Subject: Re: Proposed 6E rule changes
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:19:36 -0600
From: Jim Dougan <jdougan@TITAN.IWU.EDU>
To: MTG-STRATEGY-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Wade Wilson wrote:

> Why does it have to be MTG complicated?  I would like to see it
> simplified.  MTG is a game and is supposed to be fun not confusing.
>
> deadp00l
>

My blood pressure goes up a bit here, so I will try to be diplomatic.

It depends on what you mean by complicated.  Complicated and confusing
do not mean the same thing to me.

I want MTG to have complex strategy.  I want the cards to interact in
interesting, complex, and not always predictable ways.  The complexity of
the game is what attracts me to it - and I think it is what attracts MANY
players.

If "simplifying" the game means making the rules more clear without
sacrificing complexity - fine - the rules should be clear and not
confusing.

However, if "simplifying" the game means sacrificing strategic complexity,
then I absolutely cannot support such changes.  Unfortunately, the rumored
changes (and they are still rumors) *do* sacrifice strategic complexity.

I do not mean this to sound nasty, but if you are really looking for a
simpler game, then perhaps MTG is not the game for you.  Play Portal.
Play Xena.  But don't try to change MTG from what it is - many (actually,
I think most, but I don't want to speak for others) ENJOY the complexity.
For us, that is what makes the game fun!

-- Jim