Will Conditional First Strike Become More Prevalent?
General forum
Posted on April 9, 2019, 10:26 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
These two posts on Mark Rosewater's Tumblr account have me worried that WotC will be printing creatures with conditional first strike more often.
I do not like that idea, because defensive first strike is equally as useful as offensive first strike, encouraging players to think strategically and not rush recklessly into combat. I also feel that complaining about it making games progress more slowly is as irrational and immature as complaining about tutors doing the same.
What does everyone else say about this? Will conditional first strike become more prevalent, or will it remain less common than unconditional first strike?
DemonDragonJ says... #3
saj0219, I will be happy as long as conditional first strike remains rare compared to unconditional first strike, because it is a completely unnecessary change that is depowering a mechanic that has existed since the very beginning of this game. For twenty-six years, first strike has been perfectly fine, so why now are people complaining about it?
April 9, 2019 10:40 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #4
you've been asking a LOT of questions like this recently, and the answer to all of them is basically the same. the answer is simply "we don't know, and we can't possibly know, because we aren't psychic". how can we know if conditional first strike will be more prevalent in the future unless we work for wotc R&D?
if you don't like the way things are changing, you always have the option of just continuing to use your old cards. nobody is forcing you to buy the new ones. even if you play a lot of standard, you're still not forced to use a mechanic you don't like. the old mechanics will still be legal in Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and Commander.
wotc has already stated they won't be printing any more cards with the "regeneration" mechanic. instead they'll be printing cards that grant indestructible until end of turn. but you don't see me complaining about it, because i know i can still use my Sedge Sliver at Modern FNM.
April 9, 2019 11:10 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #5
saj0219 i would argue that both situations actually only require one question each. in your second scenario where you make the claim the defending player has 2 questions to ask themselves, i would say that "can my creature survive?" is not actually a valid question. my reason being that if you have a creature that can survive the first strike, then the creature with first strike likely wouldn't be attacking in the first place. for example, lets say you have a 2/2 that gains first strike when it attacks, and i have a 4/4. its pretty unlikely you're gonna be attacking in that scenario.
April 9, 2019 11:16 p.m.
I would argue that conditional first strike is bad, because on other people's turns, that creature is basically vanilla. Having regular first strike allows you to have a decision to leave back a blocker with first strike, as it can "trade up" for an opponent's creature.
Leaving a Fresh-Faced Recruit back, you will rarely ever block with him, as he is worse than a Grizzly Bear on defense. Thus you are either attacking or not doing anything with him, leaving you less options and worse creatures.
April 10, 2019 3:58 a.m.
I do not have a problem with conditional first strike, per se, and am fine with it being included fairly regularly. It gives Wizards some flexibility in how they design and cost cards, which I see as a good thing. That said, I wouldn't want it to replace, or be more prevalent than, regular first strike; merely be yet another tool in Wizards' repertoire.
As an aside, I enjoy the threads you make where you speculate on why Wizards does certain things, with an eye toward how the future of the game works.
April 10, 2019 12:19 p.m.
gavriel1136 says... #8
I understand the reasoning behind it, especially at common. Unconditional first strike can lead to a player creating a wall of creatures that never attack but will kill anything that tries. In decks that favor high power/low toughness creatures, this is especially frustrating. Tokens, deathtouch and lifelink, all rendered moot.
April 10, 2019 1:38 p.m.
JANKYARD_DOG says... #10
Been thinking about this a bit... and I think it boils down to this:
If you look at it with a 'flavor in mind' view First Strike is Agressive meaning you're meant to be on the offensive so why not have it 'On Attack'. To me it's kind of like having the element of surprise or higher ground, pressing the advantage sort of deal.
Double strike on the other hand flavor wise say to me 'fast' or 'skilled' like an expert swordsman. Whether on the offensive or defensive they'll hit twice for your once and sometimes not even let you get in a hit.
Just my 2 cents.
saj0219 says... #2
I do think he’s correct that’s it is more interesting offensively. If a creature with first strike is able to block, my decision as the attacking player is easy: can my creature survive the first strike? If yes, go. If no, don’t.
However, if the attacking creature is the one with first strike, the defender has a more interesting choice to make, as I have two questions to ask. First, can my creature survive? If yes, block. If no... is losing my creature worth the saving those points of damage that are staring me in the face?
More decisions that mean things = more fun.
With that said, I don’t think I have a real opinion on what we’ll see on future cards.
April 9, 2019 10:32 p.m.