NickBKK said: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Go fix bugs and More important issues we have been asking, like node recharging and event ending times that makes playing this game less tedious.
Opperstamper said: I think it's very situational. For example I like Razia and how she works. When I put her in a deck her abilities work how I like them, a solid defensive creature which may be sacrificed if necessary. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy how Questing Beast is handled. He's in a deck where he survives, until he grows big enough to block and nothing gets past him. So my actual vote would be to have both, as different mechanics (would need to change the name of the mechanic tho). Then we can choose which we want in which deck.A change would cause a meta shift (as pointed out a lot already). In itself that's not always bad. And I'm sure most players will find a way to make different but still very viable decks. We will be forced to rethink - as usual many will like it and many won't.
NickBKK said: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Go fix bugs and More important issues we have been asking, like node recharging and event ending times that makes playing this game less tedious. Yup you took the words right out of my mouth. Why do they insist on trying to make something work differently without asking us first if it's what we want ?????
Tilwin90 said: I wouldn't say that option 4 is necessarily "something more complex". We already have toggles in the game to swap between sides of the same card so I don't see the interaction as necessarily complex to toggle vigilance from its icon. I already mentioned this option in the original topic and am obviously voting for it here. Next I would be more okay with Oktagon leaving things as they are rather than go with the "new approach" (I play with none of the cards that have this silly new vigilance). As another alternative to this I would also be okay with changing defender for instance - maybe don't allow creatures with defender to attack but boost their toughness where relevant or allow via specific effects to lose defender where relevant (we already have cards like this anyway...) I am strongly opposing option 3 for one simple reason: it's not sustainable long-term, and it adds too much inter-mechanics complexity. I would actually argue it is the most complex of the options that would only cause headaches. MTG and subsequently MTGPQ are hungry for new mechanics, which every new set we end up getting new and new mechanics into the game. By making vigilance dependent on other potential mechanics every time something new is implemented that would affect combat, you need to wonder how it could interact with vigilance.
bken1234 said: Vigilant
Mburn7 said: bken1234 said: Vigilant ??