Why is Vigilance?

Buret0

I had a better way to phrase that question, but ask yourselves this:

Why is there Defender and Vigilance in this game as two separate buffs?

The only thing Vigilance does different is that it allows Defender and Reach cards to become first creature over the creature with Vigilance. Also, creatures that have vigilance are immune to that transforming creature that kills Defender and Reach cards.

Is that really a reason to have two different distinctly coded buffs? Especially since some cards specifically require Defender and Reach for activation?

Why is Vigilance?

HomeRn

I think a better question is this: why do cards with Defender and Reach cost more than cards with Vigilance?

Buret0

I mean, in Paper the Gathering, Vigilance allows a creature to attack without tapping, permitting them to block and creatures with defender can't attack (I think, it has been ages and when I think of Defender I think of the old Wall cards that couldn't attack, I could be wrong).

But in this game, every creature attacks every turn, unless they are disabled, summoning sick, or specifically have a cannot attack condition. On the other hand, any creature in Paper can block, they don't need a specific designation.

If they made attacking creatures Tap in this game, and if they made it so that you chose which creatures attack and which don't, it might make sense to have different designations, but they don't. It just seems as though cards with Vigilance might as well have Defender instead.

Buret0

HomeRn wrote:

I think a better question is this: why do cards with Defender and Reach cost more than cards with Vigilance?

Reach makes sense, because flying creatures can be blocked by non flying creatures with reach. It means you can give the creature the reach buff without giving them both flying and defender.

But as to why vigilance is cheaper than defender... no idea. I also think of cards like haunted cloak that give vigilance, but I can't really think of a spell that grants defender instead.

Rootbreaker

The only definite difference I've noticed is that if you have a creature with defender and a creature with vigilance, the creature with defender will be first.

shteev

HomeRn wrote:

I think a better question is this: why do cards with Defender and Reach cost more than cards with Vigilance?

This is a better question I think, given that Vigilance often dodges effects of cards which penalise Defender or Reach, like Elusive Tormentor.

viper4724

I'm pretty positive that the defender and vigilance ability was necessary to create the proper order or creatures on the battlefield that D3 was going for. I completely agree that Defenders should not be able to attack, it makes not sense to break from the standard game in this way. On the other hand, I do not think players should decide what taps and doesn't tap each turn. For a phone game, this game already borders on it's load-outs taking too long for a pick up and play, and choosing attackers would only take longer. This would also add confusion to new players that are trying MTG for the first time.

Ohboy

shteev wrote:

HomeRn wrote:

I think a better question is this: why do cards with Defender and Reach cost more than cards with Vigilance?

This is a better question I think, given that Vigilance often dodges effects of cards which penalise Defender or Reach, like Elusive Tormentor.

It's true. That was one of my first observations when I first started the game. It makes no sense. That's the real reason why defenders aren't being used.