or verbally declare the attacks first. There is no good way to have both players commit without knowledge of what their opponent is doing.
Player A has Call to the Kindred on a creature and Player B has Mogis, God of Slaughter out. Does the call resolve first or Mogis' ability.
November 19, 2015 6:18 a.m.