Why Are So Many Recent Activated Abilities Usable Only as Sorceries?

Gidgetimer says... #2

They are using it as a way to limit the power of abilities. It is like how they are making triggers that only trigger once per turn or trigger on "one or more" instead of "a". They have been burnt a few times recently by people doing things that they didn't anticipate with cards and are making abilities more restricted to try to prevent standard/limited from breaking.

October 31, 2023 9:46 p.m.

Crow_Umbra says... #3

^^^ Kind of like how we started getting "Create a tapped Treasure token" effects after all of the Treasure producing effects the year or two prior.

October 31, 2023 10:04 p.m.

seshiro_of_the_orochi says... #4

Preventing or at least slowing down power creep is always a good thing, as it prevents older cards from becoming strictly worse than the more recent ones. Abilities have become pretty powerful in recent years, so adding some new levers to carefully adjust power levels is fine for me.

November 1, 2023 8:53 a.m.

plakjekaas says... #5

Amulet of Unmaking shows that it's not new design either.

November 1, 2023 10:09 a.m.

wallisface says... #6

Magic is a game that’s been around for eons. It needs to keep trying new things in order to find fresh design space and to be able to play with new ideas. If it just kept doing what it always had been, design space would run out much-more quickly, and the game would become stale.

As such, by playing in new areas of having abilities only be sorcery speed (or, once per turn. Or, new card types like Battles), they open themselves up to a lot more options of what they can realistically print on a card (while obviously trying to maintain a semblance of game-balance).

November 1, 2023 4:38 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #7

Gidgetimer, can you name any specific examples of activated abilities that were too powerful?

plakjekaas, I have no problem with that ability being restricted, because of how powerful it is, but I see no reason to restrict the abilities of Stormclaw Rager, Rowan, Scion of War, Will, Scion of Peace, or Xavier Sal, infested captain.

November 1, 2023 8:32 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #8

Also, am I seriously the only user here who is displeased by this development? Why is everyone here agreeing with any decision that WotC makes?

November 1, 2023 8:33 p.m.

Crow_Umbra says... #9

To the points that wallisface made, I'd rather that WotC explores design space, including occasionally toning down the strength of certain designs/mechanics. I think it makes sense that as designs get more complex in some areas, they become more simplified/nerfed in others to slow down some power creep, and/or maintain some kind of balance.

All that being said, I think we are still getting some interesting designs. We just got another another free sac outlet that can sac creatures or artifacts, at instant speed without a once per turn restriction, in Bartolomé del Presidio, and a Grand Abolisher-esque and draw effects on Kutzil, Malamet Exemplar.

November 1, 2023 9:19 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #10

Crow_Umbra, you make excellent points, and I, also, am very glad to see that Bartolome del Presidio has no restrictions on his ability, which makes Stormclaw Rager all the more puzzling for having that restriction.

November 1, 2023 10:02 p.m.

wallisface says... #11

DemonDragonJ In regards to the card Stormclaw Rager specifically, the card-draw element of this effect would make it pretty miserable to play against at instant-speed in a bunch of formats, because it can effectively invalidate the opponents interaction by too wide a margin. I can assume in the context of the set, and during playtesting, it was deemed a bit too obnoxious to run this at instant speed.

November 1, 2023 10:15 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #12

wallisface, I do understand that, so how are cards such as Dockside Chef, Soulreaper of Mogis, and Thallid Soothsayer allowed to use their abilities as instants? Did WotC change their minds on that subject?

November 2, 2023 9:20 p.m.

Crow_Umbra says... #13

I think it's the push and pull of design and balance. Stormclaw Rager's ability is 1 colorless mana, and can use a creature or artifact as part of the activation. We have all kinds of utility token artifacts that have been introduced in recent years: Blood, Clue, Treasure, Map, Food, and Powerstones.

Dockside Chef costs 2 to activate, has Black as part of the activation cost, and although it can also sac a creature or artifact, is more vulnerable to removal as an enchantment creature. That adds some potential drawback/vulnerability, despite the ability to activate an instant speed without a per-turn limitation.

Soulreaper of Mogis is also a bit more restrictive for its activation cost at 3, needing Black for the activation, and is also more vulnerable to removal as an enchantment creature.

Soulreaper and Thallid Soothsayer are from 2020 and 2018 respectively. Given that WotC designs about 2-3 years before a set actually debuts, it's likely that this type of instant speed activation was still seen as acceptable during that time frame of design (likely designed in 2015-2017), and something they decided to scale back in the 3-5 years since then those sets released.

Kind of like how mechanics are now considered "deciduous" or "Evergreen", I think it could make sense that other elements of design might see phases of waxing and waning. Maybe they're doing less instant speed ability activation for now, but that could change and come back a couple of years from now.

November 2, 2023 9:44 p.m.

wallisface says... #14

DemonDragonJ there’s a few things to consider here:

Dockside Chef, Soulreaper of Mogis, and Thallid Soothsayer all cost 2-3 mana to use their ability, while Stormclaw Rager only costs 1. That makes it significantly easier to hold-up mana to trigger instantly, and abuse. The difference between 1 mana and 2 is HUGE.
Dockside Chef, Soulreaper of Mogis, and Thallid Soothsayer all only draw a card from their effect, while Stormclaw Rager also pumps itself, which at instant speed could easily be abused for combat tricks.
the set that Stormclaw Rager was printed in was one where sealed/draft events were very-centric on players dropping massive “bomb” threats and just winning the game with them. In such a format interaction needs to be strong and usable to ensure its not entirely a race to see who can drop their bomb first. Stormclaw Rager’s ability being instant-speed would slightly undermine the power of those interactive spells, and potentially allow players already-ahead to snowball - this is something Wotc might have wanted to avoid.

November 2, 2023 9:51 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #15

wallisface, your third reason is the only one with which I agree, so I can accept that one; as for your second reason, what is wrong with combat tricks? They are an integral port of this game, and have been since its very beginning.

November 3, 2023 8:56 p.m.

wallisface says... #16

DemonDragonJ there’s nothing wrong with combat tricks. There is a problem with a card doing too many things.

November 3, 2023 10:09 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #17

wallisface, I agree with that, and some particular examples of my own are Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer, who is far too powerful for one mana, and Thalia and The Gitrog Monster, a card that I absolutely love, but definitely is too powerful for four mana.

November 4, 2023 6:07 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #18

What about Sunshot Militia? Why does its ability need to be usable only as a sorcery, when Ghirapur AEther Grid's ability can be used as an instant? Did WotC decide that that ability was too powerful as an instant, as well?

November 7, 2023 10:11 p.m.

wallisface says... #19

DemonDragonJ firstly, you're comparing a common to an uncommon, which isn't a fair assessment - generally speaking uncommon cards are much stronger than commons and can do more powerful and complex interactions.

Additional to this, the cards also behave quite differently. Sunshot Militia can be activated much easier, as there are two different cards types which it can tap to trigger itself (creatures and artifacts), whereas Ghirapur AEther Grid has to use artifacts.

But also, I don't think its fair to compare individual cards like this - looking at things in isolation like this isn't indicative of anything, and doesn't prove any valid path of discussion either-way. I think you would do better getting grasps on the bigger picture of why Wotc has made this change, instead of getting caught in the minutia of individual cards.

November 7, 2023 11:23 p.m.

Crow_Umbra says... #20

If I'm not mistaken, Sunshot Militia can also tap itself to activate its own ability, since it doesn't specify "other creature"? Additionally, Sunshot hits all opponents, which could be used in some convoluted tap/untap combo loops.

Ghirapur AEther Grid debuted in Magic Origins, back in 2015, meaning it was likely designed a few years earlier than that (possibly 2011-13). Sunshot Militia was likely designed sometime in the past 2-4ish years.

DemonDragonJ, I'd recommend poking around Mark Rosewater's Blog to get some tidbits on design decisions. This is a recent post that's kind of adjacent to the questions you're asking.

Additionally, Mark Rosewater has the Drive to Work Podcast where he discusses all kinds of set design stuff to put it lightly. It's available on most major streaming platforms. Here's the Wiki page with a list of each episode and corresponding links.

November 7, 2023 11:40 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #21

Crow_Umbra, I actually read Mark Rosewater's blog nearly every day, and I have also listened to his drive to work podcasts, but I do not recall him addressing this specific issue, which is why I asked about it.

November 8, 2023 8:24 p.m.

Crow_Umbra says... #22

DemonDragonJ, ah for sure. I'm never sure how deep into the MtG rabbit hole players are when it comes to consuming content from designers or content creators.

Could be worth it to try shooting your shot and addressing your question to MaRo. Sometimes it seems like he answers questions in batches that might be related to specific topics on current sets, or current hot topics.

He's answered a couple of mine in the past. I think I once asked him something like, "If or when on a Legendary Raccoon?", and he responded "I think when" if I'm remembering correctly lol. So hopefully Bloomburrow will be the spot.

I'm sure your question about current design space on activated ability restrictions could be addressed in a future episode, if doesn't address it on Blogatog first.

November 8, 2023 8:55 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #23

Someone did directly ask Mark Rosewater this question, as seen in this post, and Rosewater gave an excellent response, but I am displeased that the majority of users who responded regarded the original question as foolish and agreed with mark Rosewater; the fact that WotC makes the game does not automatically mean that they know what is best, for it, and I wish that players would stop accepting everything that WotC says as infallible truth.

November 29, 2023 8:33 p.m.

legendofa says... #24

DemonDragonJ I don't think most of the responses regarded the question as foolish. Many did agree with Mr. Rosewater, and a couple were unnecessarily patronizing, but the majority of the discussion seemed to be fairly respectful. Of course, tone is hard to tell through text alone, but the discussion looked pretty civil to me.

I don't think anyone regards every WotC pronouncement as sacrosanct, and pretty much everybody has a "This is what I would do" opinion. The problem is that the huge majority of these opinions don't come from professional game designers, so they frequently have unworkable or unintended outcomes. These opinions also usually reflect only the preferences of the people holding them, so if someone has a different opinion, they come into direct opposition, and who has the better opinion of how the game should be? WotC's ultimate goal is (or should be) to make the healthiest game possible to attract and maintain as many customers as possible, while simultaneously experimenting with new factors and adjusting old ones to prevent stagnation.

Unpopular and ineffective practices go extinct. Popular and effective practices thrive. New practices are introduced, and are found to be either popular and effective or unpopular and ineffective. These are held together by the necessary practices that keep the game stable. Is this not "what's best for the game?"

November 29, 2023 9:01 p.m.

wallisface says... #25

DemonDragonJ plenty of people disagree with Wotc on numerous things, and i’m willing to bet the vast majority of those supporting Marks answer there will have their own separate gripes about other aspects if the game.

It’s naive to think that just because a majority of people prefer something that you don’t, that those people are somehow “sheep”, or just ”accepting everything that WotC says as infallible truth”. Anyone who’s spent any amount of time pursuing game design will understand that restrictions like these breed positive outcomes for the game, and more flexibility/diversity/interactivity in play patterns overall.

You might not like that Wotc has taken this design direction, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for them to do it.

November 29, 2023 9:02 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #26

Of the 15 responses (from 12 unique users) with comment instead of just liking it shown when I checked only two regarded the question as foolish. I wouldn't call that "the majority of users". Most of the discourse is just about how making it sorcery speed is a "cost" that they can impose on abilities and how some people like that it increases the number of meaningful choices players have to make. It is basically the same answers you got here. Instead of "limiting power" or "reducing power creep" MaRo talks about "obstacles" and "difficult choices", and the comments talk about the cost of sorcery speed.

I think you also need to appreciate the difference between understanding and accepting the reasoning behind design decisions and agreeing with them. No one, either here or on Blogatog, has stated full agreement with the design choices made by WotC. seshiro_of_the_orochi has stated agreement with the design goal of reducing/eliminating power creep, but that is about all the closer anyone has come to agreeing with WotC and you have said twice that you are displeased that people are just agreeing. Both you and krarks-other-thumb asked why. Both places the reasoning has been laid out. The only person who is expressing agreement with the choice by explaining the reasoning is the person who made the choice. Everyone else is just displaying understanding of, not agreement with, the choice.

November 29, 2023 9:45 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #27

legendofa, that makes perfect sense, to me.

wallisface, yes, you have a good point, but no one here has yet outright condemned this decision by WotC, so I feel that my point still stands.

Gidgetimer, that makes sense, to me, and I do understand WotC's reasoning for making that decision, but I really, really hope that the default practice shall remain that activated abilities can still be used at instant speed, and the restriction to sorcery speed only shall be something that is used only on rare occasion.

Also, to continue my original question, the five gods introduced in Lost Caverns of Ixalan can all transform into lands, but the lands can be transformed back into creatures only as sorceries; why is that? I fail to see why that was necessary.

November 29, 2023 9:58 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #28

To limit power, increase difficult decisions, and impose an additional cost. It opens them up to sorcery speed removal on opponents' turns and makes you commit your resources. It allows your opponents to act upon both the land and the retransformed creature before you get a chance to fully utilize them. That is the dynamic they wanted, not "Dodge the Wrath of God. Unless it is an Armageddon, then dodge that instead. Also, be able to be the first one who can act at sorcery speed with all resources available."

November 29, 2023 10:32 p.m.

wallisface says... #29

DemonDragonJ nobody here has ”outright condemned” this change, because it is clearly seen as a good decision to make, for multiple reasons already presented to you. You being in the disapproving minority of this change doesn’t make you right, nor does it mean the majority are ”accepting everything that WotC says as infallible truth”.

You need to accept the very real possibility that your opinion on this matter is lacking foresight and/or knowledge in what makes good game-design.

Digging-your-heals-in won’t help you learn the reasons why a lot of people are in favour of this change.

November 30, 2023 12:33 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #30

wallisface, how could anyone actually like having greater restrictions in a game?

November 30, 2023 8:39 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #31

wallisface, I am sorry for the double post, but I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to certain abilities being limited to sorcery speed, but I am simply hoping that this does not become the default, from this point forward, since being able to use activated abilities at instant speed is part of why I am so fond of them.

November 30, 2023 8:41 p.m.

Crow_Umbra says... #32

I like having restrictions on mechanics and abilities for the following reasons:

Helps with power creep.
Adds a variety of wrinkles and choices to make for card inclusions in decks. Having a variety of effects with slightly different restrictions pushes us to make & justify different decisions. I can choose between Generous Gift, Stroke of Midnight, Excise the Imperfect, Get Lost, and Soul Partition (to name a few). Each has different drawbacks, which makes deciding on their inclusion more interesting.
None of these design decisions are permanent. Whatever we are going to be playing in a couple of years is likely being designed currently, & being informed by current play environments. Hell, MaRo has the "Storm Scale" to try to quantify the likelihood of the return for mechanics.

As I've stated across the various responses, design elements & mentalities change & fluctuate, based in part from player feedback. Restrictions make for interesting decision making, instead of just defaulting to the most busted possible option.

Restrictions are inherent to game design. A plethora of games have level caps, or other restrictions for in-game progress to create a sense of achievement in that context, or skill trees with different restrictions to encourage decision making.

(Typing off mobile, but yeah)

November 30, 2023 9:07 p.m.

wallisface says... #33

DemonDragonJ As to why people would like having greater restrictions in a game, its been covered extensively in this thread already, so you should already have an idea of the answer - but a bullet-pointed list below:

Having restrictions on when actions can happen opens up more decision making and piloting options. If everything can just be done at the end of your opponents turn, then you can always just do the strongest thing available to you. Timing restrictions mean you need to make educated decisions based on incomplete information, and weigh-up your options more thoroughly. it creates more situations for carefully-played out turns, and risk-analysis.
Having restrictions on when actions can happen allows the game to push certain aspects of play, without them becoming overpowered. As has already been harped-on quite a bit in this thread, giving an ability to be triggered at instant speed means play-design have to restrict what that ability can reasonably do. Having abilities activate at Sorcery speed, or only once per turn, or only under certain conditions, allow them to push the power-boundaries.
Having a wider breadth of card diversity is an interesting and fun thing to be a part of. That includes a diversity of when certain actions can happen, and how often they can happen. If everything behaves in the same exact way, things get boring far more quickly.
Restrictions like this make for better deck-building challenges, and better game design overall. To steal Marks reply on his Blogatog which you yourself linked earlier, "Restrictions are a core tenet of good game design. You give the players a goal and then give them obstacles to that goal. Game designers then use those obstacles as a means to push players towards the better game play. Every ability being usable at “instant speed” might give the players more flexibility, but it doesn’t lead to better game play. Having to make difficult decisions to maximize the route to victory is the bread and butter of fun Magic. One final note, increased choices do not inherently lead to more interactivity. If I can always wait to use my abilities until the last moment, that more often decreases interactivity."

I feel like all of the above has already been mentioned multiple times in this thread, so I am at a loss as to how this question is still being asked - it should be pretty apparent by now.

November 30, 2023 10:39 p.m. Edited.

DemonDragonJ says... #34

Crow_Umbra, wallisface, I have no problem with restrictions, I simply am worried that WotC may employ that restriction too frequently, which will make activated abilities far less fun to use (at least, for me). It would be nice if Mark Rosewater could explicitly stated that this restriction shall be an exception, not the norm, in the future.

Also, I feel that this restriction does not make sense on certain activated abilities, such as some of the ones that I have already mentioned, since it prevents them from being used as combat tricks or during the end step of the previous player's turn.

December 1, 2023 9:43 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #35

Also, rather than make a new thread to discuss the "once per turn" restriction, I would like to say that that restriction makes perfect sense on Jin-Gitaxias, Progress Tyrant and Erayo's Essence ^Flip, but makes no sense on Whispering Wizard, so does anyone here have any guesses as to why WotC put that restriction on that card?

December 1, 2023 9:45 p.m.

wallisface says... #36

DemonDragonJ to the quantity of sorcery-speed and once-per-turn abilities, I don’t see Wotc reducing the percentage of cards they print with these riders anytime soon - it definitely feels like the new norm (and while you may not like this, its a positive advancement for game-design).

As to Whispering Wizard being once per turn, i’d say it’s down to them not wanting this card to be a free win-condition for storm-style decks.

December 2, 2023 12:11 a.m. Edited.

plakjekaas says... #37

The difference between Whispering Wizard and Murmuring Mystic is that non-creature spells are WAY more prevalent than just instant and/or sorcery spells. Building your deck around getting rewarded for instants and sorceries is a bigger restriction than reaping rewards from not only those, but every enchantment, artifact, planeswalker and battle as well. A bigger restriction on your deck building, means a higher reward, that's why I think the once-per-turn text is there.

Spacing out your instant/flash spells to maximize your rewards for a once-per-turn effect is a different way of maximizing your gains out of your resources. It's a new puzzle to challenge players to play the game well, without the need for just more powerful cards each set. It will most reward the players that think most about what their cards do.

The resistance you experience in this thread is more about your unwillingness to be challenged this way and think deeper about the game you're playing, than it is about the actual card design choices you're highlighting. The "I don't want to think about it, every similar effect should work the same way"-attitude rubs off wrong against people who enjoy the intricate synergies and play patterns, the puzzles that are created by the difference in card designs.

December 2, 2023 8:18 a.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #38

wallisface, why do you believe that it is a "positive advancement for game design," to use your words?

December 2, 2023 8:32 p.m.

wallisface says... #39

DemonDragonJ for every reason already posted here - you can read through all the existing comments on this by both myself and others.

December 3, 2023 1:50 a.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #40

wallisface, I would like to emphasize that I do not actually have a problem with this new restriction, since I agree that it shall help to balance certain activated abilities; my main concern is the frequency with which it shall be used, and I would feel much better if WotC would explicitly state how often they intend to use it, which I hope is not too frequently.

Also, will you please list some specific examples of activated abilities that are too powerful due to be usable at any time?

December 4, 2023 8:11 p.m.

wallisface says... #41

DemonDragonJ the list of abilities that are too powerful to activate at instant speed is going to be pretty broad, and for the most part I agree with most of the “sorcery only” abilities Wotc have made - especially as you have to take into context the formats they’ll be used in (including sealed).

I’m not going to name any kind of exhaustive list as I feel like this conversation is going nowhere quickly, but i’ll list a few good/distinct examples I can think of that would be completely miserable at instant speed:

December 4, 2023 9:33 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #42

wallisface, I agree with Brain Weevil, but I fail to see why they other abilities would be too powerful if usable as instants.

December 6, 2023 8:37 p.m.

wallisface says... #43

DemonDragonJ it's not just a case of "too powerful", its also a case of "bad game design".

In the case of Map tokens, allowing them to be triggered at instant speed would make the combat step a logistical nightmare. If a player (or, even worse, if both players) has a bunch of Map tokens in play and swings in combat, having those abilities instant-speed-triggerable will easily make that combat step take a massive amount longer, and additionally makes the entire combat interaction a massive gamble, as nobody will quite know which creature trades/beats what when the Maps are triggered (because they don't always add counters). So, in short, having Maps at instant speed creates the following problems:

Creates unnecessary grind and slowdown to the game in a phase that is already often fairly action-packed.
Adds chaos and randomness to the game in a way that strips away a degree of player agency and play-skill.
Entirely removes the risk of activating the token, as you can always just do it in your opponents end-step instead of spending mana upfront. This leads to less interesting/intense gameplay.

In the case of Fiend Artisan, being able to sacrifice creatures at instant speed is already a strong effect, in that you can block a creature and then sac it, nullifying the attack while also getting whatever benefit you got from the sacrifice. In Fiend Artisans case this payoff is ridiculous, in that if used at instant speed would make it very difficult for your opponent to ever have a proactive attack (without having trample) while also buffing your board. Additionally, it falls into the same trapping of just removing any stakes from activating the ability - if you can always just do it in your opponents endstep then you remove any decision making from the game entirely.

If you can't see that these cards, and many, many others, need to be at sorcery-speed in order to maintain game-balance, decision-making-processes, fair-gameplay, and a consistent tempo/pace to the game - then that's on you. It might be worth doing so reading on what makes good game design (not mtg specific, just in general) to get a better grasp on why having effects be sorcery speed or once-per-turn is a good thing for the growth/playability of the game.

December 6, 2023 10:37 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #44

wallisface, it seems that you and I shall not be able to reach an agreement on this subject, so I do not see any reason to continue discussing it, further, but your assertion that limiting effects to sorcery speed is your opinion, not a fact, and, with as many members as this forum has, there must be, statistically speaking, at least one other user here who agrees with me, on this subject. However, I shall say that the example that you gave with Fiend Artisan sounds awesome, and that is exactly why I like being able to activate abilities at instant speed.

Also, I do admit that I do not have much knowledge about game design, so I definitely would like to learn more about it, so do you have any recommendations for what I should read?

December 10, 2023 5:15 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #45

wallisface, I realize that my previous post did seem to be rather aggressive, so I would like to emphasize that I actually agree that every point that you have made in this thread, thus far, has been perfectly logical and legitimate, but my main concern is the frequency with which WotC shall employ this restriction; surely, that concern is understandable?

December 10, 2023 5:41 p.m.

wallisface says... #46

DemonDragonJ some good articles include:

this very good one for getting a basic grasp of things to look for
this article
and this site in general which has a load of resources

I will say in general, even if the idea of instant-speed Fiend Artisan might ”sound awesome”, if the application of that idea comes at the expense of the game enjoyability overall, then it’s almost never a good idea. The game has a much bigger responsibility than just making an individual effect ”feel cool”.

Imo Wotc should continue to employ such tools as once-per-turn and sorcery-speed effects at a rate that continues to make the overall health of the game as strong as possible - they shouldn’t jeopardise the game for the benefit of a few cards.

December 10, 2023 5:50 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #47

wallisface, that is very good, but I must wonder why, after 30 years, WotC has decided to implement these restrictions, when they did not exist, before; if the game existed for 30 years without those restrictions, what is so different about the current situation that made those restrictions necessary?

December 17, 2023 12:39 p.m.

wallisface says... #48

DemonDragonJ

exploring new game space
making stronger, more impactful abilities
them getting better at, and being more aware of, good game design (wotc past is riddled by bad game-design mistakes that they’ve since avoided repeating).

December 17, 2023 12:53 p.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #49

wallisface, in that case, do you think that combat tricks should even exist, at all? What about waiting until your opponent's end step to activate abilities? Is that not simply good strategy?

December 17, 2023 12:55 p.m.

wallisface says... #50

DemonDragonJ combat tricks are a great an integral part of the game. But Wotc have to be careful how complicated the combat step gets, and having Map tokens be instant-speed would slow that step down unnecessarily. I am still massively in favour of combat tricks, just not at the expense of the overall flow of the game.

Lots of abilities are fine to wait until your opponents end steps. Lots of others are not. Having to commit to decisions early makes the game more interesting and impactful.