Why were the rules for Proliferate changed?Why Does Magic Use The “Paris Mulligan” Rule?How can I tell what has changed in a Comprehensive Rules update?Wording on Volrath's ShapeshifterCards entering the battlefield simultaneously and “Enter the Battlefield” effectsWhy does rule 608.2b counter Last Word, when Last Word can't be countered?How does Sundial of the Infinite help you avoid losing turns to Eater of Days?Will countering a spell that left the stack still trigger abilities?In a multiplayer game, if a player is controlling another player's turn, may they reveal that player's hand?Can you give an example why the active player wants to have priority in Beginning of Combat first?Change in “can't be countered” wording
Why didn't Daenerys' advisers suggest assassinating Cersei?
Was Tyrion always a poor strategist?
Why did Nick Fury not hesitate in blowing up the plane he thought was carrying a nuke?
Windows reverting changes made by Linux to FAT32 partition
Can a Warforged have a ranged weapon affixed to them like an armblade?
Working hours and productivity expectations for game artists and programmers
How come Arya Stark wasn't hurt by this in Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5?
Very serious stuff - Salesforce bug enabled "Modify All"
What does it mean for a program to be 32 or 64 bit?
Richard's Favourite TV Programme
How could Dwarves prevent sand from filling up their settlements
Hotel booking: Why is Agoda much cheaper than booking.com?
Is presenting a play showing Military charactes in a bad light a crime in the US?
Can 2 light bulbs of 120V in series be used on 230V AC?
Is there any official Lore on Keraptis the Wizard, apart from what is in White Plume Mountain?
Why should one apply for UK visa before other visas, on a multi-destination European holiday?
Cycling to work - 30 mile return
Is being an extrovert a necessary condition to be a manager?
How to plot a surface from a system of equations?
On a piano, are the effects of holding notes and the sustain pedal the same for a single chord?
How do you cope with rejection?
Can the word crowd refer to just 10 people?
Is my company merging branches wrong?
In Dutch history two people are referred to as "William III"; are there any more cases where this happens?
Why were the rules for Proliferate changed?
Why Does Magic Use The “Paris Mulligan” Rule?How can I tell what has changed in a Comprehensive Rules update?Wording on Volrath's ShapeshifterCards entering the battlefield simultaneously and “Enter the Battlefield” effectsWhy does rule 608.2b counter Last Word, when Last Word can't be countered?How does Sundial of the Infinite help you avoid losing turns to Eater of Days?Will countering a spell that left the stack still trigger abilities?In a multiplayer game, if a player is controlling another player's turn, may they reveal that player's hand?Can you give an example why the active player wants to have priority in Beginning of Combat first?Change in “can't be countered” wording
With the release of War of the Spark, the rules for Proliferate changed. Previously, they allowed you to add 1 counter to the chosen permanents and players, of a type it already had. Now, it adds an additional counter for every type of counter already present.
This seems like a big change that suddenly changes the way a bunch of existing cards work; in most cases making all of those cards stronger. Why alter the power level of all those existing cards?
It almost seems like if they one day said that from now on, "Lifelink" means that you get 2 life for every damage instead of 1.
In this article about War of the Spark rules changes, it mentions that the rules were changed:
The rules for proliferate got a makeover! The rule reminding you who chooses counters is dropped, since there are no more choices on the counters, and the other two rules are updated to match the new reality.
But this seems to be a change just to deal with the fact that "Proliferate" changed; it's not an explanation of the fact that Proliferate changed or why.
Is there an article or source that announces and explains this change?
magic-the-gathering
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
add a comment |
With the release of War of the Spark, the rules for Proliferate changed. Previously, they allowed you to add 1 counter to the chosen permanents and players, of a type it already had. Now, it adds an additional counter for every type of counter already present.
This seems like a big change that suddenly changes the way a bunch of existing cards work; in most cases making all of those cards stronger. Why alter the power level of all those existing cards?
It almost seems like if they one day said that from now on, "Lifelink" means that you get 2 life for every damage instead of 1.
In this article about War of the Spark rules changes, it mentions that the rules were changed:
The rules for proliferate got a makeover! The rule reminding you who chooses counters is dropped, since there are no more choices on the counters, and the other two rules are updated to match the new reality.
But this seems to be a change just to deal with the fact that "Proliferate" changed; it's not an explanation of the fact that Proliferate changed or why.
Is there an article or source that announces and explains this change?
magic-the-gathering
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
4
I think you're certainly correct in theory, especially considering past changes in the game that were causing issues with minor changes by comparison. However in practice, I don't think the situation of wanting to add more than one counter is going to come up all that often - and when there is a deck that benefits from it, Proliferate was very likely already a game changer for it before. For some situations, it can even be a nerf, such as your Infect Commander deck now having to make a choice playing against an experience counter commander.
– TheThirdMan
May 6 at 23:04
add a comment |
With the release of War of the Spark, the rules for Proliferate changed. Previously, they allowed you to add 1 counter to the chosen permanents and players, of a type it already had. Now, it adds an additional counter for every type of counter already present.
This seems like a big change that suddenly changes the way a bunch of existing cards work; in most cases making all of those cards stronger. Why alter the power level of all those existing cards?
It almost seems like if they one day said that from now on, "Lifelink" means that you get 2 life for every damage instead of 1.
In this article about War of the Spark rules changes, it mentions that the rules were changed:
The rules for proliferate got a makeover! The rule reminding you who chooses counters is dropped, since there are no more choices on the counters, and the other two rules are updated to match the new reality.
But this seems to be a change just to deal with the fact that "Proliferate" changed; it's not an explanation of the fact that Proliferate changed or why.
Is there an article or source that announces and explains this change?
magic-the-gathering
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
With the release of War of the Spark, the rules for Proliferate changed. Previously, they allowed you to add 1 counter to the chosen permanents and players, of a type it already had. Now, it adds an additional counter for every type of counter already present.
This seems like a big change that suddenly changes the way a bunch of existing cards work; in most cases making all of those cards stronger. Why alter the power level of all those existing cards?
It almost seems like if they one day said that from now on, "Lifelink" means that you get 2 life for every damage instead of 1.
In this article about War of the Spark rules changes, it mentions that the rules were changed:
The rules for proliferate got a makeover! The rule reminding you who chooses counters is dropped, since there are no more choices on the counters, and the other two rules are updated to match the new reality.
But this seems to be a change just to deal with the fact that "Proliferate" changed; it's not an explanation of the fact that Proliferate changed or why.
Is there an article or source that announces and explains this change?
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
edited May 6 at 23:37
GendoIkari
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
asked May 6 at 22:46
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.2k399182
46.2k399182
4
I think you're certainly correct in theory, especially considering past changes in the game that were causing issues with minor changes by comparison. However in practice, I don't think the situation of wanting to add more than one counter is going to come up all that often - and when there is a deck that benefits from it, Proliferate was very likely already a game changer for it before. For some situations, it can even be a nerf, such as your Infect Commander deck now having to make a choice playing against an experience counter commander.
– TheThirdMan
May 6 at 23:04
add a comment |
4
I think you're certainly correct in theory, especially considering past changes in the game that were causing issues with minor changes by comparison. However in practice, I don't think the situation of wanting to add more than one counter is going to come up all that often - and when there is a deck that benefits from it, Proliferate was very likely already a game changer for it before. For some situations, it can even be a nerf, such as your Infect Commander deck now having to make a choice playing against an experience counter commander.
– TheThirdMan
May 6 at 23:04
4
4
I think you're certainly correct in theory, especially considering past changes in the game that were causing issues with minor changes by comparison. However in practice, I don't think the situation of wanting to add more than one counter is going to come up all that often - and when there is a deck that benefits from it, Proliferate was very likely already a game changer for it before. For some situations, it can even be a nerf, such as your Infect Commander deck now having to make a choice playing against an experience counter commander.
– TheThirdMan
May 6 at 23:04
I think you're certainly correct in theory, especially considering past changes in the game that were causing issues with minor changes by comparison. However in practice, I don't think the situation of wanting to add more than one counter is going to come up all that often - and when there is a deck that benefits from it, Proliferate was very likely already a game changer for it before. For some situations, it can even be a nerf, such as your Infect Commander deck now having to make a choice playing against an experience counter commander.
– TheThirdMan
May 6 at 23:04
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
According to a post from Mark Rosewater (Lead Designer for Magic: The Gathering), the reasons were to make the mechanic as a whole more easily understandable, along with seemingly wanting to streamline the experience in digital MtG games.
Quoting the post in its entirety both for reference and relevance:
R&D is always on the lookout for ways to make cleaner, more straight-forward mechanics. This makes mechanics easier to process in tabletop and lessens the amounts of clicks on digital.
When we decided to bring back proliferate, we realized we could make a simple change that would both, on average, make the mechanic more powerful and clean it up for digital.
Previously if a player or creature had more than one counter, you the owner of the proliferating source chose which one of the different counters to duplicate. This new version doesn’t make you chose, but instead duplicates all of them. Remember, you still choose which players and/or permanents to proliferate.
Yes, there’s a tiny scenario where you have to chose between duplicating both a positive and a negative counter, but that’s far less likely than the scenario where you have two different types of counters you want to duplicate (especially on creatures as +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters negate one another).
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
2
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
1
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
1
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47148%2fwhy-were-the-rules-for-proliferate-changed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to a post from Mark Rosewater (Lead Designer for Magic: The Gathering), the reasons were to make the mechanic as a whole more easily understandable, along with seemingly wanting to streamline the experience in digital MtG games.
Quoting the post in its entirety both for reference and relevance:
R&D is always on the lookout for ways to make cleaner, more straight-forward mechanics. This makes mechanics easier to process in tabletop and lessens the amounts of clicks on digital.
When we decided to bring back proliferate, we realized we could make a simple change that would both, on average, make the mechanic more powerful and clean it up for digital.
Previously if a player or creature had more than one counter, you the owner of the proliferating source chose which one of the different counters to duplicate. This new version doesn’t make you chose, but instead duplicates all of them. Remember, you still choose which players and/or permanents to proliferate.
Yes, there’s a tiny scenario where you have to chose between duplicating both a positive and a negative counter, but that’s far less likely than the scenario where you have two different types of counters you want to duplicate (especially on creatures as +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters negate one another).
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
2
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
1
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
1
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
|
show 2 more comments
According to a post from Mark Rosewater (Lead Designer for Magic: The Gathering), the reasons were to make the mechanic as a whole more easily understandable, along with seemingly wanting to streamline the experience in digital MtG games.
Quoting the post in its entirety both for reference and relevance:
R&D is always on the lookout for ways to make cleaner, more straight-forward mechanics. This makes mechanics easier to process in tabletop and lessens the amounts of clicks on digital.
When we decided to bring back proliferate, we realized we could make a simple change that would both, on average, make the mechanic more powerful and clean it up for digital.
Previously if a player or creature had more than one counter, you the owner of the proliferating source chose which one of the different counters to duplicate. This new version doesn’t make you chose, but instead duplicates all of them. Remember, you still choose which players and/or permanents to proliferate.
Yes, there’s a tiny scenario where you have to chose between duplicating both a positive and a negative counter, but that’s far less likely than the scenario where you have two different types of counters you want to duplicate (especially on creatures as +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters negate one another).
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
2
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
1
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
1
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
|
show 2 more comments
According to a post from Mark Rosewater (Lead Designer for Magic: The Gathering), the reasons were to make the mechanic as a whole more easily understandable, along with seemingly wanting to streamline the experience in digital MtG games.
Quoting the post in its entirety both for reference and relevance:
R&D is always on the lookout for ways to make cleaner, more straight-forward mechanics. This makes mechanics easier to process in tabletop and lessens the amounts of clicks on digital.
When we decided to bring back proliferate, we realized we could make a simple change that would both, on average, make the mechanic more powerful and clean it up for digital.
Previously if a player or creature had more than one counter, you the owner of the proliferating source chose which one of the different counters to duplicate. This new version doesn’t make you chose, but instead duplicates all of them. Remember, you still choose which players and/or permanents to proliferate.
Yes, there’s a tiny scenario where you have to chose between duplicating both a positive and a negative counter, but that’s far less likely than the scenario where you have two different types of counters you want to duplicate (especially on creatures as +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters negate one another).
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
According to a post from Mark Rosewater (Lead Designer for Magic: The Gathering), the reasons were to make the mechanic as a whole more easily understandable, along with seemingly wanting to streamline the experience in digital MtG games.
Quoting the post in its entirety both for reference and relevance:
R&D is always on the lookout for ways to make cleaner, more straight-forward mechanics. This makes mechanics easier to process in tabletop and lessens the amounts of clicks on digital.
When we decided to bring back proliferate, we realized we could make a simple change that would both, on average, make the mechanic more powerful and clean it up for digital.
Previously if a player or creature had more than one counter, you the owner of the proliferating source chose which one of the different counters to duplicate. This new version doesn’t make you chose, but instead duplicates all of them. Remember, you still choose which players and/or permanents to proliferate.
Yes, there’s a tiny scenario where you have to chose between duplicating both a positive and a negative counter, but that’s far less likely than the scenario where you have two different types of counters you want to duplicate (especially on creatures as +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters negate one another).
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
answered May 6 at 23:02
TheThirdManTheThirdMan
6,94811444
6,94811444
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
2
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
1
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
1
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
|
show 2 more comments
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
2
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
1
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
1
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
On the issue of + and - counters on the same creature: I was under the impression, that those countered each other out and would be taken of the creature?
– Erik
May 7 at 8:35
2
2
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
@Erik You are right in your assessment. It can easily occur for players, though, if they have energy or experience counters and poison counters, for instance.
– M.Herzkamp
May 7 at 8:49
1
1
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
Or a Gideon with a +1/+1 and loyality counters, I see. Thank you.
– Erik
May 7 at 8:54
1
1
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik Yes the point was that it's not very likely for a creature to have both a good and a bad counter at the same time, because the most common type of good and bad counters that show up on creatures can't both exist at the same time.
– GendoIkari
May 7 at 13:39
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
@Erik If we take "positive" to mean "good" and "negative" to mean "bad", then not all positive counters cancel out with negative counters.
– Acccumulation
May 7 at 22:27
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47148%2fwhy-were-the-rules-for-proliferate-changed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
I think you're certainly correct in theory, especially considering past changes in the game that were causing issues with minor changes by comparison. However in practice, I don't think the situation of wanting to add more than one counter is going to come up all that often - and when there is a deck that benefits from it, Proliferate was very likely already a game changer for it before. For some situations, it can even be a nerf, such as your Infect Commander deck now having to make a choice playing against an experience counter commander.
– TheThirdMan
May 6 at 23:04