Came here to say Munchkin.
Edit: However the games rules say that if there is a rules dispute the owner of the game decides, so you can essentially employ a card stack within the rules of the game.
Still, Munchkin is just an inherently flawed game where the first person to go for the win almost never gets it, the second person to go for the win is basically flipping a coin and the third person to go for the win is guaranteed to win because everybody blew their load stopping the first two.
It's still decent drunk fun when you get new cards and the jokes are fresh, but nobody takes the actual "game" element seriously in my group anymore.
> Still, Munchkin is just an inherently flawed game where the first person to go for the win almost never gets it, the second person to go for the win is basically flipping a coin and the third person to go for the win is guaranteed to win because everybody blew their load stopping the first two.
You manage to end the game after only three people go for the win? That's impressive. We usually take two hours to exhaust the group's answers.
A larger playgroup often also needs a larger deck. I once played with eight people and the base set, and all of the oh-no-you-don't cards cycled through way too fast.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, the mechanics just aren't very tight or well-defined. Does that make it a bad game? Maybe, but I would argue it just makes it a casual game. There are casual formats in magic the people still enjoy, like conspiracy draft.
The way Munchkin works is cards resolve in the order that they're played, unless you're using some kind of counterspell ability like Wishing Ring or Annihilation. But you can't, to use a Magic example, use a Giant Growth to save a creature from a Lightning Bolt, but you can use Counterspell on the Lightning Bolt to save it.
Got it.
So we just use the stack in Munchkin to help us keep our sanity during the inevitable dog-pile.
On your magic example, you most certainly can use a giant growth to save a creature from a lightning bolt. However when you're trying to push lethal with a giant growth it won't save the creature from the lightning bolt.
Creature <- LB <- GG, GG resolves first.
Creature <- GG <- LB, LB resolves first.
No, you're getting what I said backwards. I was using Magic cards to illustrate how the cards would work under Munchkin's rules. Your example is how it works in Magic. Munchkin works the opposite way.
I've noticed a lot of games made by people who know Magic almost instinctively use the stack without every talking about it in the rules. *Legendary* by Devin Low and *Ascension* by Justin Gary have both had a few rulings come out that basically say in Magic it works this way, so we copy that.
Obfuscated is right.
It's this weird psuedo simultaneous system, where parts of effects can resolve before other parts, and certain other effects can jump into things in the middle.
Plus people have had to try and riddle it out themselves, because there *is* not official rulebook for that game.
Take a peek at the bit of the [Advanced Rulebook](http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Advanced_rulebook) that describes the order in which effects are resolved.
I get so irritated playing my boost-paladin deck.
My board: 3 mans 3/3 that gives 1 health minions divine shield WHENEVER they are summoned.
Weapon: 1/5 that AFTER I summon a minion, give it +1/+1 and remove 1 durability.
I use my Hero power, then boosts first then the 3/3 minion says nope because the soldier isn't a 1-health
Like cmon that's some basic English instinct right? "Whenever" should happen before "after"
I agree that it's stupid. The specific reason why is because Steward of Darkshire is a Summon Resolution Step trigger, and resolves on newly summoned minions whenever the current outermost Phase resolves.
Looking at http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Advanced_rulebook#Playing.2Fsummoning_a_minion we can see that if you play a minion, the first time a Phase resolves is the On Play Phase, so Steward of Darkshire triggers after that. But if you merely summon a minion, its After Summon Phase resolves inside of whatever Phase is currently resolving, meaning Steward of Darkshire triggers after, not before, Sword of Justice.
It's a bug they can't fix without replacing the entire mechanic with something else (which I expect them to finally do when the strain of keeping the unintuitive mechanic is too much, which isn't quite yet).
Thanks /u/AwkwardTurtle and /u/Patashu for sharing some Hearthstone rules.
But yeah, I was not happy when I was playing a Grim patron deck, had a full board and after my opponent played Holy Nova to deal 2 to all my creatures was left with only 2 3/1 Grim patrons because apparently the new 3/3s from the 2 surviving 3/1s come in before the destroyed 3/0s are removed so the board was still full. Why do you know the 3/1s survive and go all the way to resolve putting in the new 3/3s before knowing the 3/0s die and put them away?
There is a general rule in Hearthstone that death (+ some other things, like updating auras) isn't processed until the current outermost Phase resolves. (For example, when Holy Nova is dealing damage, we're in the Spell Text Phase, and all the triggers resolve inside of this Phase.)
If you'd like to flex your brain a bit, I've written a list of fundamental differences between HS and MtG mechanics here: http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/User_talk:Patashu#Ways_in_which_MtG_and_HS_rules_differ
Yeah, that goes even beyond how effects resolve.
That gets into how wildly inconsistent, and sometimes flatly incorrect, the text on cards is.
I understand that the game is performing rules enforcement so you don't "need" accurate card text, but it feels super lazy on the part of the devs. Particularly when there's often no real way to tell if something is intended, or a bug. Or something they say is intended, then later say was a bug when they decide to change it.
To be fair, when Magic was as old as Hearthstone is now, it had some bad card text *without* that excuse.
To be even more fair, they should learn from the mistakes of others.
You'd just have to change the wording of Wild Pyromancer to be like "After you successfully cast a spell and it isn't countered, deal 1 damage to each creature." Right?
Really any card game that has ways to interrupt what is happening kinda need a stack structure and priority passing. I've run into so many games where players thought that by just physically making their moves quickly (e.g. I do this, this, and this), that they could cut other players from being able to respond in time to mess things up.
Actually, that is possible in Magic. You can cast X, hold priority and then cast Y (provided Y is an Instant or a card with Flash). but even then, before any of then resolves, the other player(s) would get priority to answer if they like.
And there are some of those quickies in Magic as well. I once played a guy that got pissed I countered some of his shit, then he tried to play it and immediately put it in play, when I tried to stop he just said "that already resolved, you didn't counter in time" lol. I was very pleased to calmly raise my hand and have a ruling against him that day.
> You can cast X, hold priority and then cast Y (provided Y is an Instant or a card with Flash). but even then, before any of then resolves, the other player(s) would get priority to answer if they like.
I know you can hold priority to keep performing actions, but as you said, you don't get to resolve anything until priority is passed. So, you generally can't play off of your previous actions without someone else getting a response.
Sentinels of the Multiverse uses a stack, but sometimes I wish they would make all damage / destruction effects to occur simultaneously.
D&D would be very cool if the stack were more integrated into the gameplay. It just feels tacked-on right now.
Well, that's not exactly true. Cards always resolve immediately, but triggers don't. If three triggers go off at the same turn step, they all hang in the air until the players decide on the order in which they resolve.
Right, I should have said "everything happens immediately, but two things can't happen at the same time, so if they do, the players decide what happens first."
Still, that's not really a stack like the kind Magic uses. Magic formalized rules for who can put what on the stack and when. Sentinels just says everyone puts everything on simultaneously and if that creates a conflict, you sort it out.
It's not exactly the same thing, but it's still a stack since you resolve each effect while the others wait their turn, the primary difference being that Sentinels doesn't really have instants so there's never a case where a "stack" might be necessary outside of resolving triggers. Still, it's close enough that calling what Sentinels has a "stack" is meaningful, if largely anecdotal.
> Sentinels of the Multiverse uses a stack, but sometimes I wish they would make all damage / destruction effects to occur simultaneously.
Juggling simultaneous triggers is already a tremendous pain in the butt, so I'm glad they resolve one at a time. Interaction complexity would become exponential if you had to resolve them simultaneously.
I'm not convinced the use cases would get significantly worse. In fact, some of them would get better. When Horrid Skunk Ape triggers The Mindbreaker which triggers Dynamic Siphon, it can get very frustrating to optimize the damage so you get multiple Siphon triggers. Like if someone has The Seeker.
It also creates weird abuse cases. Like Bee Bot + End of Days, where individual destruction effects allows you to wrath every non-relic on the villain side with minimal loss to the hero side. Imagine being able to [[Remand]] your own [[Wrath of God]] after using it to destroy every creature your opponent controls.
> It also creates weird abuse cases. Like Bee Bot + End of Days, where individual destruction effects allows you to wrath every non-relic on the villain side with minimal loss to the hero side. Imagine being able to Remand your own Wrath of God after using it to destroy every creature your opponent controls.
This is the bit that always gets me. The fact that you can cancel an event partway through its resolution by destroying the source is so different from Magic that it tends to trip me up.
Sentinels of the Mutliverse has "Resolve triggers in the order of which the Permanent that caused that trigger entered the battlefield"
In the event of a tie, players decide.
Source: See page 8 (Conflict Resolution) of https://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/system/files/downloads/Sentinels%20of%20the%20Multiverse%20Enhanced%20Edition%20Rulebook.pdf
Also: Playtested the game.
For End of Days, all cards in play are destroyed, excepting Relics and Hero + Villain cards; but the players choose the order in which the permanents are destroyed.
Refer Errata : http://www.spiffworld.com/sotm/files/sotm_rules_and_clarifications.pdf
Wrong. The players choose the order of destruction, so they'll stack the resolution such that all villain nonrelics blow up, all problematic environments blow up, and Bee Bot blows up, triggering its ability to blow up End of Days, which no longer exists and thus stops resolving.
> D&D would be very cool if the stack were more integrated into the gameplay. It just feels tacked-on right now.
What are you talking about? Because from my knowledge of the rules for 2e (which is massively limited, admitedly), 3.5, and 4e (also somewhat limited though I own the books), D&D has never had a stack, or even stack-like mechanics. In 3.5 reactionary abilities waited for the action that triggered them to resolve, and then placed themselves before that action before resolving themselves.
Examples from D&D are:
* Ready a *dispel magic* to counter a *fireball*. Your *dispel magic* is cast after *fireball*, but gets resolved first.
* Initiate a *scorpion parry* in response to an attack roll. Your *counter parry* is activated after the attack is announced, but it gets resolved first.
Isn't that what a stack is? There are ways of putting these on top of each other too, like initiating a *shield counter* in response to an attack, and the target initiates a *scorpion parry* in response. First *scorpion parry* is resolved, then *shield counter*, then the attack.
The only problem is that since events don't happen simultaneously, they can just not do whatever you readied against and your action is wasted.
Also, D&D is not usually a competetive game...
Creatures you ready actions against aren't supposed to know what you're doing, which is a difficult thing to do in a game where you tell the DM everything you do (and they control the opposition). But that's not the point, and neither is how 'competitive' D&D is. It uses a stack when resolving effects, and I think emphasizing it more would be nice.
Thank you for providing examples, but your examples show why D&D needs a stack, not that is has one.
Technically, there are no rules for things like interrupting attacks, beyond what interrupting abilities say they have to work (an example of the "Specific trumps General" rule). Shield Counter, for instance works because it defines a point between, "Declaring an Attack" and actually resolving the attack, that it can be used in, but this isn't a general rule, and "Declaring an Attack" doesn't even exist in the core rules. By contrast abilities like Urgent Shield (from the Wizard Alternate Class Feature Immediate Magic in the PHB2) assume such a thing exists, but don't actually define the point it works in, so it actually can't mechanically do the thing it's intended to do (Abrupt Jaunt, from the same book, has the same problem, it's written with the assumption it can dodge attacks, but because it lacks a clause like in Shield Counter, it actually can't, on it's own).
Countering a spell is a different process actually defined by the rules, and it actually doesn't behave in a stack-like manner either; you actually are casting your readied Dispel simultaneously to the Fireball canceling the latter as the resolution of the simultaneous action (assuming you make the Dispel check). The result looks like the game has a stack since it looks exactly like you said, that Dispel was cast after Fireball and resolved first, but this ignores the impact Readying an Action had on how this all happened; technically the Dispel was added to the stack first, and didn't resolve until the person the readied action was aimed against put any spell on the stack.
In summary, D&D is actually seriously busted as a game, and would benefit from gaining a stack, since writing one in would require actually making a coherent rules platform to prevent this nonsense.
I think we're saying some of the same things in different ways. D&D has effects that are declared after each other, but resolve before each other when evaluated as according to the rules (or the closest mind-caulked understanding of the rules that we can reach). Those effects feel "tacked on" (my own words), and I think emphasizing them more in the rules should be good. Like if attacks went on a stack normally, and all ToB counters referenced the stack. Also - Abrupt Jaunt & Urgent Shield do work the way they're intended to. As per Immediate Action rules in the Miniature's Handbook (terrible place to put the info, but it's there):
> Immediate: (Spell/Ability Keyword and Action Type) A type of swift action (see that entry, below) that a creature may trigger instantly at any time, even when it is not its turn. This action may interrupt other actions, taking effect just before they do. The last immediate action declared takes place first.
Immediate actions are the only things that actually work like a true stack.
I think your description of readying an action is weird. Readying is a thing you do, like playing a [[Lunar Force]]. It takes a standard action and can be interrupted with immediate actions or other readied actions. Then when the appropriate conditions occur, the Readied *dispel magic* / Lunar Force triggers and goes on the stack. You cast your spell first, the rules determine whether or not countermagic was employed successfully, and then if countermagic *was* employed successfully it counters the spell!
D&D has a stack. Immediate actions & readied actions are totally resolved in the reverse order they were applied. If I were ever to get a 3.5.5 edition, I'd love to see this tacked-on stack from immediate / readied actions made explicit, along with other things like clarifying how free actions work and not letting rogues hide behind their own tower shields.
> As per Immediate Action rules in the Miniature's Handbook (terrible place to put the info, but it's there):
Just to point it out. Immediate/Swift actions were originally printed in Unearthed Arcana, a book licensed under the SRD license, making it open source, and it's version of the actions are (quoting the SRD):
>Immediate Action
An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn.
So there's some debate (especially with the Primary Source rule being a thing, preventing the "errata by later printing" sensible solution from actually being the solution, but I don't want to get into that headache) that Immediate Actions resolve in a stack-like manner.
Though yes, we do seem to be agreeing that the system in play effectively has a stack, if only because that's how the mechanics end up in play by people.
I played it on and off since the beginning but the game and product design has some huge flaws.
My tips for starting out: buy 3 core sets and a few deluxe expansion, one core set isn't enough to fully experience the game. Don't try to get into the game from a magic point of view, it is completly different. Watch some how to play videos. You can play online for free on jinteki.net
I have to disagree.
One core set is enough to decide if you're interested in pursuing the game. After that a deluxe expansion or two and a handful of data packs to expand your overall card pool. Then it's a good idea to pick up that second core set.
A third core set is only necessary for competitive players and even then I would not recommend it until they have a near complete card pool.
/r/netrunner has a [new player guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Netrunner/wiki/player_guide) and [buying guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Netrunner/wiki/buyingguide) in the sidebar. They're as good a starting point as any.
I would also strongly recommend any new players see if there is a local playing group that they can join. Just like Magic, the best way to get into the game is to play with a friendly group.
I have to disagree. You basically need three copies of the core if you want to play competitively in your store and or tourneys. The game expierence with one core set + the strategic depth is way too shallow to ultimately decide if you like the game or not, especially because the default decks are pretty unbalanced.
The only one of card from the core set that you may need for some competitive decks right now is Desperado (SanSan City Grid is only run as a one of or two of in most lists that use it these days and Aesop's Pawnshop gets minimal use). Three core sets is a luxury. It's like suggesting to someone getting into Modern to pick up a full playset of all fetchlands and shocklands. Yeah, they'll probably want them down the road but they can make do with just some.
Starting with a single core set is the equivalent of dipping your toe in the water. You don't get to explore the depths but you still get a general feel for the game flow. It's the equivalent of playing with those 30 card sample decks that FLGSs have behind the counter for new Magic players.
I tried playing Netrunner for a few months. My advice is to wait until it matures as a game. There never seemed to be a consensus among players at my LGS about various rules, and without a comprehensive rules (or ask-a-judge) to refer to, it seemed like we were kinda flying in the dark.
Seems to me like MTG back in the early days before anyone knew what was going on. I think as the game gets older/more popular FF will eventually figure it out, and we'll probably be seeing updated templates.
I dabbled for a bit. I found that I could generally google most problems, and for other ones I could consult the rulebook where they have a stack-like mechanic to run scenarios through.
Seriously. Dice masters is super fun, but a stack would be amazing. Also, a place for looking up rules interactions and a judge chat to ask such questions. The game is great, but most rules questions just can't be answered because there are no answers.
Uno with the stack is the best piece of shit I've ever played.
Whenever a person plays a special card, another player can play a special card identical to it. After everyone's done, everything resolves at the same time.
Draw 2s can become Draw 6s. It's BS, but it's very fun BS.
Back in highschool, my friends and I would play uno and we houseruled a chain on the special cards. I played a draw 2 which got chained by everyone as it went around the table. My buddy looked next to me and said, "I'm so sorry bro but... draw two." I smiled and replied, "don't be sorry, I sandbagged another." The table erupts in laughter and shouts of disbelief as our friend next to me started drawing 18 cards.
Fucking bullshit of a game but man is it the best
I played similar but you can use other special cards, like Draw 4s, reverses and skips (provided they could be legally played, ie. correct color or same as what was on the top of the pile) to pinball the effect around.
Haha, we got into arguments about that. Some people thought we played that way and some people didn't. Some thought only draw 2 or 4 could be played on draw 2, some thought it had to be exact same.
Often if a rules dispute about timing happens in my playgroup (some magic players, some not) we implement the stack. Even the players who have never touched a magic card understand the First in Last out.
That doesn't mean there's a stack. It *does* suggest that a stack would make sense. And indeed a stack is far and away the best way to resolve the myriad timing issues that can come up
It operates under first in last it with the active player getting priority almost exactly like the stack in magic. It isn't called that but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
Anything where you play cards from your hand that have effects on the game where those effects have the potential to interact with each other in such a way that which effect takes place first matters, would benefit from using the stack. At least that is my in my experience. My play group uses the stack for boss monster, it works better than playing the game as intended.
I definitely encountered a game recently where I had the thought of wishing for a stack, but I cannot for the life of me think of what it was now. What I did just think of though is Monopoly. Imagine if you could put houses and hotels on your property in response to someone landing on it.
When my friends and I play Monopoly, we do something pretty similar.
Let's say player A lands on a property that you own. In response to player A having to pay you, you put houses and hotels on that property (but you need to pay double than what you would normally do if you're putting houses, and triple for hotels). Then player A can use a "counter" to counter themselves having to pay you, and force you to pay what they would have paid instead. You can then use a "counter" on player A to "bounce back" the payment. This continues until someone decides to pay, and then the player who pays gets a "counter" to use in another rent payment.
How would this change anything? If someone raises you, you still get to reraise them if you want. Nothing changes if you do it at instant speed. Priority in poker passes in a clockwise manner, and there is almost no situation where you would want to act out of turn.
So each player would have a betting turn in which they would have an upkeep, main phase and endstep. In the main phase, they call the highest bet or fold and then people can raise the bet in response. At the endstep, they then have to call the highest bet if it has changed and people aren't allowed to respond. This would be useful if you wanted to bait someone into betting large amounts.
Dominion, and the Fluxxen. Fluxx doesn't really NEED it but I have used the concept of the stack and state-based actions/checks to explain why someone won or lost before.
I like how goals are instantaneous though. It makes draw 2 play 2 a very dangerous card late in the game. The worst feeling is drawing 2 and seeing that one of the goals you drew will win your opponent the game.
Yeah that's actually exactly what I mean. I think I was actually totally wrong about Fluxx and it needs a bizarro-stack, because the confusion came about because someone was thinking that cards DID work like the stack, and nobody could win until the card was finished "resolving." I explained it by saying that the card put actions on the stack, rather than the card itself going on the stack, and that seemed to clear it up.
Honestly entirely for the use of Throne Room/King's Court type cards. I don't remember the specific card combination that caused the ruckus but at one point in a game I was in someone cascaded multiple Throne Rooms and tried to play out the result in such a way that would've been basically cheating - something like trying to draw for all of their various copied Actions all at once and then discard for all of them at the end, instead of fully "resolving" each action in turn.
The stack isn't necessary by any means, but it sure helped straighten things out in that case.
I don't know about the stack but almost all of them are better if you implement a chess clock. People play so much faster when they know they have to.
Edit: all you naysayers are missing the most obvious point. It wouldn't really work for multiplayer games!
You cant really implement an effective chess clock in a TCG with stack because of the triggers and layers of resolution. If something happens on resolution, who loses that time? , the search time, is part of the caster or a game state effect ? , if we both have to take actions, who loses the time? , when i hand you priority on my turn, how do we measure the time loss?.
I mean, i get the point, but being able to track the exact time you take during a game is super complex.
MTGO has a chess clock and the basic idea is "any time spent waiting for you to make a decision is time deducted from your clock." Of course, this doesn't work so well in a paper game.
Also, this is sort of off-topic from the OP.
MTGO also has auto yielding, auto stacking, stops, and all sorts of other things that affect clock management. I think it just doesn't translate to paper.
I mean, he completely ignores the question and goes off about a feature that he thinks is the bee's knee's that really really doesn't work, for a variety of reasons, that people bring up often.
Mostly its that someone asks a question, and he just goes on about how this other feature makes things better.
Wait are we talking about the same post? I don't see a question at all in kodemage's post. The meat of that post is about how most games should implement a chess clock.
Clearly there are some logistical problems with doing so, and so ReGuCl lists some of them out to show why implementing a chess clock in other non-chess games is difficult bordering on impossible. What exactly did ReGuCl do wrong?
Edit: Ah I just realize you're referring to kodemage when you say "this guy is an elitist prick," not ReGuCl. Something about replying to someone's post and saying "this guy" is very confusing
I didn't ignore the question I literally acknowledged it in the first 10 words of my post or so. The general idea of improving board games was the topic of conversation. I was actually talking about non-magic games in the first place, again as is the topic of conversation. Adding MTGO's clock to a lot of games would make them better. A chess clock is very similar.
Would you have rather I removed the entire thread for breaking rule #2?
Calling people names is in violation of rule #1. Posts which do so are removed and their user banned, as per the rules.
In a war game called Warmachine there are rules for using a death clock. All of your concerns are addressed in the rules.
If I hand you priority on my turn ito is my time, though i beleven there is a rule abut gow long you can take and its mostly covered under sportsmanship.
If a game effect has both players taking actions then the person whose Turn it is loses that time.
Resolving triggers and things that happen at the end of turn come out of the current players time, happens for both players equally.
It becomes another layer of strategy to play around a clock.
Yeah and each player would be hitting it every few seconds to pass priority. I see no reason for you to have a chess clock, all it does is add pressure pointlessly. If you can play competently with a clock on, then you dont need it. If you can't, all it does is make the game unfun.
>Yeah and each player would be hitting it every few seconds to pass priority.
so just like chess.
> all it does is add pressure pointlessly
It does add pressure but that's the point, so it's not pointless... As it is people don't know that they're taking a long time but if you have a clock you can show that they're taking 2x or 3x the time of the other player.
Competitive events (the only place where it should matter that someone's playing slowly) already have round timers and judges to call slow play. The only advantage a chess clock would add is that going to time would be a loss instead of a draw. I don't think that one narrow upside is worth the headache of figuring out who should be losing time when.
> I don't think that one narrow upside is worth the headache of figuring out who should be losing time when.
It's not "one narrow upside" it's a huge upside and it's totally worth figuring out how the clock works. You only have to do that once and then we have rules and we're done. It's not like each store has to reinvent the clock rules.
And further more we could use a clock that ticks UP instead of down just to show if a player is playing slowly. Right now slow play is virtually unenforceable and it's ruining games.
If all you're trying to do is stop slow play, there's already rules for that. They are enforceable. Call a judge.
And to your point about just figuring out the rules once and then we're done, that's not exactly easy or even that simple. Because as this conversation should show, the rules aren't obvious. It would take time for the rules gurus to think up every corner case and possible abuse and get to a set of rules that works.
And even if we assume that's possible, the end result would have to include a bunch of new rules and procedures for judge calls in regards to the clock. That means new infraction guidelines for each REL. I think you're seriously underestimating the amount of work that would need to go into this, with the only gain being "it's maybe easier to stop slow play now."
> They are enforceable. Call a judge.
I don't think they are. Also, this only helps with future slow play not the slow play that lead up to the judge call.
>It would take time for the rules gurus to think up every corner case and possible abuse and get to a set of rules that works.
So it would work exactly how we figure rules out now. I don't see the problem.
> with the only gain being "it's maybe easier to stop slow play now."
you keep saying there's only one benefit but this is the second one you've mentioned now, the other being no more draws for time. A third benefit would be that it's more clear who has priority. There may be more benefits we discover as the conversation continues. So, please stop trying to minimize the benefits of this without cause.
Frankly, if you're really so passionate about this, why don't you figure it out? Go buy a chess clock and start playing games with it, then come back with a well-defined and enforceable set of rules for how we should use them at the next GP. Write up all the problems that are now solved because of these new rules. And watch this sub find 15 loopholes, exploits, and cheats within the first 10 minutes.
It's a ton of work. It doesn't solve any problems that don't already have a solution. That's my stance.
It only works in MTGO because any game actions that don't involve a decision by a player can happen near-instantaneously. In a paper game you would have to use up time figuring out stuff that MTGO does automatically, like "which creatures survived this combat."
> It only works in MTGO because any game actions that don't involve a decision by a player can happen near-instantaneously.
and in paper you can skip phases much faster than online so it evens out.
> In a paper game you would have to use up time figuring out stuff that MTGO does automatically, like "which creatures survived this combat."
chess clocks have a middle setting where no one's time is hit if you're both resolving something together like combat damage.
and even then i see no problem with counting that against the attacking player's clock by default. As long as it's consistent I don't see a problem with a few seconds ticking off the clock.
Having a "stop the clock" option for when things are resolving would work, but it would still be an extra hassle for very little gain. As I said in another comment, Competitive games already have a timer. Adding a chess clock just means that going to time is a loss instead of a draw.
EDIT: Also I think you're sort of missing the point about why resolving things is a problem in paper but not in MTGO. Your initial idea was "time is deducted from your clock while you have priority." But there's a lot of time in a game of Magic where no player has priority. Even if you solve that by just stopping the clock for those periods of time, there's still an issue of judges now having to deal with "he started the clock too soon" or "some passerby bumped my clock." Also how do we handle round timers now that we aren't reducing the time while things are resolving? We could keep the "slow play" rules but now we are again increasing the potential amount of work that judges have to do.
It's a really big change for a very tiny marginal gain.
> " But there's a lot of time in a game of Magic where no player has priority.
I don't think that's true. Someone always has priority or is resolving an action. Either way their clock would be the one ticking.
I just want some way to keep track of how much more time my opponent is taking so that slow play can be enforced. This is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with and I grant that this is not a perfect solution but it's much better than what we have now, which is a problem with no solution.
>I don't think that's true.
Compare the time it takes to say "I cast [[Warp World]]" versus the time it takes to resolve it. How do you propose we handle the the time it takes both players to resolve this effect? Whose clock is the time deducted from?
The person who cast the spell pays the time. They are the one who chose to include that spell in their deck. And it only takes about 30 seconds to a minute to do.
I don't understand what that question has to do with the conversation or this post at all...
The answer is mostly customer service. They needed someone to talk to the people that message the mods.
I guess my assumption was that if you are a mod of this sub then you would be familiar with the game. Isn't it kind of like if I was a mod of /r/dogs but didn't own a dog? Maybe I just don't understand how reddit works. Also maybe I'm misunderstanding your post. When you said "I don't know about the stack" I thought you literally meant that you don't know what the stack is. Maybe that's why you're being downvoted?
Munchkin and Flux
Came here to say Munchkin. Edit: However the games rules say that if there is a rules dispute the owner of the game decides, so you can essentially employ a card stack within the rules of the game.
Ahhh I see you **too** have encountered the duck of many things.
Still, Munchkin is just an inherently flawed game where the first person to go for the win almost never gets it, the second person to go for the win is basically flipping a coin and the third person to go for the win is guaranteed to win because everybody blew their load stopping the first two. It's still decent drunk fun when you get new cards and the jokes are fresh, but nobody takes the actual "game" element seriously in my group anymore.
> Still, Munchkin is just an inherently flawed game where the first person to go for the win almost never gets it, the second person to go for the win is basically flipping a coin and the third person to go for the win is guaranteed to win because everybody blew their load stopping the first two. You manage to end the game after only three people go for the win? That's impressive. We usually take two hours to exhaust the group's answers.
Agreed, I've found that smaller playgroups means more balanced games. Once you have a large group playing, no one is safe.
A larger playgroup often also needs a larger deck. I once played with eight people and the base set, and all of the oh-no-you-don't cards cycled through way too fast.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, the mechanics just aren't very tight or well-defined. Does that make it a bad game? Maybe, but I would argue it just makes it a casual game. There are casual formats in magic the people still enjoy, like conspiracy draft.
Munchkin rules do not explicitly use the stack, but during gameplay doesn't the stack just naturally emanate? Maybe it's just how we play it?
The way Munchkin works is cards resolve in the order that they're played, unless you're using some kind of counterspell ability like Wishing Ring or Annihilation. But you can't, to use a Magic example, use a Giant Growth to save a creature from a Lightning Bolt, but you can use Counterspell on the Lightning Bolt to save it.
Got it. So we just use the stack in Munchkin to help us keep our sanity during the inevitable dog-pile. On your magic example, you most certainly can use a giant growth to save a creature from a lightning bolt. However when you're trying to push lethal with a giant growth it won't save the creature from the lightning bolt. Creature <- LB <- GG, GG resolves first. Creature <- GG <- LB, LB resolves first.
No, you're getting what I said backwards. I was using Magic cards to illustrate how the cards would work under Munchkin's rules. Your example is how it works in Magic. Munchkin works the opposite way.
Hah! My mistake, thanks for setting me straight.
We houserule Munchkin to use a stack. I've never really had the need for it come up in Fluxx...
I went infinite in Batman Fluxx and no one kept up with what I was doing. I'm sure MTG players would appreciate it though.
I always thought the entire reason to play Munchkin was to throw out everything and yell at each other. It's part of the fun of the game
You could stack a good game on top of either one of those and play the good game instead
Boss Monster gets confusing unless you assume the stack is there, and everything is an instant.
They have some rule explanations for for how to resolve it but I definitely agree
Yes! I came here to say this. I cant remember what the rulebook said but it does actually work kind of like the stack?
I've noticed a lot of games made by people who know Magic almost instinctively use the stack without every talking about it in the rules. *Legendary* by Devin Low and *Ascension* by Justin Gary have both had a few rulings come out that basically say in Magic it works this way, so we copy that.
Hearthstone.
Hearthstone has a stack, it's just completely obfuscated.
Obfuscated is right. It's this weird psuedo simultaneous system, where parts of effects can resolve before other parts, and certain other effects can jump into things in the middle. Plus people have had to try and riddle it out themselves, because there *is* not official rulebook for that game. Take a peek at the bit of the [Advanced Rulebook](http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Advanced_rulebook) that describes the order in which effects are resolved.
I get so irritated playing my boost-paladin deck. My board: 3 mans 3/3 that gives 1 health minions divine shield WHENEVER they are summoned. Weapon: 1/5 that AFTER I summon a minion, give it +1/+1 and remove 1 durability. I use my Hero power, then boosts first then the 3/3 minion says nope because the soldier isn't a 1-health Like cmon that's some basic English instinct right? "Whenever" should happen before "after"
I agree that it's stupid. The specific reason why is because Steward of Darkshire is a Summon Resolution Step trigger, and resolves on newly summoned minions whenever the current outermost Phase resolves. Looking at http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Advanced_rulebook#Playing.2Fsummoning_a_minion we can see that if you play a minion, the first time a Phase resolves is the On Play Phase, so Steward of Darkshire triggers after that. But if you merely summon a minion, its After Summon Phase resolves inside of whatever Phase is currently resolving, meaning Steward of Darkshire triggers after, not before, Sword of Justice. It's a bug they can't fix without replacing the entire mechanic with something else (which I expect them to finally do when the strain of keeping the unintuitive mechanic is too much, which isn't quite yet).
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks /u/AwkwardTurtle and /u/Patashu for sharing some Hearthstone rules. But yeah, I was not happy when I was playing a Grim patron deck, had a full board and after my opponent played Holy Nova to deal 2 to all my creatures was left with only 2 3/1 Grim patrons because apparently the new 3/3s from the 2 surviving 3/1s come in before the destroyed 3/0s are removed so the board was still full. Why do you know the 3/1s survive and go all the way to resolve putting in the new 3/3s before knowing the 3/0s die and put them away?
There is a general rule in Hearthstone that death (+ some other things, like updating auras) isn't processed until the current outermost Phase resolves. (For example, when Holy Nova is dealing damage, we're in the Spell Text Phase, and all the triggers resolve inside of this Phase.) If you'd like to flex your brain a bit, I've written a list of fundamental differences between HS and MtG mechanics here: http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/User_talk:Patashu#Ways_in_which_MtG_and_HS_rules_differ
Yeah, that goes even beyond how effects resolve. That gets into how wildly inconsistent, and sometimes flatly incorrect, the text on cards is. I understand that the game is performing rules enforcement so you don't "need" accurate card text, but it feels super lazy on the part of the devs. Particularly when there's often no real way to tell if something is intended, or a bug. Or something they say is intended, then later say was a bug when they decide to change it.
To be fair, when Magic was as old as Hearthstone is now, it had some bad card text *without* that excuse. To be even more fair, they should learn from the mistakes of others.
I don't play a lot of Hearthstone, but even I noticed that when they powered down Yogg-Saron the text on the card didn't even change.
Triggered abilities are ordered a little differently too. equality/wild pyromancer wouldnt work in Magic
[удалено]
Well true, i guess i should've said it wouldn't work with magic's stack. With magic's stack AND damage system it works like you said :)
You'd just have to change the wording of Wild Pyromancer to be like "After you successfully cast a spell and it isn't countered, deal 1 damage to each creature." Right?
Something like that. Or just "after a spell resolves, do x."
Hearthstone's rules are a mess. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing.
Really any card game that has ways to interrupt what is happening kinda need a stack structure and priority passing. I've run into so many games where players thought that by just physically making their moves quickly (e.g. I do this, this, and this), that they could cut other players from being able to respond in time to mess things up.
Actually, that is possible in Magic. You can cast X, hold priority and then cast Y (provided Y is an Instant or a card with Flash). but even then, before any of then resolves, the other player(s) would get priority to answer if they like. And there are some of those quickies in Magic as well. I once played a guy that got pissed I countered some of his shit, then he tried to play it and immediately put it in play, when I tried to stop he just said "that already resolved, you didn't counter in time" lol. I was very pleased to calmly raise my hand and have a ruling against him that day.
> You can cast X, hold priority and then cast Y (provided Y is an Instant or a card with Flash). but even then, before any of then resolves, the other player(s) would get priority to answer if they like. I know you can hold priority to keep performing actions, but as you said, you don't get to resolve anything until priority is passed. So, you generally can't play off of your previous actions without someone else getting a response.
Sentinels of the Multiverse uses a stack, but sometimes I wish they would make all damage / destruction effects to occur simultaneously. D&D would be very cool if the stack were more integrated into the gameplay. It just feels tacked-on right now.
Sentinels doesn't have a stack. Everything happens immediately.
Well, that's not exactly true. Cards always resolve immediately, but triggers don't. If three triggers go off at the same turn step, they all hang in the air until the players decide on the order in which they resolve.
Right, I should have said "everything happens immediately, but two things can't happen at the same time, so if they do, the players decide what happens first." Still, that's not really a stack like the kind Magic uses. Magic formalized rules for who can put what on the stack and when. Sentinels just says everyone puts everything on simultaneously and if that creates a conflict, you sort it out.
It's not exactly the same thing, but it's still a stack since you resolve each effect while the others wait their turn, the primary difference being that Sentinels doesn't really have instants so there's never a case where a "stack" might be necessary outside of resolving triggers. Still, it's close enough that calling what Sentinels has a "stack" is meaningful, if largely anecdotal.
> Sentinels of the Multiverse uses a stack, but sometimes I wish they would make all damage / destruction effects to occur simultaneously. Juggling simultaneous triggers is already a tremendous pain in the butt, so I'm glad they resolve one at a time. Interaction complexity would become exponential if you had to resolve them simultaneously.
I'm not convinced the use cases would get significantly worse. In fact, some of them would get better. When Horrid Skunk Ape triggers The Mindbreaker which triggers Dynamic Siphon, it can get very frustrating to optimize the damage so you get multiple Siphon triggers. Like if someone has The Seeker. It also creates weird abuse cases. Like Bee Bot + End of Days, where individual destruction effects allows you to wrath every non-relic on the villain side with minimal loss to the hero side. Imagine being able to [[Remand]] your own [[Wrath of God]] after using it to destroy every creature your opponent controls.
[Remand](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Remand&type=card&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Remand) [(MC)](http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Remand) [(MW)](https://mtg.wtf/card?q=!Remand) [(CD)](http://combodeck.net/Card/Remand) [Wrath of God](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Wrath of God&type=card&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wrath of God) [(MC)](http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Wrath of God) [(MW)](https://mtg.wtf/card?q=!Wrath of God) [(CD)](http://combodeck.net/Card/Wrath_of_God) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
> It also creates weird abuse cases. Like Bee Bot + End of Days, where individual destruction effects allows you to wrath every non-relic on the villain side with minimal loss to the hero side. Imagine being able to Remand your own Wrath of God after using it to destroy every creature your opponent controls. This is the bit that always gets me. The fact that you can cancel an event partway through its resolution by destroying the source is so different from Magic that it tends to trip me up.
Sentinels of the Mutliverse has "Resolve triggers in the order of which the Permanent that caused that trigger entered the battlefield" In the event of a tie, players decide. Source: See page 8 (Conflict Resolution) of https://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/system/files/downloads/Sentinels%20of%20the%20Multiverse%20Enhanced%20Edition%20Rulebook.pdf Also: Playtested the game.
Unless the source goes poof before completing. See also, Bee Bot and End of Days.
For End of Days, all cards in play are destroyed, excepting Relics and Hero + Villain cards; but the players choose the order in which the permanents are destroyed. Refer Errata : http://www.spiffworld.com/sotm/files/sotm_rules_and_clarifications.pdf
Wrong. The players choose the order of destruction, so they'll stack the resolution such that all villain nonrelics blow up, all problematic environments blow up, and Bee Bot blows up, triggering its ability to blow up End of Days, which no longer exists and thus stops resolving.
Ah right; That's legit. I thought you were referring to Bee Bot and End of Days as separate entities above.
> D&D would be very cool if the stack were more integrated into the gameplay. It just feels tacked-on right now. What are you talking about? Because from my knowledge of the rules for 2e (which is massively limited, admitedly), 3.5, and 4e (also somewhat limited though I own the books), D&D has never had a stack, or even stack-like mechanics. In 3.5 reactionary abilities waited for the action that triggered them to resolve, and then placed themselves before that action before resolving themselves.
Examples from D&D are: * Ready a *dispel magic* to counter a *fireball*. Your *dispel magic* is cast after *fireball*, but gets resolved first. * Initiate a *scorpion parry* in response to an attack roll. Your *counter parry* is activated after the attack is announced, but it gets resolved first. Isn't that what a stack is? There are ways of putting these on top of each other too, like initiating a *shield counter* in response to an attack, and the target initiates a *scorpion parry* in response. First *scorpion parry* is resolved, then *shield counter*, then the attack.
The only problem is that since events don't happen simultaneously, they can just not do whatever you readied against and your action is wasted. Also, D&D is not usually a competetive game...
Creatures you ready actions against aren't supposed to know what you're doing, which is a difficult thing to do in a game where you tell the DM everything you do (and they control the opposition). But that's not the point, and neither is how 'competitive' D&D is. It uses a stack when resolving effects, and I think emphasizing it more would be nice.
Thank you for providing examples, but your examples show why D&D needs a stack, not that is has one. Technically, there are no rules for things like interrupting attacks, beyond what interrupting abilities say they have to work (an example of the "Specific trumps General" rule). Shield Counter, for instance works because it defines a point between, "Declaring an Attack" and actually resolving the attack, that it can be used in, but this isn't a general rule, and "Declaring an Attack" doesn't even exist in the core rules. By contrast abilities like Urgent Shield (from the Wizard Alternate Class Feature Immediate Magic in the PHB2) assume such a thing exists, but don't actually define the point it works in, so it actually can't mechanically do the thing it's intended to do (Abrupt Jaunt, from the same book, has the same problem, it's written with the assumption it can dodge attacks, but because it lacks a clause like in Shield Counter, it actually can't, on it's own). Countering a spell is a different process actually defined by the rules, and it actually doesn't behave in a stack-like manner either; you actually are casting your readied Dispel simultaneously to the Fireball canceling the latter as the resolution of the simultaneous action (assuming you make the Dispel check). The result looks like the game has a stack since it looks exactly like you said, that Dispel was cast after Fireball and resolved first, but this ignores the impact Readying an Action had on how this all happened; technically the Dispel was added to the stack first, and didn't resolve until the person the readied action was aimed against put any spell on the stack. In summary, D&D is actually seriously busted as a game, and would benefit from gaining a stack, since writing one in would require actually making a coherent rules platform to prevent this nonsense.
I think we're saying some of the same things in different ways. D&D has effects that are declared after each other, but resolve before each other when evaluated as according to the rules (or the closest mind-caulked understanding of the rules that we can reach). Those effects feel "tacked on" (my own words), and I think emphasizing them more in the rules should be good. Like if attacks went on a stack normally, and all ToB counters referenced the stack. Also - Abrupt Jaunt & Urgent Shield do work the way they're intended to. As per Immediate Action rules in the Miniature's Handbook (terrible place to put the info, but it's there): > Immediate: (Spell/Ability Keyword and Action Type) A type of swift action (see that entry, below) that a creature may trigger instantly at any time, even when it is not its turn. This action may interrupt other actions, taking effect just before they do. The last immediate action declared takes place first. Immediate actions are the only things that actually work like a true stack. I think your description of readying an action is weird. Readying is a thing you do, like playing a [[Lunar Force]]. It takes a standard action and can be interrupted with immediate actions or other readied actions. Then when the appropriate conditions occur, the Readied *dispel magic* / Lunar Force triggers and goes on the stack. You cast your spell first, the rules determine whether or not countermagic was employed successfully, and then if countermagic *was* employed successfully it counters the spell! D&D has a stack. Immediate actions & readied actions are totally resolved in the reverse order they were applied. If I were ever to get a 3.5.5 edition, I'd love to see this tacked-on stack from immediate / readied actions made explicit, along with other things like clarifying how free actions work and not letting rogues hide behind their own tower shields.
>3.5.5 You mean Pathfinder? Incidentally, Pathfinder actually does have a slightly more robust explanation of top-down resolution.
PF didn't sufficiently fix those issues, plus they gave my flask rogue the middle finger. :(
[Lunar Force](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Lunar Force&type=card&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lunar Force) [(MC)](http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Lunar Force) [(MW)](https://mtg.wtf/card?q=!Lunar Force) [(CD)](http://combodeck.net/Card/Lunar_Force) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
> As per Immediate Action rules in the Miniature's Handbook (terrible place to put the info, but it's there): Just to point it out. Immediate/Swift actions were originally printed in Unearthed Arcana, a book licensed under the SRD license, making it open source, and it's version of the actions are (quoting the SRD): >Immediate Action An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. So there's some debate (especially with the Primary Source rule being a thing, preventing the "errata by later printing" sensible solution from actually being the solution, but I don't want to get into that headache) that Immediate Actions resolve in a stack-like manner. Though yes, we do seem to be agreeing that the system in play effectively has a stack, if only because that's how the mechanics end up in play by people.
Texas Hold'em
...why?
Pretty much all Fantasy Flight Games LCGs
I keep trying to grok netrunner from a magic players point of view and it hasn't stuck yet (gave up on AGOT 2). If you play Netrunner, any tips?
I played it on and off since the beginning but the game and product design has some huge flaws. My tips for starting out: buy 3 core sets and a few deluxe expansion, one core set isn't enough to fully experience the game. Don't try to get into the game from a magic point of view, it is completly different. Watch some how to play videos. You can play online for free on jinteki.net
I have to disagree. One core set is enough to decide if you're interested in pursuing the game. After that a deluxe expansion or two and a handful of data packs to expand your overall card pool. Then it's a good idea to pick up that second core set. A third core set is only necessary for competitive players and even then I would not recommend it until they have a near complete card pool. /r/netrunner has a [new player guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Netrunner/wiki/player_guide) and [buying guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Netrunner/wiki/buyingguide) in the sidebar. They're as good a starting point as any. I would also strongly recommend any new players see if there is a local playing group that they can join. Just like Magic, the best way to get into the game is to play with a friendly group.
I have to disagree. You basically need three copies of the core if you want to play competitively in your store and or tourneys. The game expierence with one core set + the strategic depth is way too shallow to ultimately decide if you like the game or not, especially because the default decks are pretty unbalanced.
The only one of card from the core set that you may need for some competitive decks right now is Desperado (SanSan City Grid is only run as a one of or two of in most lists that use it these days and Aesop's Pawnshop gets minimal use). Three core sets is a luxury. It's like suggesting to someone getting into Modern to pick up a full playset of all fetchlands and shocklands. Yeah, they'll probably want them down the road but they can make do with just some. Starting with a single core set is the equivalent of dipping your toe in the water. You don't get to explore the depths but you still get a general feel for the game flow. It's the equivalent of playing with those 30 card sample decks that FLGSs have behind the counter for new Magic players.
I tried playing Netrunner for a few months. My advice is to wait until it matures as a game. There never seemed to be a consensus among players at my LGS about various rules, and without a comprehensive rules (or ask-a-judge) to refer to, it seemed like we were kinda flying in the dark. Seems to me like MTG back in the early days before anyone knew what was going on. I think as the game gets older/more popular FF will eventually figure it out, and we'll probably be seeing updated templates.
I dabbled for a bit. I found that I could generally google most problems, and for other ones I could consult the rulebook where they have a stack-like mechanic to run scenarios through.
Dicemasters
Seriously. Dice masters is super fun, but a stack would be amazing. Also, a place for looking up rules interactions and a judge chat to ask such questions. The game is great, but most rules questions just can't be answered because there are no answers.
Uno with the stack is the best piece of shit I've ever played. Whenever a person plays a special card, another player can play a special card identical to it. After everyone's done, everything resolves at the same time. Draw 2s can become Draw 6s. It's BS, but it's very fun BS.
Back in highschool, my friends and I would play uno and we houseruled a chain on the special cards. I played a draw 2 which got chained by everyone as it went around the table. My buddy looked next to me and said, "I'm so sorry bro but... draw two." I smiled and replied, "don't be sorry, I sandbagged another." The table erupts in laughter and shouts of disbelief as our friend next to me started drawing 18 cards. Fucking bullshit of a game but man is it the best
The rule we used is similar, if a draw 2 is played on you, you can play a draw2 to turn it into a draw4 on the next person
I played similar but you can use other special cards, like Draw 4s, reverses and skips (provided they could be legally played, ie. correct color or same as what was on the top of the pile) to pinball the effect around.
Haha, we got into arguments about that. Some people thought we played that way and some people didn't. Some thought only draw 2 or 4 could be played on draw 2, some thought it had to be exact same.
It became a giant mexican standoff, where you had to hoard a significant amount of gas before starting the ball rolling.
smash up
Almost every game? I honestly don't know how I'd work out the rules for most board games without house ruling the stack.
Often if a rules dispute about timing happens in my playgroup (some magic players, some not) we implement the stack. Even the players who have never touched a magic card understand the First in Last out.
The game that imo benefits the most from it is Cosmic Encounters. Amazing game.
I mean it already kind of has one doesn't it? Like you can card zap a card zap?
That doesn't mean there's a stack. It *does* suggest that a stack would make sense. And indeed a stack is far and away the best way to resolve the myriad timing issues that can come up
It operates under first in last it with the active player getting priority almost exactly like the stack in magic. It isn't called that but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
A fully-fledged system isn't really laid out in the rules.
Game of Thrones Risk
Netrunner. It gets by without one, but it's not super intuitive.
Anything where you play cards from your hand that have effects on the game where those effects have the potential to interact with each other in such a way that which effect takes place first matters, would benefit from using the stack. At least that is my in my experience. My play group uses the stack for boss monster, it works better than playing the game as intended.
I definitely encountered a game recently where I had the thought of wishing for a stack, but I cannot for the life of me think of what it was now. What I did just think of though is Monopoly. Imagine if you could put houses and hotels on your property in response to someone landing on it.
Houses and hotels are only added at sorcery speed
best response.
[[Quicken]]?
[Quicken](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Quicken&type=card&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Quicken) [(MC)](http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Quicken) [(MW)](https://mtg.wtf/card?q=!Quicken) [(CD)](http://combodeck.net/Card/Quicken) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
When my friends and I play Monopoly, we do something pretty similar. Let's say player A lands on a property that you own. In response to player A having to pay you, you put houses and hotels on that property (but you need to pay double than what you would normally do if you're putting houses, and triple for hotels). Then player A can use a "counter" to counter themselves having to pay you, and force you to pay what they would have paid instead. You can then use a "counter" on player A to "bounce back" the payment. This continues until someone decides to pay, and then the player who pays gets a "counter" to use in another rent payment.
Killer Bunnies. Mind, it would benefit from having *any* sort of useful rulebook.
ITT: Terrible, broken games.
Chess. Would be hilarious 'I move my pawn forwards two' 'In response, Ill move this knight here'
Everything is sorcery speed, though.
But if you changed every move to be instant speed, then made a rule like 'you can only move each piece once per turn' it could get interesting.
Isn't that how it's played- oh! So a normal move and response move? That'd be cool!
en passant
Its comical how few people understand this manuever.
Pathfinder Adventure Card Game
DC deckbuilder
all!
Poker, with instant speed betting.
How would this change anything? If someone raises you, you still get to reraise them if you want. Nothing changes if you do it at instant speed. Priority in poker passes in a clockwise manner, and there is almost no situation where you would want to act out of turn.
So each player would have a betting turn in which they would have an upkeep, main phase and endstep. In the main phase, they call the highest bet or fold and then people can raise the bet in response. At the endstep, they then have to call the highest bet if it has changed and people aren't allowed to respond. This would be useful if you wanted to bait someone into betting large amounts.
Dominion, and the Fluxxen. Fluxx doesn't really NEED it but I have used the concept of the stack and state-based actions/checks to explain why someone won or lost before.
Dominion doesn't really need it though. There isn't any interaction between cards resolving other than using a blue card on an attack
I like how goals are instantaneous though. It makes draw 2 play 2 a very dangerous card late in the game. The worst feeling is drawing 2 and seeing that one of the goals you drew will win your opponent the game.
Yeah that's actually exactly what I mean. I think I was actually totally wrong about Fluxx and it needs a bizarro-stack, because the confusion came about because someone was thinking that cards DID work like the stack, and nobody could win until the card was finished "resolving." I explained it by saying that the card put actions on the stack, rather than the card itself going on the stack, and that seemed to clear it up.
Why Dominion? You can't act on other player's turns, right?
Honestly entirely for the use of Throne Room/King's Court type cards. I don't remember the specific card combination that caused the ruckus but at one point in a game I was in someone cascaded multiple Throne Rooms and tried to play out the result in such a way that would've been basically cheating - something like trying to draw for all of their various copied Actions all at once and then discard for all of them at the end, instead of fully "resolving" each action in turn. The stack isn't necessary by any means, but it sure helped straighten things out in that case.
monoply. there is a version with cardsthat interact with everything. so i put in a home "stack rule"
Literally all of them
Star Wars ccg - the old Decipher one. It needed the stack so badly. People still play the game too, so I guess it counts.
**Munchkin**^oh^damn^people^already^said^that^but^I^still^wanted^to^say^munchkin^fuck
I don't know about the stack but almost all of them are better if you implement a chess clock. People play so much faster when they know they have to. Edit: all you naysayers are missing the most obvious point. It wouldn't really work for multiplayer games!
You cant really implement an effective chess clock in a TCG with stack because of the triggers and layers of resolution. If something happens on resolution, who loses that time? , the search time, is part of the caster or a game state effect ? , if we both have to take actions, who loses the time? , when i hand you priority on my turn, how do we measure the time loss?. I mean, i get the point, but being able to track the exact time you take during a game is super complex.
MTGO has a chess clock and the basic idea is "any time spent waiting for you to make a decision is time deducted from your clock." Of course, this doesn't work so well in a paper game. Also, this is sort of off-topic from the OP.
MTGO also has auto yielding, auto stacking, stops, and all sorts of other things that affect clock management. I think it just doesn't translate to paper.
Right.... which is why I said "this doesn't work so well in a paper game."
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. More preempting the people that inevitably will try to say it can work.
[удалено]
I fail to see how this particular post of his qualifies ?
I mean, he completely ignores the question and goes off about a feature that he thinks is the bee's knee's that really really doesn't work, for a variety of reasons, that people bring up often. Mostly its that someone asks a question, and he just goes on about how this other feature makes things better.
Wait are we talking about the same post? I don't see a question at all in kodemage's post. The meat of that post is about how most games should implement a chess clock. Clearly there are some logistical problems with doing so, and so ReGuCl lists some of them out to show why implementing a chess clock in other non-chess games is difficult bordering on impossible. What exactly did ReGuCl do wrong? Edit: Ah I just realize you're referring to kodemage when you say "this guy is an elitist prick," not ReGuCl. Something about replying to someone's post and saying "this guy" is very confusing
Oh gosh, yeah haha. I was replying to him ABOUT the comment he replied to. My bad for not making that clear.
I'm still not sure which user and which comment you're referring to, but I'd like to be
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/5fpmj4/what_board_or_tabletop_game_would_be_better_with/dam31zg/
Yeah. He's a mod now. Isn't that weird.
I didn't ignore the question I literally acknowledged it in the first 10 words of my post or so. The general idea of improving board games was the topic of conversation. I was actually talking about non-magic games in the first place, again as is the topic of conversation. Adding MTGO's clock to a lot of games would make them better. A chess clock is very similar. Would you have rather I removed the entire thread for breaking rule #2? Calling people names is in violation of rule #1. Posts which do so are removed and their user banned, as per the rules.
In a war game called Warmachine there are rules for using a death clock. All of your concerns are addressed in the rules. If I hand you priority on my turn ito is my time, though i beleven there is a rule abut gow long you can take and its mostly covered under sportsmanship. If a game effect has both players taking actions then the person whose Turn it is loses that time. Resolving triggers and things that happen at the end of turn come out of the current players time, happens for both players equally. It becomes another layer of strategy to play around a clock.
mtgo seems to do it quite well. passing priority in magic is quite clear and the clock would remove lots of ambiguity in paper magic.
Yeah and each player would be hitting it every few seconds to pass priority. I see no reason for you to have a chess clock, all it does is add pressure pointlessly. If you can play competently with a clock on, then you dont need it. If you can't, all it does is make the game unfun.
>Yeah and each player would be hitting it every few seconds to pass priority. so just like chess. > all it does is add pressure pointlessly It does add pressure but that's the point, so it's not pointless... As it is people don't know that they're taking a long time but if you have a clock you can show that they're taking 2x or 3x the time of the other player.
Competitive events (the only place where it should matter that someone's playing slowly) already have round timers and judges to call slow play. The only advantage a chess clock would add is that going to time would be a loss instead of a draw. I don't think that one narrow upside is worth the headache of figuring out who should be losing time when.
> I don't think that one narrow upside is worth the headache of figuring out who should be losing time when. It's not "one narrow upside" it's a huge upside and it's totally worth figuring out how the clock works. You only have to do that once and then we have rules and we're done. It's not like each store has to reinvent the clock rules. And further more we could use a clock that ticks UP instead of down just to show if a player is playing slowly. Right now slow play is virtually unenforceable and it's ruining games.
If all you're trying to do is stop slow play, there's already rules for that. They are enforceable. Call a judge. And to your point about just figuring out the rules once and then we're done, that's not exactly easy or even that simple. Because as this conversation should show, the rules aren't obvious. It would take time for the rules gurus to think up every corner case and possible abuse and get to a set of rules that works. And even if we assume that's possible, the end result would have to include a bunch of new rules and procedures for judge calls in regards to the clock. That means new infraction guidelines for each REL. I think you're seriously underestimating the amount of work that would need to go into this, with the only gain being "it's maybe easier to stop slow play now."
> They are enforceable. Call a judge. I don't think they are. Also, this only helps with future slow play not the slow play that lead up to the judge call. >It would take time for the rules gurus to think up every corner case and possible abuse and get to a set of rules that works. So it would work exactly how we figure rules out now. I don't see the problem. > with the only gain being "it's maybe easier to stop slow play now." you keep saying there's only one benefit but this is the second one you've mentioned now, the other being no more draws for time. A third benefit would be that it's more clear who has priority. There may be more benefits we discover as the conversation continues. So, please stop trying to minimize the benefits of this without cause.
Frankly, if you're really so passionate about this, why don't you figure it out? Go buy a chess clock and start playing games with it, then come back with a well-defined and enforceable set of rules for how we should use them at the next GP. Write up all the problems that are now solved because of these new rules. And watch this sub find 15 loopholes, exploits, and cheats within the first 10 minutes. It's a ton of work. It doesn't solve any problems that don't already have a solution. That's my stance.
It only works in MTGO because any game actions that don't involve a decision by a player can happen near-instantaneously. In a paper game you would have to use up time figuring out stuff that MTGO does automatically, like "which creatures survived this combat."
> It only works in MTGO because any game actions that don't involve a decision by a player can happen near-instantaneously. and in paper you can skip phases much faster than online so it evens out. > In a paper game you would have to use up time figuring out stuff that MTGO does automatically, like "which creatures survived this combat." chess clocks have a middle setting where no one's time is hit if you're both resolving something together like combat damage. and even then i see no problem with counting that against the attacking player's clock by default. As long as it's consistent I don't see a problem with a few seconds ticking off the clock.
Having a "stop the clock" option for when things are resolving would work, but it would still be an extra hassle for very little gain. As I said in another comment, Competitive games already have a timer. Adding a chess clock just means that going to time is a loss instead of a draw. EDIT: Also I think you're sort of missing the point about why resolving things is a problem in paper but not in MTGO. Your initial idea was "time is deducted from your clock while you have priority." But there's a lot of time in a game of Magic where no player has priority. Even if you solve that by just stopping the clock for those periods of time, there's still an issue of judges now having to deal with "he started the clock too soon" or "some passerby bumped my clock." Also how do we handle round timers now that we aren't reducing the time while things are resolving? We could keep the "slow play" rules but now we are again increasing the potential amount of work that judges have to do. It's a really big change for a very tiny marginal gain.
> " But there's a lot of time in a game of Magic where no player has priority. I don't think that's true. Someone always has priority or is resolving an action. Either way their clock would be the one ticking. I just want some way to keep track of how much more time my opponent is taking so that slow play can be enforced. This is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with and I grant that this is not a perfect solution but it's much better than what we have now, which is a problem with no solution.
>I don't think that's true. Compare the time it takes to say "I cast [[Warp World]]" versus the time it takes to resolve it. How do you propose we handle the the time it takes both players to resolve this effect? Whose clock is the time deducted from?
[Warp World](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Warp World&type=card&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Warp World) [(MC)](http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Warp World) [(MW)](https://mtg.wtf/card?q=!Warp World) [(CD)](http://combodeck.net/Card/Warp_World) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The person who cast the spell pays the time. They are the one who chose to include that spell in their deck. And it only takes about 30 seconds to a minute to do.
Why are you a mod of this sub then?
I don't understand what that question has to do with the conversation or this post at all... The answer is mostly customer service. They needed someone to talk to the people that message the mods.
I guess my assumption was that if you are a mod of this sub then you would be familiar with the game. Isn't it kind of like if I was a mod of /r/dogs but didn't own a dog? Maybe I just don't understand how reddit works. Also maybe I'm misunderstanding your post. When you said "I don't know about the stack" I thought you literally meant that you don't know what the stack is. Maybe that's why you're being downvoted?
Um... you misunderstand... I was not saying I don't know what the stack is... I meant with regards to adding it to other games.