Mana Screw, A history of blunders.
Kendall Redburn
First, a definition.
Mana screw, is the inability to cast spells because of insufficient mana
sources available in the crucial early stages of the game.
Let's go way back to the time when magic was being created.
Somewhere along the line, spells were given colors, and mana sources
were associated with different land types; the lands we are all familiar
with today. Somewhere along the line it was noticed that players could
get into a situation where players were having difficulty casting
spells. Further more, players found that mono colored decks were the
most efficient, as they never got color screwed.
To fix these problems, new cards were introduced that almost totally
eliminated getting mana screwed.
Sol Ring
Black Lotus
the Moxes
Dual Lands
Mana Vault
Now players could get mana quickly, play multi color decks and the
color/mana screw problem was solved without making 50% land decks.
All was well and the game was published!
Time Passed and the game grew in ways WOTC never anticipated. People
bought cards by the thousands. It just never occured to WOTC that
people would keep buying cards until they had all the rares! But that's
ancient history.
Somewhere along the line, it became obviouse something was broken. The
very cards that were fixing the game, were now breaking it in other
ways. Infinite combos had been found, and many first turn kills had
been devised. And so the Axe Fell. Out went the Lotus, and the Moxes.
The duals stayed, that should take care of it.
But it was obviouse to the people that played the game just how
important the lost cards were. WOTC may have thought the game was
improved by removing the lotus and moxes, but everyone who had ever had
one knew different.
So things didn't get much better. Finally, with 4th edition, the last of
the mana source cards that "Fixed" the game fell. Dual Lands, and the
Sol Ring. To placate us, we were given pain lands, the depletion lands,
the barbed sextant, and the jeweled amulet.
Then we got the "Tri" lands. Joy of Joys!
Except it wasn't enough. "Mana Screw" became the rallying cry of the
tournament scene. So once again the wizards set about the task of
fixing the longest standing problem in the game.
We now have the "Play / Draw rule."
We now have optional Mulligans.
We have fetch lands.
We have diamonds.
We have Undiscovered Paradise.
We have Gemstone Mines.
and finally, the lotus petal.
maybe things will work out.
Once of the saddest points is the continuing arrogance of the designers
of Wizards of the Coast. The flavor text on the lotus petal pokes fun at
the insanely high price of the Black Lotus. This is sad, because the
high price of the Black Lotus, the moxes and duals are driven by
people's need for them.
Why are they needed so badly?
Because the game is so FUCKING BROKEN without them.
Granted, the cure of the lotus and moxes turned out to be not much
better in the long run than the disease itself. So what do we have? We
have the disease back thank you very much.
I have great hopes that maybe the color/mana screw problem will finally
work out with the latest batch of multi colored lands. Only time will
tell, that and the price of Moxes.
Kendall
Justin Roman
Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote in article
<345618...@echip.com>...
> <snip>
> Once of the saddest points is the continuing arrogance of the designers
> of Wizards of the Coast. The flavor text on the lotus petal pokes fun at
> the insanely high price of the Black Lotus. This is sad, because the
> high price of the Black Lotus, the moxes and duals are driven by
> people's need for them.
>
It's amusing that WoTC will rag on its players for paying so much for Black
Lotuses, their argument seemingly being, "Geez, it's just a piece of
cardboard from a game," yet corporate HQ is happy as a pig in shit that
they just got a patent for "Trading card game method of game play." So I
guess WoTC wants companies like Decipher to shell out royalties for using
this "method of game play." Maybe someone should tell _WoTC_ "It's just a
game." Then again, maybe someone should just tell WoTC to fuck off. Why
spend more time playtesting and verifying game text and other _important_
stuff when there's cash to be made? Do all of WoTC's employees work in
storyline and legal? Does anyone spend time thinking of new things to do
with the "trading card method of game play" rather than just making money
off of it? Is WoTC not making enough money by sucking the 10 to 20 year
old male demographic dry? Maybe they should raise the price of starter
decks by another buck-- those new cards sure make it worthwhile.
But wait! They say that if other companies develop a licensing argeement
with them by Jan. 1, 1998, they won't have to pay any royalties ex post
facto (for sales prior to then)! That is so nice of them! I guess WoTC
was worried that SuperDeck! was going to overtake Magic in sales, but now
they'll be making money off of every crappy Magic clone out there, so they
will worry no more.
Oh, the joy of the trading card game method of game play! I do remember
when it was _just_ a game.
Frederick Scott
kred...@echip.com writes:
(Discussion of problems with mana-screw and color screw and the relationship
of some of the old power cards to these problems snipped.)
>We now have optional Mulligans.
>We have fetch lands.
>We have diamonds.
>We have Undiscovered Paradise.
>We have Gemstone Mines.
>and finally, the lotus petal.
>
>maybe things will work out.
>
Hate to tell you this, but I don't think the game is that broken without
the power mana-producing cards. First of all, moxen don't matter at all
to what you're complaining about. A moxen is just a basic land that doesn't
have to observe the one-per-turn rule, which matters not a whit to getting
mana screwed or not. Loti are overpowered but they're just one card.
Dual lands won't stop you from being mana screwed but they will stop you
from getting color screwed. So what? We have new dual lands that make
you pay the price for using them to avoid color screw. We have new Loti
which make you pay the price for using them as fast flexible mana - instead
of being the any-color Dark Ritual you don't have to pay the one black mana
casting cost for. We have new Moxen that make you pay the price for being
able to cast them on the same turn you play a land.
We have all these things available. So where's the problem? There is none.
Unless you just want there to be "power cards" that better than the other
cards.
Fred
Frederick Scott
kred...@echip.com writes:
(Discussion of problems with mana-screw and color screw and the relationship
of some of the old power cards to these problems snipped.)
>Once of the saddest points is the continuing arrogance of the designers
>of Wizards of the Coast. The flavor text on the lotus petal pokes fun at
>the insanely high price of the Black Lotus. This is sad, because the
>high price of the Black Lotus, the moxes and duals are driven by
>people's need for them.
>
>Why are they needed so badly?
>
>Because the game is so FUCKING BROKEN without them.
Hate to tell you this, but I don't think the game is that broken without
David Linder
Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote:
>To fix these problems, new cards were introduced that almost totally
>eliminated getting mana screwed.
>Sol Ring
>Black Lotus
>the Moxes
>Dual Lands
>Mana Vault
OK, please tell me one reason that Moxen prevents Mana-Screw better
than basic lands? Bacause you can play them faster? Uhh... there seems
to be an error in your reasoning here.
---
David Linder
Top 4 finisher at Copenhagen GP
Top 64 finisher at Chicago Pro Tour
<<< Visit the Deck Lab for the best decks >>>
<<< http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-44674/thelab >>>
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
David Linder wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy:
>Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote:
>>To fix these problems, new cards were introduced that almost totally
>>eliminated getting mana screwed.
The other day, my opponent mulliganed with no land. I had only one
land and a lame hand otherwise, so I decided to redraw also.
Neither one of us drew a single mana source.
On the 4th turn I drew a land. Two turns later my opponent got one.
You can't eliminate mana screw.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Kendall Redburn
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
<3457fd4e....@news.blarg.net>...
>David Linder wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy:
>
>>Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote:
>>>To fix these problems, new cards were introduced that almost totally
>>>eliminated getting mana screwed.
>
>The other day, my opponent mulliganed with no land. I had only one
>land and a lame hand otherwise, so I decided to redraw also.
>
>Neither one of us drew a single mana source.
>
>On the 4th turn I drew a land. Two turns later my opponent got one.
>
>You can't eliminate mana screw.
first of all, how many land/mana sources did you have in your decks, and how
big were your decks?
Of course you can't eliminate mana screw. Put 4 land in a sixty card deck
for instance.
But, the point was that WOTC created the Moxes and the Lotus expressly
because mana screw
was such a big problem. These cards helped aleviate it considerably. No
land? ok, but two moxes,
an a sol ring mean you are in business. Remember, these cards came out in
alpha, and you were allowed up to 4 in a deck. On top of that, the original
rules did not even have a 4 per deck limit. They still don't, that's a
tournament rule.
Furthermore, you are claiming you can't eliminate mana screw, with the
implied "As the rules are written." which again, is exactly my point. FIX
THE RULES!
Kendall
Raj Seshadri
Kendall Redburn wrote:
>
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
> <3457fd4e....@news.blarg.net>...
> >David Linder wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy:
> >
> >>Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote:
> >>>To fix these problems, new cards were introduced that almost totally
> >>>eliminated getting mana screwed.
> >
> >The other day, my opponent mulliganed with no land. I had only one
> >land and a lame hand otherwise, so I decided to redraw also.
> >
> >Neither one of us drew a single mana source.
> >
> >On the 4th turn I drew a land. Two turns later my opponent got one.
> >
> >You can't eliminate mana screw.
>
> first of all, how many land/mana sources did you have in your decks, and how
> big were your decks?
Assume average. I think that's 20-24 Land out of 60-65 cards.
> Of course you can't eliminate mana screw. Put 4 land in a sixty card deck
> for instance.
> But, the point was that WOTC created the Moxes and the Lotus expressly
> because mana screw
> was such a big problem. These cards helped aleviate it considerably. No
> land? ok, but two moxes,
> an a sol ring mean you are in business. Remember, these cards came out in
> alpha, and you were allowed up to 4 in a deck. On top of that, the original
> rules did not even have a 4 per deck limit. They still don't, that's a
> tournament rule.
I know people who play house rules, but the fact of the matter is, that
what makes magic fun is the "tournament" practice you get with fun
decks. One of the most exciting this to happen to a deck, IMHO, is for
it to graduate from "fun" to tourney-quality. It's happened.
> Furthermore, you are claiming you can't eliminate mana screw, with the
> implied "As the rules are written." which again, is exactly my point. FIX
> THE RULES!
Magic, like any other card game, is based on randomness, which makes it
fun. This randomness (not the RULES) is what causes occasional
mana-screw. It's a double-edged sword, dude. You can't have one without
the other. If you remove the randomness, magic will become as stale as
chess.
...I prefer a game that is cominatorially impossible for a computer to
play well :)
If you don't believe me, imagine this rule change: all players start the
game with one land of their choice in play. What would it do? I'm not
sure, but I'm sure of this: some cards that currently are balanced, will
become "broken", requiring restriction or banning. The mana curve will
start off deeper, making certain current strategies invalid. In the end,
the game will still be fun, and mana screw will still exist.
--
<HTML>
<h2> --Raj-- </h2>
<i> "Never take life seriously. noone gets out alive, anyway..."
</i></HTML>
John M Shuler
Kendall Redburn (kred...@echip.com) wrote:
: When I play a game, and it's my turn, I want to be able to take my turn.
You can take your turn, you just might have to not lay a land.
: Why is this so hard in Magic?
Because you are a bad player, obviously.
: Is this too much to ask?
Yes.
: WOTC has been telling us it's our decks fault.
Bad players build bad decks.
: WOTC has been telling us it's all part of the game.
WOTC is right.
: WOTC has been telling us it's a game of skill too.
WOTC is wrong.
: How is Mana Screw Skill?
It isn't.
--
John M. Shuler jsh...@gmu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a painful fact of Magic that skill is not everything. A well
constructed Dandan deck will usually lose to an average T.1 deck.
- Nicolas Sabin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaker
I wholeheartedly agree with "Wylie's" opinion. I've been following
Kendall's posts for some time now. I even corresponded with him at one
point. The only thing that he seems to contribute to this news group
is contempt, scorn, anger, and frustration at a game that, while not
perfect, is fundementally sound from even a mathematical standpoint.
I don't even know where to begin in my semi-rant. Let's start with the
fact that there are at least 200 ways in this game (I really haven't
counted, I'm sure there's plenty more) to get mana. Whether it's a
basic land, a black lotus or an elvish spirit guide, there's no
shortage of cards to stop one from getting short changed on land. If
one really wanted to, one could out 54 basic lands into a 60 card deck
and gaurentee that mana screw was completely impossible. So...now that
we've determined that it's possible to never get mana screwed, let's
look at this from a somewhat sane perspective.
When one has 26 mana sources in a deck, the chances of drawing three
sources by turn three is around 90%. When brought up to 30 mana
sources, the % of times you will achieve "three by three" rises to
96%. In a game such as this one, 96% is a phenominal percentage. When
you compare that to the chances of a good hand in any other card game,
it is simply unmatched. I only state that because Kendall has stated
in the past that things like a "mana screw" would never be acceptable
in other games, such as gin, spades, etc.
The problem with playing even 30 mana sources, or more, is that more
often than not, you're going to run into clumps of mana. Kendall says
this is unavoidable and yet another flaw with the game. I beg to
differ. With cards like visions, necropotence, orcish librarian,
impulse, sylvan library, or even a howling mine, one can ignore, or
speed through any mana glut in the deck, regardless of color.
So then let's really examine Kendall's post. "the point was that WOTC
created the Moxes and the Lotus expressly because mana screw was such
a big problem. These cards helped aleviate it considerably."
Moxes are cool. moxes help speed the deck up. MOXES DO NOT STOP MANA
SCREW!!! I'm sorry, I had to scream this because Kendall needs to pay
attention to what I'm about to say. If you have 24 lands in your deck,
you will get exactly the same mana screw ratio as if you had 20 lands
and 4 moxes. If you have two lands in your opening hand or two moxes
it makes no difference. The fact is you can play both moxes on your
first turn rather than one on the first and one on the second.
Overall, you will have the same amount of mana in any given game no
matter which way you chose to construct your deck. If you say "but
I'll put 24 lands in AND 4 moxes." well, that's the same as having 28
lands. As far as speed goes, moxes are better. Comparing mana ratios,
moxes are basicly no different than any basic land of that color.
"Remember, these cards came out in alpha, and you were allowed up to 4
in a deck. On top of that, the original rules did not even have a 4
per deck limit. They still don't, that's a tournament rule."
Thanks kendall, you're quite on top of things here. They restricted
moxes because of speed. It's as simple as that. It had nothing to do
with trying to screw a player out of mana. If you want to play with 4
of each mox in a deck, then I'm not going to stop you. Let's look at a
little timeline though...
Magic came out in August of 1993. Moxes were restricted in January of
1994. It is currently October 31, 1997. If you can't deal with a
ruling that happened almost 4 years ago (and most likely before you
even learned how to play), what the hell are you doing still in this
game?
I'm sorry this is so long. For those who have read it all, I commend
them. Let's hope that Mr. Redburn has read this as well. I'd like to
hear his response to this post. One can only hope that he has put some
time and effort into his reply like I have with mine. Thank you
Wylieblows, for bringing up this subject.
Dan
Fabrizio Castrotorres
"Kendall Redburn" <kred...@echip.com> writes:
Try putting 24 lands out of 60 cards
To seriously avoid mana screw or minimize it
play 40% land assuming you have a healthy range of casting costs in
your spells.
Hey think about it this way if you have a lot of land at least you
might be able to do something with it, if you dont have land you can't do
jack. Most pro's (not saying i'm a pro by far) play 40%
add 4 quicksands to your standard lands since they double as creature
elimination.
Control decks should at least play 40% with 4 mana giving artifacts
Weenie decks should be about 20 - 22 land assuming higuest casting cost
cards are 2 or 3 3cc cards.
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
><3457fd4e....@news.blarg.net>...
>>David Linder wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy:
>>
>>>Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote:
>>>>To fix these problems, new cards were introduced that almost totally
>>>>eliminated getting mana screwed.
>>
>>The other day, my opponent mulliganed with no land. I had only one
>>land and a lame hand otherwise, so I decided to redraw also.
>>
>>Neither one of us drew a single mana source.
>>
>>On the 4th turn I drew a land. Two turns later my opponent got one.
>>
>>You can't eliminate mana screw.
>first of all, how many land/mana sources did you have in your decks, and how
>big were your decks?
>Of course you can't eliminate mana screw. Put 4 land in a sixty card deck
>for instance.
>But, the point was that WOTC created the Moxes and the Lotus expressly
>because mana screw
>was such a big problem. These cards helped aleviate it considerably. No
>land? ok, but two moxes,
>an a sol ring mean you are in business. Remember, these cards came out in
>alpha, and you were allowed up to 4 in a deck. On top of that, the original
>rules did not even have a 4 per deck limit. They still don't, that's a
>tournament rule.
>Furthermore, you are claiming you can't eliminate mana screw, with the
>implied "As the rules are written." which again, is exactly my point. FIX
>THE RULES!
>Kendall
Kendall Redburn
Fabrizio Castrotorres wrote in message <63lerp$g...@ece.rutgers.edu>...
>"Kendall Redburn" <kred...@echip.com> writes:
>Try putting 24 lands out of 60 cards
>To seriously avoid mana screw or minimize it
>play 40% land assuming you have a healthy range of casting costs in
>your spells.
>
>Hey think about it this way if you have a lot of land at least you
>might be able to do something with it, if you dont have land you can't do
>jack. Most pro's (not saying i'm a pro by far) play 40%
>add 4 quicksands to your standard lands since they double as creature
>elimination.
>Control decks should at least play 40% with 4 mana giving artifacts
>Weenie decks should be about 20 - 22 land assuming higuest casting cost
>cards are 2 or 3 3cc cards.
>
>
Oy, this has never been about how many lands are in your deck. If the
problem was that easy to solve it would have gone away long ago.
in a 60 card deck.
40% land is 24 land
50% land is 30 land
I like between 22 to 24 land, depending on the flash point of the deck.
Land integration is a major factor in deck design. This is true.
I would like people to seriously ask themselves, Should it be?
Would the game be less enjoyable, less dynamic, if land were kept
in a seperate pile? If people could pay 1 life to fetch a basic land
during upkeep (as a rule? as a card?)
Can't we at least explore some posibilities?
Kendall
Dan Brannigan
>
> It must be really great playing decks that never get mana screwed. Do they
> ever win?
> Tell you what, post the decks and we can all be enlightened.
>
> Kendall
Valid point. Most players cut it very, very tight on land for the very
same reason we all play 60 card decks. Because in order to stay
competitive, we cannot afford to draw a managlut. We'll lose if we do that,
crushed by the efficiency put out by the other players.
DustyRealm
i found an interesting thought in this thread that i was pondering last night
while trying to go to sleep. Dark ritual costs one mana and one card, you get
three mana and its common. Black Lotus costs no mana and one card, you get
three mana and its rare. This cost/effect common/rare ratio is like that of
holy armor/ blessing and others. this is why it think that the Black Lotus is
broken only if Dark Ritual is broken (which it's not).
(of course that's just me and I've only been playing since Mirage cameout)
Dan Osman
I'm not sure if I would consider black lotus broken, but it is so much
more powerful than dark ritual. Other than the fact that it can get
three mana of any color (five times better than dark ritual), you can
use it for 0, rather than paying one mana to activate it. That way you
can get three mana AND use the swamp for a total of four mana.
Dan
Jim Hamp
On 12 Nov 1997, DustyRealm wrote:
> i found an interesting thought in this thread that i was pondering last night
> while trying to go to sleep. Dark ritual costs one mana and one card, you get
> three mana and its common. Black Lotus costs no mana and one card, you get
> three mana and its rare. This cost/effect common/rare ratio is like that of
> holy armor/ blessing and others. this is why it think that the Black Lotus is
> broken only if Dark Ritual is broken (which it's not).
>
Of course, the *big* difference is that DR can only get you black mana,
while the Lotus can get you any color. So you can play BL in, say, a fast
red burn deck and have three red mana on turn one, cast a turn 1
Ball Lightning...take 6!
Hampster