Game mechanics are unnecessarily complicated

You actually never draw a card, see

Counterspell

>on draw trigger discard a card then draw a card
>if you have no cards in hand mill 1
>none of the above applies to the first card you draw in your draw step
Do people really have trouble with this?

You don't actually draw a card ever, see .
You misunderstood it too.

Attached: meph.png (873x423, 21.39K)

Wrong, it's a replacement effect so It only happens once per draw trigger.
>Rule 614: Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event.
The effect of chains replaces a normal draw. It doesn't recur forever.

>discard your entire hand then mill one
>discard one card then draw one card
Which one is it?

>If a player would draw a card except the first one he or she draws in his or her draw step each turn, that player discards a card instead.
The rule you quoted proves me right bro, re-read your own quote.
>Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time.
>replacement effects apply continuously as events happen
>apply continuously as events happen
Therefore the 'discard a card instead whenever you would draw a card' applies CONTINUOUSLY, INCLUDING when Chains of Mephistopheles would tell you to draw a card.
Your 'once per draw trigger' rule is not specified by the rule you quoted.

Attached: 1583568616316.png (961x494, 47.42K)

This is from Wizards themselves:
>Here’s what happens when Chains of Mephistopheles replaces a player’s draw: — If that player has at least one card in their hand, they discard a card and then draws a card. — If that player’s hand is empty, they put the top card of their library into their graveyard. The player doesn’t draw a card at all.
Watch as retards below me argue it does something different.

While nowadays it's great all around? Is that why we get cards cards with rulings ten times longer than the actual card text?

Actually this is more accurate since if it's your regular draw step it doesn't count.
That doesn't disprove anything since according to the rulebook you would still 'draw a card', only the 'draw a card' action is replaced by discarding a card as per the effect of CoM.

Attached: 1583568616316.png (961x494, 50.5K)

He's trolling. Don't reply to him.

>did yu gi oh even have this shit?
Yes.

Attached: Polymerization-LOB-NA-SR-1E.jpg (400x580, 61.26K)

Modern reprint.

Attached: Polymerization-LCKC-EN-ScR-1E.png (477x700, 727.32K)

Ran this shit with anvil of bogardan and the rack back in the day. Shit was fantastic.

No. the "Except the first card of their turn" doesn't make the entire card's effect only applicable on the player's turn. It should be like this:

"If a player would draw a card, they must first discard. Then, if they were able to discard, they may draw a card as normal. If unable to discard, he or she puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard.

The first card drawn of a player's drawstep may be drawn as normal, and is unaffected"

>ITT: niggas who cant read "If the player discards a card this way, he or she draws a card"
Holy shit you zoomers are dumb

>unhinged
>old magic
that whole thing was a joke block, man. same as unglued and unsanctioned.
still:
>cast spell
>start a new duel, with 5 life points each player
>hand and permantents gets exiled, start over with your remaining deck
>whoever wins draws 2 cards
>exiled permanents and hands come back into play
>the main game resumes

Attached: enter the dungeon.jpg (427x606, 65.2K)

> Players have no maximum hand size.
At the beginning of each player's draw step, that player draws an additional card, then discards a card.
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WORK

You are like a little baby.
*unzips*

Attached: arn-10-shahrazad.jpg (672x936, 251.29K)

Drawstep: Draw first card
Anvil: Draw additional card [Trigger]
Chains: First Discard a card [Trigger/resolves]
Anvil: Draw [Resolves]
Anvil: Discard
You basically draw, discard, draw, discard.

I've no idea what you are trying to accomplish here, just baiting I guess? That would be just stupid if it would make you discard full hand

Arguably the most complex Magic the Gathering effect is this

If only because you need a significant amount about layers when dealing with other effects and none of it is obvious to the regular player

Attached: uds-13-opalescence.jpg (672x936, 232.79K)

it's not that hard at all. it's just "All non-aura enchantments are now creatures as well, with their power/toughness equaling their CMC"

This also essentially makes them more vulnerable, since now kill spells and board wipes can remove troublesome enchantments.

read the actual post

how do you think it works with this on the field?

Attached: tpr-16-humility.jpg (672x936, 181.13K)

question, would their creature type be enchantment? Curious if something like engineered plague would work with that.

Not that user but I don't see the issue? unless you are assuming Humility would fuck with Opalescence, which isn't a problem since Opalescence states "each OTHER".

Which one was played first

Humility fucks with itself due to Opalescence, but you can imagine throwing any other enchantment there as well

Attached: 1491514994723.jpg (600x600, 87.1K)

Explain either scenario

Humility says all, so then humility would lose it's ability. Which would mean humility is no longer causing itself to lose it's ability, which means it causes itself to lose it's ability, etc. As said, it's not immediately obvious what actually happens.

Original user here, I see the gimmick he's throwing forward. Humility would turn itself into a 1/1 vanilla dork, which would override its own innate ability with opalesence on the field.

This is a matter of stacking effects and the latest one being the pertinent one, but it also results in a loop between opalesence and humility. I am not 100% sure where the line would be drawn.

I love how Yu-Gay-Oh fanboys try to prove that MtG is needlessly complex yet they post cards from joke sets lolmao

So infinite loop with no change in game state?
In Yu-gi-oh the rule makes it so the card that causes the loop is destroyed by game mechanics.

The only thing that's hard to understand about Chains is that it basically just has a hidden rule that makes it not create an infinite loop of discarding and drawing
Why? I don't know just because
otherwise it basically just turns every draw after the draw phase into a cycle or mill if you have no cards which is probably how it would be worded if it was reprinted today

The complexity in MtG is arguably its main fault. Stuff like layers, state-based effects, the 'golden rule' not being applicable sometimes. These are parts of Magic that it needs to function but because these rules exist doesn't make Magic any more complex, just more archaic.

Hearthstone has a ton of effects more complicated then Magic but the strategic depth is shallower due to what choices are offered to the player. That's where Magic shines the most.

the "hidden rule" is just that replacement effects can't replace them self, otherwise stuff like "when you gain life gain twice as much" would never stop.

Not really because your explanation adds agency not alluded to in the card.
The way I parse it, it's saying if the player avoids discarding a card through some effect or other they take the punishment of library to graveyard.
I'm not familiar with the mechanics so I don't know if that is possible in game, if there are any card effects which prohibit discarding or whatever, but that's what it says on the card, it doesn't say the player gets a choice, it simply says they discard instead.

You guys are retarded. It only applies once to a single event and it wouldn't even apply to it's own effect anyway. Likewise if there's two copies of chains on the field, you discard two and draw two, mill two or draw one and mill one, whichever is the correct amount you discarded.

idiot

Attached: chains.jpg (375x523, 54.27K)

you idiot
a replacement effect replaces any effect up to once, thus Chains doesn't loop into itself over and over.

Actually what am I saying I don't need to be familiar with the mechanics, you could proc a draw with an empty hand.

came here to post Old Fogey

>2020
>WotC still hasn't adopted the "mill" keyword
Why?

no they would be creaturetype-less. Encheantment is a card type, a creature type is a subtype of creature cards and permanents

Its mostly older cards that actually had what seem like extremely simple effects but after 20 years of changing and clarifying rules they aren't simple any longer. Like look up the gatherer on Jandors Ring from arabian nights. It has a very simple effect but you basically have to have a judge watching the game when you play it because there is no way to prove what the last card you drew that turn was.

This thread reminds me of people arguing about the Monty Hall Problem

The Monty Hall Problem is pure logic though. Reading chains you have to know about magic syntax and the specific rules regarding them.

WotC is retarded, more news at 11

Attached: sushi oracle.png (3000x3000, 2.29M)

Is there a worse designed card than Questing Beast?

Yu-Gi-Oh>magic the nerdling

Remember when 3G for a 4/5 with no abilities and a downside or a 5/5 for 2BB with no abilities and a downside were considered super powerful creatures?