Reorder

[TheShop]

Reorder
1U
Instant

Target spell resolves.
-----------------------------

The idea of resolving a spell as a result of the resolution of another spell is one that I have liked for a long time.  It is not just a vintage abusive card or counterspell either.  Reorder works well in combat tricks-

Me: bolt your gray ogre
You: giant growth target ogre
Me: reorder my bolt

[Wagner]

In 95% of instances, this will just be a bad counterspell.

I'm really not sure what more you gain of it. You still have to cats it reactively if someone prevent your spell from resolving,

[Delha]

I don't think WOTC would be willing to print this, since it's entire functionality is dependant on an understanding of the stack. To a newer player, responding is pretty easy, but this would not be. Once you start explicitly screwing with the stack via ordering, it puts makes for a lot more judge headaches (or as Maro puts it, Customer Service calls). As Wagner stated, it's going to be relatively rare that this spell accomplishes something a counterspell would not. With that in mind, there's little reason to create a new interaction that's significantly less intuitive that an actual counterspell.

[TheShop]

Bad counterspells are fairly common in the Cancel era.  I take comfort in knowing that I have finally pitched a card that is not too powerful to see print.

On the stack issue:  I agree, this is not likely to see print because it references the stack indirectly.  However, I disagree that this card is inherently confusing.  Whenever reorder resolves, so does the effect of the targeted spell.  All instants and sorceries have some effect upon resolution, so this idea is not new.  What does Reorder do on resolution?  In effect, it works like forking a spell which is on the stack(not complex...also recently imitated).

Is the spell abusable?  Not to a vintage degree in all likelihood.  Note that Reorder does interact well as a counter to flusterstorm or could move a card like balance to the top of the stack...if the card could also target activated or triggered abilities it would be far more complex, but also far more useful(although likely not better than interdict or stifle)

[Delha]

On the stack issue:  I agree, this is not likely to see print because it references the stack indirectly.  However, I disagree that this card is inherently confusing.  Whenever reorder resolves, so does the effect of the targeted spell.  All instants and sorceries have some effect upon resolution, so this idea is not new.  What does Reorder do on resolution?  In effect, it works like forking a spell which is on the stack(not complex...also recently imitated).

It's not inherently confusing to us, because any Vintage player worth half a damn understands the stack at least to this level (out of necessity). The people it's confusing to are the new players. Also, copying a spell doesn't mess with stack order. It's just like casting another copy of the original.

[TheShop]

I lament the fact that wiz won't print something that refers to the stack for a number of reasons.  One is that I see some inconsistency here with the printing of cards like sundial of the infinite or misdirection effects which change the resolution of cards on the stack.  Another is that by not printing cards that reference the stack for difficulty of understanding reasons, wiz limits printing based on the level of understanding of it's weakest player and does not foster an environment conducive to learning more about the game.  The clear goal is to provide for the mediocre as opposed to inspiring greater playing ability.  The fundamental idea of the game being mental combat seems to be at odds with this concept.

@delha I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else on these forums would be confused by this card.

[Delha]

At the end of the day, novice players are the smart demographic to target. Wizards makes money off packs, and experienced players are much less likely to randomly crack packs than they are. I honestly can't remember the last time I cracked a pack that wasn't for draft. Maybe Masques? Catering to the elite is not always the best path for a business.

Also, consider this: How much do you really understand the mechanics of this game? I think that I can objectively claim that my knowledge of the game rules is quite solid, but there's still a ton that I don't know. I don't think that there's any person in the world who perfectly understands every single interaction in the game. If nobody is even approaching the cap (which I believe to be the case), then why is there any need to further increase complexity?

I've heard countless times from MaRo (as well as from non-Magic related game designers) that it is a common folly of amateurs to believe that complexity inherently improves games. One quickly passes a breakpoint where the depth gained is outweighed by the difficulty of comprehension. When you consider Smmenen's article from way back about how bad humans are at analyzing complex systems, I suspect that point is much lower than many suspect.

[Norm4eva]

At the end of the day, novice players are the smart demographic to target. Wizards makes money off packs, and experienced players are much less likely to randomly crack packs than they are. I honestly can't remember the last time I cracked a pack that wasn't for draft. Maybe Masques? Catering to the elite is not always the best path for a business.

Also, consider this: How much do you really understand the mechanics of this game? I think that I can objectively claim that my knowledge of the game rules is quite solid, but there's still a ton that I don't know. I don't think that there's any person in the world who perfectly understands every single interaction in the game. If nobody is even approaching the cap (which I believe to be the case), then why is there any need to further increase complexity?

I've heard countless times from MaRo (as well as from non-Magic related game designers) that it is a common folly of amateurs to believe that complexity inherently improves games. One quickly passes a breakpoint where the depth gained is outweighed by the difficulty of comprehension. When you consider Smmenen's article from way back about how bad humans are at analyzing complex systems, I suspect that point is much lower than many suspect.

+1.  It's better to create game pieces (if not games) which are simple to learn and hard to perfect, versus hard to learn and (simple/narrow) to implement.

[TheShop]

I would humbly note that the last few posts have all taken more time to read and comprehend than the suggested card.  Referencing the stack is not as difficult to understand or complex as we are all suggesting...this is not humility and layering.

I also still maintain that cards like sundial of the infinite or knowledge pool are as complex (or more complex) as the card suggested.  So maybe the folly is not so distant from Maro and others as they would have you believe...they apply complexity in the creation of cards inconsistently- the new double-faced cards and placeholders are initially complex, but we are expected to learn to play with these(and we do so quickly)- what is so unholy about the stack that players are not inspired by card design to learn it?  Fundial will nearly always have an effect on the stack-why does the reference need to be in the reminder text on time stop and not in the actual text here?. They reprint time stop and create sundial in the modern era...they have already set a precedent of allowing the reference to be in the reminder text.

[Delha]

These posts are complex because we are talking about philosophy. Telling someone "stealing is against the law" is easy. Explaining why society would come up with such a rule is a lot harder.

You are simply wrong about the stack's complexity. I think I've had to explain stack mechanics more than anything else in the game. This is not random conjecture, this experience talking.

Regarding Sundial/Time Stop, that has been covered explicitly before. Development allows for referencing the stack in reminder text because players are trained to consider that as an area typically dedicated to more technical language (and is consistent with that typically used for less relevant information). Players who don't understand it just gloss over it without worrying. The fact that you didn't know this shows that you don't know as much about card design as I do, much less WOTC. Additionally, your past ventures into card design haven't shown a decidedly lacking understanding of game mechanics and balance. What makes you so confident that you know more about this particular aspect of Magic than those who handle it professionally?

[TheShop]

These posts are complex because we are talking about philosophy. Telling someone "stealing is against the law" is easy. Explaining why society would come up with such a rule is a lot harder.

You are simply wrong about the stack's complexity. I think I've had to explain stack mechanics more than anything else in the game. This is not random conjecture, this experience talking.

Regarding Sundial/Time Stop, that has been covered explicitly before. Development allows for referencing the stack in reminder text because players are trained to consider that as an area typically dedicated to more technical language (and is consistent with that typically used for less relevant information). Players who don't understand it just gloss over it without worrying. The fact that you didn't know this shows that you don't know as much about card design as I do, much less WOTC. Additionally, your past ventures into card design haven't shown a decidedly lacking understanding of game mechanics and balance. What makes you so confident that you know more about this particular aspect of Magic than those who handle it professionally?

Paragraph 1 I well taken.

Paragraph 2- you are wrong and I am right is not a valid argument...you make no reference outside of your own opinion.  This proves only that our opinions differ

Paragraph 3-I will not adress your ad hominem attacks other than to say that attacking the person rather than his views is not healthy for discussion.  Even the seemingly inept can have valid points for consideration.

"Development allows for referencing the stack in reminder text because players are trained to consider that as an area typically dedicated to more technical language (and is consistent with that typically used for less relevant information). Players who don't understand it just gloss over it without worrying."

Do I understand you correctly that the argument is-
1). Any explicit reference to the stack is technical language(I agree)
2). Technical language is fully acceptable in reminder text (I agree)
3).  Players will simply "gloss over" reminder text they don't understand(I agree- but not with the implication that a player who doesn't understand a card somehow validates the card's creation by ignoring parts of it)

You seem to indicate out that if a player ignores certain text on a card that it's design merits or flaws(here suggested flaws) cease to be relevant?  If this is the case, then the door is open to any printing regardless of complexity- because anyone who doesn't understand can simply ignore the difficult text and move on.  This argument seems to validate the suggested card on the basis that if someone doesn't understand it- they will ignore it.

[Delha]

Paragraph 2- you are wrong and I am right is not a valid argument...you make no reference outside of your own opinion.  This proves only that our opinions differ

I'm not referencing opinion, I'm referencing my experience as someone who has spent nearly a decade and a half knowing the rules better than those around me. I'm referencing my own experience running FNM for the comic shop where I worked. You said the stack is simple and easily grasped, and I'm telling you I've seen firsthand how much trouble people have comprehending it. Sure, it's possible my experience is not representative, but if that's your position, you need to start providing counterexamples.

Paragraph 3-I will not adress your ad hominem attacks other than to say that attacking the person rather than his views is not healthy for discussion.  Even the seemingly inept can have valid points for consideration.

This is not ad hominem on my part. You questioned MaRo's credibility, and I addressed it by pointing out that he is much more knowledgeable that you (or I). As the person attacking a well established position, the burden falls to you to undermine that position through concrete support, or at least provide solid backing for your new claim.

Do I understand you correctly that the argument is-
1). Any explicit reference to the stack is technical language(I agree)
2). Technical language is fully acceptable in reminder text (I agree)
3).  Players will simply "gloss over" reminder text they don't understand(I agree- but not with the implication that a player who doesn't understand a card somehow validates the card's creation by ignoring parts of it)

In the interest of brevity, I cut out part of my response (which was apparently a mistake). Time Stop and Sundial use the same very intuitive effect. By ending the turn immediately, it follows naturally that anything else that would happen in the turn does not. The clarifications in the reminder text are seen as just that, minor pieces of additional technical info, confirming that which the player was already able to readily conclude.

The problem with Reorder is that there is no possible way to interpret what the card does without already knowing how the stack works. Time Stop is decapitation, Reorder is surgery. The first requires very no real knowledge of anatomy, the latter does.

You seem to indicate out that if a player ignores certain text on a card that it's design merits or flaws(here suggested flaws) cease to be relevant?  If this is the case, then the door is open to any printing regardless of complexity- because anyone who doesn't understand can simply ignore the difficult text and move on.  This argument seems to validate the suggested card on the basis that if someone doesn't understand it- they will ignore it.

This was not what I meant, nor what I believe.

[Norm4eva]

To be fair Delha, your experience of the difficulty to learn how the stack functions, while representing 15(or so) years of data, is anecdotal at best - the burden of proof would lie with you to prove that your findings line up with measurable data gathered in a reasonably impartial way.  It's not different from my deep-seeded hatred of 20+1 d20s because I experience them to be unwieldy, ugly and they always seem to roll higher for my opponents than they do me. (I'm not kidding, I really do hate d20s.)

In any event, the card at hand is simple in its execution but seems like it would play out most of the time as a functional analog of a number of other would-be counterspells.  Forcing the resolution of a game action is exactly what a counter-war does; there are very few situations where this isn't simply "Counter target spell if you're having a counter-war."  I hate looking at Magic cards as functional analogs - Sakura Tribe-Elder is clearly not a Time Walk, for example - but I think that most of the time, this really is just a Counterspell that only works when there are other Instants on the stack.  In short, it's simple, but exceptionally narrow.

[Delha]

To be fair Delha, your experience of the difficulty to learn how the stack functions, while representing 15(or so) years of data, is anecdotal at best - the burden of proof would lie with you to prove that your findings line up with measurable data gathered in a reasonably impartial way.

I do agree that my experience is anecdotal, but my point was that he doesn't have even that. My statement about burden of proof was related to the fact that TheShop is contesting current policy. That said, my backup has already been presented. MaRo has said that it is the case, and more than anyone else, Wizards is the party with both the most access and the most interest in collecting this data.

[TheShop]

The following feels awfully ad hominem to me-

"The fact that you didn't know this shows that you don't know as much about card design as I do, much less WOTC. Additionally, your past ventures into card design haven't shown a decidedly lacking understanding of game mechanics and balance. What makes you so confident that you know more about this particular aspect of Magic than those who handle it professionally?"

I dont want to suggest a card that will never see print enough to continue this discussion...it feels much more like work than fun at this point.

[Delha]

Shrug. You said that MaRo's stated position was incorrect, and I pointed out the massive gap between his resources (and the ability to back his claim) and yours. In short, we know he's got data, and I was asking where is yours.