Sort-of-mana-system for YGO... kind of format.

[Shinobi Phoenix]

As a follow up to the above post how about this.

 

Monsters give mana based on there lv. Level 4 & lower yield 1 mana, Level 5-6 yield 2 mana, and 7 & up yield 3 mana.

 

Now to compensate for this tapping a mana source gives you all of the mana provides so you cant say I tap a lv. 7 and I only gain 1 mana. Also, if you dont use all the mana that you tapped you take 300 damage per unspent mana. In edition next turn you cannot use the mana source that provided that mana.

Even Magic TG got rid of Mana burn... it had a long run, but even they decided it was more trouble than it was worth.  Not to mention, why go with having Mana not-untap?  Again, compared to mana, there has to be a specific reason or effect for it.

 

Big mana might seem like an advantage, but UNLIKE Magic, where it's just a land (or a source you paid for anyway), this was a BIG monster you were GOING  to use except you used it as Mana and now it is lost to you.  This system doesn't have a way of getting those monsters back, so it's just a big (or boss) monster you just permanently lost and you think it should get MORE restriction on top of that?

 

I like the idea that giving up bigger more powerful monsters should yield more return, but that was already the risk, you shouldn't punish someone more for it.

 

 

 

So you're proposing that Level 5 or higher monsters that you tap for mana don't untap during your next turn? Only every other turn?  I think that would need testing, but I think it's unnecessary and Magic already proves why.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Even Magic TG got rid of Mana burn... it had a long run, but even they decided it was more trouble than it was worth.  Not to mention, why go with having Mana not-untap?  Again, compared to mana, there has to be a specific reason or effect for it.

 

Big mana might seem like an advantage, but UNLIKE Magic, where it's just a land (or a source you paid for anyway), this was a BIG monster you were GOING  to use except you used it as Mana and now it is lost to you.  This system doesn't have a way of getting those monsters back, so it's just a big (or boss) monster you just permanently lost and you think it should get MORE restriction on top of that?

 

I like the idea that giving up bigger more powerful monsters should yield more return, but that was already the risk, you shouldn't punish someone more for it.

 

 

 

So you're proposing that Level 5 or higher monsters that you tap for mana don't untap during your next turn? Only every other turn?  I think that would need testing, but I think it's unnecessary and Magic already proves why.

 

I don't care if mtg has removed it as that isn't relevant since this isn't mtg.

 

You do have a way of getting mana sources back.

 

No I'm proposing putting a restriction on any mana source that is tried to taken advantage of. 

[Shinobi Phoenix]

I don't care if mtg has removed it as that isn't relevant since this isn't mtg.

 

You do have a way of getting mana sources back.

 

No I'm proposing putting a restriction on any mana source that is tried to taken advantage of. 

 It matters because that is a testbed for mechanics and their problems, especially if we are borrowing from it.  If anything, this is whole thing is borrowing from Duel Masters and that doesn't have Mana burn.

 

I've noticed most people on this forum don't like the idea that the game has anything to learn from other games.  Then they get older and realize how the world really works when it comes to things relating to each other.

 

Unless we're doing something ABSOLUTELY BRAND NEW (which is damn near impossible on any level), we should look at what one game did and decide if we want to change it or adapt it and in either case, take the consequences along with it.

 

 

I think having sources only untap every other turn is WAY too slow on paper, it needs testing.  It means that unless you keep giving up cards to make mana, you're dead each other turn.  You only draw 1 card per turn at base.  Of course, if that is the intention and you are TRYING to slow the game down that much, that's a different story, but it definitely wouldn't be even half as fast as this format is going (which is YGO much slower already). So every other turn, you can make one big place, but you have to micromanage constantly one what will tap and what won't untap and none of that is fun, I promise.

 

Not to spoil, but one of the changes I'm making to my game is that you draw to a base amount of cards in your hand each turn, rather than just one per turn as it decreases the importance (and thus the power) of draw engines.  Especially because to even play a lot of cards in one turn, you had to pay a lot for it in the first place.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

 It matters because that is a testbed for mechanics and their problems, especially if we are borrowing from it.  If anything, this is whole thing is borrowing from Duel Masters and that doesn't have Mana burn.

 

I've noticed most people on this forum don't like the idea that the game has anything to learn from other games.  Then they get older and realize how the world really works when it comes to things relating to each other.

 

Unless we're doing something ABSOLUTELY BRAND NEW (which is damn near impossible on any level), we should look at what one game did and decide if we want to change it or adapt it and in either case, take the consequences along with it.

 

 

I think having sources only untap every other turn is WAY too slow on paper, it needs testing.  It means that unless you keep giving up cards to make mana, you're dead each other turn.  You only draw 1 card per turn at base.  Not to spoil, but one of the changes I'm making to my game is that you draw to a base amount of cards in your hand each turn, rather than just one per turn as it decreases the importance (and thus the power) of draw engines.  Especially because to even play a lot of cards in one turn, you had to pay a lot for it in the first place.

 

Yes, perhaps what worked/didn't work for one game could pose opposite in another. To say x shouldn't be added because it didn't end up working in something else without even testing is down right moronic.

 

You may have your own game that your working on and thats fine but trying to use that as a means to sound dominate doesn't help your case either.

 

Once again, your mana source is only stunned if you don't use the mana that it produced that turn. So, you have to be aware ahead of time if you want to run that risk or not.

[Sunn O)))]

I have a question about cards with multiple attributes. Do cards like Dark Simorgh or Light and Darkness Dragon count as both Dark and Wind/Light mana?

 

Completely missed it when I read this the first time.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

I have a question about cards with multiple attributes. Do cards like Dark Simorgh or Light and Darkness Dragon count as both Dark and Wind/Light mana?

Yes, I believe they do. At least that's how me and chance have used them anyways.

[Sleepy]

I'm not commenting on the concept of Mana burn as I do not understand it to details, but I'm guessing that's just a liberty you people can take if you wanna use it or not xD

As for the other things. Bigger Levels of monsters are not supposed to be tapped for a bigger amount of mana. They were not any harder to place in the Mana Zone. The Mana Zone treats anything in the deck equally. Especially because decks like Incarnate Dragons, which are basically all Level 7s, would be tapping for cheap mana every turn, and they are not any harder to play with than most other decks. In fact, I think they are cheaper than their Level suggests because they are Summoned via effects. Of course, it's not a law set in stone, and I don't wanna have the last word in this format because I like hearing what people have to say, but for the meantime, that's my personal stance.

 

 

 

Regarding refillable hand, well that's an alright idea, but it'd make the game too different to the game I was thinking about.

Yes, draw engines become less relevant, and you don't have to worry about resourses being lost, but that also means that card removal is not very strong either. It also explains why you were thinking about costs for just setting cards. It's a legit idea, it just completely changes the enviroment of the game.

I like having cheap S/T setting because they can't shield you like Monster Cards do, plus, FLIP effects are pretty much automatic once attacked, so they have a small edge that they lack IRL. That's just me.

[Sunn O)))]

What do you use to test decks?

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

What do you use to test decks?

Duelingnetwork

[sbdnate]

This idea seems really interesting, but I see there being major issues with the gain life, gain mana thing. Though I suppose that will come down to a card-to-card basis that only a ban list can solve.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

This idea seems really interesting, but I see there being major issues with the gain life, gain mana thing. Though I suppose that will come down to a card-to-card basis that only a ban list can solve.

Actually it's a gain life or gain mana. You don't get both.

[sbdnate]

Ah, the gaining LP part wasn't so much the problem as the grabbing extra mana. Regardless, it is still something that a ban list would solve should certain things get out of hand with it. At the same time, with decks being bigger, I suppose that could  mess with said cards consistency.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

The biggest problem with life mana is that you have almost no control of what cards are going to become it since the top card of your deck is being used for it.

[sbdnate]

That hardly seems like too much of an issue considering the fact that you will still have way more options and actions than your opponent each turn.

I get that that is the idea of the deck, but you have other copies to draw and the current summoning/activating system you have, where all cards of said level/type cost the same amount to play, is somewhat of an issue with said deck style. It has all, or can have all, of the options other decks have, just way more resources to use them.

[sbdnate]

BTW, have you looked at Golden Ladybug as a splashable mana engine?

 

 

Okay, a couple of things might need to be updated in the OP.

 

 

 

Can you play natural mana if you gained life mana? If not, why? Is it partially in regards to Marie? I ask this because she is the only reason I have found that this rule needs to be in effect. Almost every other card that does close to the same thing has a major drawback, or cost a mana to use its effect. Due to this, I am going to vote for Marie to become the first banned card in this format. If a whole rule needs to be made to un-break 1 card, there is probably a problem with the card.

 

 

Also, I'm not too sure about it costing mana to attack. I say this because it flushes any advantage of going second down the drain and seems mostly pointless. Outside of just being another reason to slow the game down even more, which I find silly considering everything else so far, I see it as another attempt to un-break specific cards.

In regards to Burning Land and its OPness (lol, funny image), I have to ask if Nipple Man Mushroom Man is a more broken/balanced alternative.

I like the idea of the this format, but I feel it is about time a ban list is made specifically for it. Many of the cards on the list have lost a lot of playability due to the mana system, and other cards have and will become stupid broken because of it.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

BTW, have you looked at Golden Ladybug as a splashable mana engine?

 

 

Okay, a couple of things might need to be updated in the OP.

 

 

 

Can you play natural mana if you gained life mana? If not, why? Is it partially in regards to Marie? I ask this because she is the only reason I have found that this rule needs to be in effect. Almost every other card that does close to the same thing has a major drawback, or cost a mana to use its effect. Due to this, I am going to vote for Marie to become the first banned card in this format. If a whole rule needs to be made to un-break 1 card, there is probably a problem with the card.

 

 

Also, I'm not too sure about it costing mana to attack. I say this because it flushes any advantage of going second down the drain and seems mostly pointless. Outside of just being another reason to slow the game down even more, which I find silly considering everything else so far, I see it as another attempt to un-break specific cards.

In regards to Burning Land and its OPness (lol, funny image), I have to ask if Nipple Man Mushroom Man is a more broken/balanced alternative.

I like the idea of the this format, but I feel it is about time a ban list is made specifically for it. Many of the cards on the list have lost a lot of playability due to the mana system, and other cards have and will become stupid broken because of it.

 

No you cant add natural mana if you gained life mana.

 

Burning land is no longer oped with mana burn no longer a thing.

 

Attacking costing mana personally just seems natural.

 

I don't really see Golden Ladybug being a good life mana engine because you have to pay a mana to activate it's effect.

[вєgσттєη ιηѕαηιту]

So let me get this straight: I want to activate the effect of Gishki Abyss for example. I would have to tap 1 Blue mana to summon and another Blue Mana to activate it's effect?

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

So let me get this straight: I want to activate the effect of Gishki Abyss for example. I would have to tap 1 Blue mana to summon and another Blue Mana to activate it's effect?

You would tap a blue mana to summon it and a mana of any color to activate it's eff.

[sbdnate]

No you cant add natural mana if you gained life mana.

 

 

 

Okay, that needs to be added to the OP. But before that, I would like my other questions pertaining to this and Marie answered.

 

Burning land is no longer oped with mana burn no longer a thing.

 

I didn't realize it was removed. If so, that needs to be changed in the OP as well. How about mana stun? Or is there nothing that can do that? I ask because that means there is no real way to slow down Marie Life mana decks. also, Outside of burning lad and other continuous burn cards, is there any reason to remove it? Otherwise, you are going to be paying at least one mana to tap theirs... A mana for a mana (best case scenario) doesn't seem too bad to me... And you can apply same clause as the life gain. Though the burn at that point seems like it could be necessary to make it a viable play style considering the cost to activate cards that tap only one mana per burn.

 

 

Attacking costing mana personally just seems natural.

 

It just seems like a reason to make less plays in a turn... And/or a way to balance things like BLS (which is silly)... And my point of it taking away any advantage of going second still stands.

 

I don't really see Golden Ladybug being a good life mana engine because you have to pay a mana to activate it's effect.

 

Until you get two of them. And that is only an issue if you keep the life mana clause, which I question in the first place... Again, I think that needs to be looked into further. 

 

 

With the Life Mana clause in effect, the only Life mana card worth playing is Marie, which severely limits the number of decks that can actually play with that style. Now lets assume that the clause is not in effect. Golden Ladybug just got a big boost, as well as any other life gain card. I find it funny that the original idea of Life Mana was to make LP gaining cards playable, but all it did was make Marie broken and all, or damn near all (Nimble Momonga), other life gain cards even more worthless since you are generally going to have to give up a lot of resources to even use them. 

 

Conclusion: The LMC (Life Mana Clause) is completely and totally counter productive.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Okay, that needs to be added to the OP. But before that, I would like my other questions pertaining to this and Marie answered.

 

 

I didn't realize it was removed. If so, that needs to be changed in the OP as well. How about mana stun? Or is there nothing that can do that? I ask because that means there is no real way to slow down Marie Life mana decks. also, Outside of burning lad and other continuous burn cards, is there any reason to remove it? Otherwise, you are going to be paying at least one mana to tap theirs... A mana for a mana (best case scenario) doesn't seem too bad to me... And you can apply same clause as the life gain. Though the burn at that point seems like it could be necessary to make it a viable play style considering the cost to activate cards that tap only one mana per burn.

 

 

 

It just seems like a reason to make less plays in a turn... And/or a way to balance things like BLS (which is silly)... And my point of it taking away any advantage of going second still stands.

 

 

Until you get two of them. And that is only an issue if you keep the life mana clause, which I question in the first place... Again, I think that needs to be looked into further. 

 

 

With the Life Mana clause in effect, the only Life mana card worth playing is Marie, which severely limits the number of decks that can actually play with that style. Now lets assume that the clause is not in effect. Golden Ladybug just got a big boost, as well as any other life gain card. I find it funny that the original idea of Life Mana was to make LP gaining cards playable, but all it did was make Marie broken and all, or damn near all (Nimble Momonga), other life gain cards even more worthless since you are generally going to have to give up a lot of resources to even use them. 

 

Conclusion: The LMC (Life Mana Clause) is completely and totally counter productive.

 

Mana stun, which is in the op there is in effect. Before, it was if you inflicted effect damage to your opp. they would have to return a mana to the deck. That's why burning land was so over powered in the first place.

 

One thing your not understanding is life mana "is" good but your losing things that you could really need later. Not having any active control on whats being sent is a big thing. Decks likes Chance's Firefist Glads can hold there own against the maria engine. 

 

As for the clause you speak of. Maria isn't the only good Life mana engine out the. Skull Mark Ladybug is a card. Solem Wishes is one too.

 

Also, after a point in the game you want to stop gaining mana in general. The most one really needs is about 8-10 max. Any more and it's just really redundant.

 

If you feel you want to actually test instead of speculating then you can find me on DN under the name SightlessReality.

[sbdnate]

Mana stun, which is in the op there is in effect. Before, it was if you inflicted effect damage to your opp. they would have to return a mana to the deck. That's why burning land was so over powered in the first place.

 

Okay, missed that, my bad.

One thing your not understanding is life mana "is" good but your losing things that you could really need later. Not having any active control on whats being sent is a big thing. Decks likes Chance's Firefist Glads can hold there own against the maria engine. 

 

As for the clause you speak of. Maria isn't the only good Life mana engine out the. Skull Mark Ladybug is a card. Solem Wishes is one too.

 

The only thing Ladybug and Momonga have going for them is that they can activate on your opponents turn, bypassing the LMC... Problem? Wishes is completely pointless till you have two of them on the field, or it and Marie in play at the same time, due to the LMC. Again, the LMC needs to be looked at. If all it is doing is making 1-2 life gain cards playable, and all others garbage, it has become completely and totally counter productive, regardless of whether the deck is good or bad. 

 

This is the way I see it:

 

With LMC: Dark+Marie+Wishes engine is the only viable Life Mana Engine.

 

No LMC and banned Marie: A lot more options for LM Decks in terms of color, and it doesn't require you to have to stack effects to make it worthwhile.

Also, after a point in the game you want to stop gaining mana in general. The most one really needs is about 8-10 max. Any more and it's just really redundant.

 

Regardless of that, how fast are they getting those 8-10 mana if it is taking them 3 turns to get one extra mana and do nothing else, what is the deck actually doing? Without the LMC and if Marie is banned, that lets the deck do what it is supposed to do from the get go, while not being retarded crazy with Marie shenanigans.

If you feel you want to actually test instead of speculating then you can find me on DN under the name SightlessReality.

 

I may take you up on that offer, like I said, this looks really interesting. Sadly, it will have to wait till later tonight. If we do, I would definitely like to put the LMC to the test, as well as paying to attack, which has yet to be discussed outside of "It feels natural"... Just because I think rolling around in a pile of dead babies feels natural, doesn't make it okay.

 

I would like to note that I would love for Marie to stay if the LMC were to go away, but due to its nature and attribute, that just isn't possible if we want to keep LMDeck in check. Aslo I would hardly call it life Life Mana, considering it is more of Marie Manna, since its the only thing consistent enough to give you life under the LMC.

Oh, there is also a really simple solution to sending stuff you don't want to the Mana Zone(?), but I'll keep that to myself for now, lol.

[Sleepy]

Without finishing reading page 8

 

 

The bit about Life mana = no regular mana, is a pharase that for some reason, is the first time I'm fully diggesting it xD

Would that mean that Marie is actually the only Life Mana worth using if that's the case? 

My original intention was to give an edge to Life-gaining effects that they didn't have.

but you are the ones playing it, you know what you are doing it. You want it like that?

 

D.A.:

Sbdnate probably is accusing the current mana burn stun, because I remember updating the OP a while ago about that.

[sbdnate]

Without finishing reading page 8

 

 

The bit about Life mana = no regular mana, is a pharase that for some reason, is the first time I'm fully diggesting it xD

Would that mean that Marie is actually the only Life Mana worth using if that's the case?

 

Yes, as I have stated many times in this thread.

 

My original intention was to give an edge to Life-gaining effects that they didn't have

Sadly, it did just the opposite.

but you are the ones playing it, you know what you are doing it. You want it like that?

I haven't tested any of this yet, but I think that the problem is very clear with the LMC. As for paying to attack, that means the second player has no way of getting any kind of edge on player one, therefor, player one has an instant advantage throughout the game.

 

Ex:

 

Turn one P1: Play mana-> tap to summon-> end

 

Turn two P2: play mana-> tap to summon-> end

 

Turn three P1: Play mana->summon second creature-> attack over P2 creature-> end

 

With this, P1 gets to draw first, play first and attack first. What did P2 get from going second?

 

This is something that is taken care of in ygo and MtG. In ygo, at the cost of going second, you get to attack first to help even out the advantage. In MtG neither player can attack first turn (Not including haste of course),but P1 can't draw a card. In both games there is some kind of way to balance the advantage gained from going first, having to tap to attack completely destroys any advantage P2 could have over P1, or to even even out the advantage.

D.A.:

Sbdnate probably is accusing the current mana burn stun, because I remember updating the OP a while ago about that.

No, that was just me derping a bit. All is well there so far, though I do see there being an issue with only tapping the mana. You are generally going to be tapping 2-3 mana just to tap one of theirs for a turn, who got the sh!t end of the stick here?. On that note, outside of Burning Land, Solarflare Dragon, and that one spell that also gives you 500 LP, there are very few card that are worthwhile to play. I mean, Why would I pay 3 resources just to keep you from using 1 land, and only for a turn at that? By that point in the game, that isn't even putting a dent into their mana pool, while yours has been decimated. Again, I think the problem that you all were having with Mana Burn was that Burning Land was Op'd under the rules at the time, but wasn't that more of a problem with the card than the rule itself? To me it seems really silly that you changed an entire rule after one or two test, in which both players said that Burning Land was OP and the problem card. Wouldn't it have been better to test without Burning Land first, considering that is where the problem originated?

I would also recommend reading through all of my post simply because there are a few things I have brought up that you, as the format creator, should look at.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Sadly, it did just the opposite.1

 

I haven't tested any of this yet, but I think that the problem is very clear with the LMC. As for paying to attack, that means the second player has no way of getting any kind of edge on player one, therefor, player one has an instant advantage throughout the game. 2

 

Ex:

 

Turn one P1: Play mana-> tap to summon-> end

 

Turn two P2: play mana-> tap to summon-> end

 

Turn three P1: Play mana->summon second creature-> attack over P2 creature-> end

 

With this, P1 gets to draw first, play first and attack first. What did P2 get from going second? 3

 

This is something that is taken care of in ygo and MtG. In ygo, at the cost of going second, you get to attack first to help even out the advantage. In MtG neither player can attack first turn (Not including haste of course),but P1 can't draw a card. In both games there is some kind of way to balance the advantage gained from going first, having to tap to attack completely destroys any advantage P2 could have over P1, or to even even out the advantage

No, that was just me derping a bit. All is well there so far, though I do see there being an issue with only tapping the mana. You are generally going to be tapping 2-3 mana just to tap one of theirs for a turn, who got the sh!t end of the stick here?. On that note, outside of Burning Land, Solarflare Dragon, and that one spell that also gives you 500 LP, there are very few card that are worthwhile to play. I mean, Why would I pay 3 resources just to keep you from using 1 land, and only for a turn at that? By that point in the game, that isn't even putting a dent into their mana pool, while yours has been decimated. Again, I think the problem that you all were having with Mana Burn was that Burning Land was Op'd under the rules at the time, but wasn't that more of a problem with the card than the rule itself? To me it seems really silly that you changed an entire rule after one or two test, in which both players said that Burning Land was OP and the problem card. Wouldn't it have been better to test without Burning Land first, considering that is where the problem originated? 4

I would also recommend reading through all of my post simply because there are a few things I have brought up that you, as the format creator, should look at.

 

1. That's a matter of opinion until you actually test yourself.

2. Same as 1

3. Fair point and the most obvious solution is that player2 gets to play an additional mana on their 1st turn.

4. Burning Land wasn't the only problem card introduced with mana burn. Goblin thief is a very powerful 3 mana card with mana burn in effect. Basically you pay 3 mana to gain  a mana and get rid of one of your opp.s Then there is Des Koala, Giant Germ, Stealth bird.  I know this from experience as I was the person to find and use these cards first in testing. It was only after my first initial use did chance start using them. 

 

All said and done testing is how you find the answer not pondering how something will affect it.

[sbdnate]

1. That's a matter of opinion until you actually test yourself.

No, it is strictly a matter of numbers.

 

2. Same as 1

You can't disagree with 2, then turn around and agree with 3. They are covering the same thing. and neither is a matter of opinion, just numbers.

3. Fair point and the most obvious solution is that player2 gets to play an additional mana on their 1st turn.

That would work, except now the roles have reversed and P2  now has the mana and monster advantage, and P1 gets nothing, making going first not only pointless, but actually hinders you throughout the game. The point of going first is to have the mana advantage, you take that away and there is nothing.

4. Burning Land wasn't the only problem card introduced with mana burn. Goblin thief is a very powerful 3 mana card with mana burn in effect. Basically you pay 3 mana to gain  a mana and get rid of one of your opp.s Then there is Des Koala, Giant Germ, Stealth bird.  I know this from experience as I was the person to find and use these cards first in testing. It was only after my first initial use did chance start using them. 

Stealth bird is something I thought about, but the problem is, you are hurting yourself as much as you are hurting your opponent. This is still a one for one trade since you have to pay mana to flip it down, and the opponent can always just attack Stealth Bird to ruin the entire thing. And if I remember correctly, the only reason the others were any good was due to Burning Lands backup.

 

All said and done testing is how you find the answer not pondering how something will affect it.

Testing is important, but there are some things that can be purely based on numbers, advantage is one of those things. Like I said, I am all for testing, but it will have to wait till later. I will admit though, that I am not the greatest of deck builders, I'm not bad, but I am not anything special. I would actually like to have your help, if you don't mind, considering you know the format better.