07-11-2012, 09:12 AM
He kind of jumps around, but it's a good powerpoint display and he made a coherent argument. His defense of the luck element -- that it will increase the player base, ie commercial success -- does not justify MTG's ruleset for tournament settings. And it doesn't need to be casual vs expert.
There are plenty of rulsets in MTG, mostly about card legality (standard, legacy, etc) but also game mechanics (2headed giant, planechase). What I'm talking about is just the next step in mechanics. If casual players are attracted by a certain amount of luck then kept those rules, but have something else for tournaments. Really, if the next set's cards didn't allow people to play against the rules and they had to play with them, the scene would implode.
There are plenty of rulsets in MTG, mostly about card legality (standard, legacy, etc) but also game mechanics (2headed giant, planechase). What I'm talking about is just the next step in mechanics. If casual players are attracted by a certain amount of luck then kept those rules, but have something else for tournaments. Really, if the next set's cards didn't allow people to play against the rules and they had to play with them, the scene would implode.

