That's what SHE said!

Especially Michael Knight!

The Hoff FTW!

CC

Bella Sara has puzzles.


(Oh, what's that we're done with puzzles comments? Rats.)

I haven't been active in magic for maybe two years, but when I used to play I could build MtG decks on auto-pilot. Here's how:

1. Add cards that share a strong theme (ie. Madness, Affinity, Cycling etc)
2. Add cards that help/enable that theme (ie. artifact lands, Wild Mongrel, etc)
3. Add four copies of whatever uber-broken card is hot right now (ie. Umezawa's Jitte, Cursed Scroll, etc)
4. Trim the list until you are left with around 36 cards
5. Add all the expensive lands you own that are relevant to the deck (dual lands, legendary lands, etc)
6. Fill out the list with basic lands

I think the word "complex" is getting mixed up here.

I can see where in some cases Magic is more complex (such as resource management) but in others were VS is more complex (such as effect management).

I am of the opinion that more points of complexity exist in VS than Magic. Proof of that is the fact that you can still play 2 of 3 games in an hour with Magic... whereas that is almost impossible in VS.

It's not really the level of complexity... but more the volume of it.

Also, claiming that Vs. is more complex than Magic is not claiming that Magic isn't complex. And comparing either to Chess ignores the fundamental issue of all TCGs in that they all add a different level of complexity by giving you the options of what "pieces" to bring to the table.

This reminds me a bit of the "edition wars" going on in D&D at the moment. In 3e, it's about strategy, planning ahead, etc. In 4e, it's tactics, what you do during the fight more than the pre-fight planning. Both have their complexities, but they just come into play at different times.

pretty interesting points made by all, really.
as for the literal question of the thread...i don't think it's "too smart."
all the games mentioned are different in lots of ways and wax and wane for esoteric reasons.
MTG will always be the watermark for CCGs, let's face it. it's still huge and it's not going anywhere. deck building is much simpler though, and there are certainly uber-decks out there. at the same time, you could throw a deck together and still beat them by minor disruptions. games are longer due to the combat structure, and the variety of ways to hurt your opponent isn't limited as much to creatures. there's only so much "burn" in VS and they've all been put into High Voltage already. in MTG also, it's easy to assess yourself and realize what you can and can't do via resources at any given time.
VS complexity is definitely in the combat. it's totally character based and you choose who to attack. also, the consistency of pros shows doesn't show much imo. there's only 5 colors in MTG (well, and colorless i suppose) so every isn't introducing new archetypes so much. one post mentioned the ease of MTG deck building. it's sort of the same for VS, except when you get your fine-tuned engine, it is way more skill than luck because you'll hit your drops everytime via search, you always have the same resource pool as your opponent (can't put a character down to tap for mana in MTG), and so forth. basically it feels like your deck manipulation is more accessible in VS.
kinda rambled there....
i don't know much about YGO but games that last 2 turns sounds pretty boring to me.
VS challenge is mental: who to attack? who to leave readied for reinforcement later? and there's not nearly as much counter so you know when you get an opening when to unload.
all the CCGs take some brain power, but in addition to that they take time and money moreso. if i had the resources i could build tweaked out decks too, but i don't have that time or money to spend.
imo it's the OP that drives these games, and also the marketing. ever seen a commercial for VS? no. but MTG has them and YGO et al have cartoons and movies for them. i read comics, and they don't even advertise VS in them!
when those with the time and money dedicate themselves to being pros, it is usually with the hopes of doing it for a living so to speak. so they're going to go where the money is, and if a game maintains great OP it's going to help it survive.
i think losing the OP for VS was a major contributor to it's lapse. and the greater sense that without the intensely skill-driven deck building, you have little to no chance at a tournament. i used to have great wins against all my friends and whatnot, then you show up to a tournament and you feel like you never played before the way top decks are built. but at the same time i can slap an MTG deck together or play online and manage to beat someone toting the Power Nine or whatever.
ahhh...i go on to long....
they're all good games, but for a totally casual person like myself, i wish they all had great online play like MTG and i would probably be playing them too.

If I play a really fast deck and you play a really fast deck we should be able to get atleast 3 or 4 games in a hour.

I think it is very unfair to compare Vs. to MTG. For example: Both games have combat phases that divide into a great number of steps but they are not alike. In MTG there is only one "attack" in which the attacking player decides what characters to send attacking. This is not so in Vs. We have a much more detailed attack step in which we decide what character(s) to send into what defender and depending on that outcome we make choices on wether or not to declare another attack. This while complicated in its own right is far much simpler than sending creatures to attack without knowing who if any of the opposing creatures will defend. Another thing is that exhausted characters in Vs. can still defend, no such luck in MTG. If a creature is "tapped" there is no way it will defend making the choices of attacking a lot more complicated because we must now take into account our ability to defend from incoming attacks. Direct damage is another aspect of the game that MTG has over Vs. and while I am not a big fan of out of combat stuns in Vs. they are a necessary evil in MTG for certain deck types. Even so, out of combat stuns don't actually KO the characters in Vs but they do KO them in MTG. In Vs we can send multiple attackers into one defender but in MTG its the complete opposite and you are able to defend an attack with more than one character, not only that but the attacking player decides how to divide the damage among the defenders or blockers, in Vs all damage goes to one of the attackers even if there is enough to go around. Another big difference is that in MTG you can choose not to defend an attack and take the attack head on. You also don't loose endurance or life in MTG when a creature you control dies. More differences can be seen in the fact that damage can be put in the stack or chain in MTG there is no such thing in Vs. and unless you have played MTG you wouldn't believe the quantity of tricks and strategies that can be achieved because of this.

I can go on with the great number of differences between the two games in other aspects like Deck Construction, sideboard, mulligans, 2 out of 3 vs a single game, variety of cards, mechanisms, and mana usage but I think that I made a clear enough point that the games are not worth comparing just because they have certain similarities, thats just plain stupid. Chess can't be compared to Checkers just because they both use a 8x8 board.

I used to play MTG and did pretty good winning several PTQ's, a Regional and States. I will never ever go back to it simply because in all honesty I enjoy playing a single game of Vs. far more than a whole years worth of MTG, but those of you saying that Vs. is more complex than Magic are greatly mistaken.

I heard Michael Jacobs say once that he felt that there were better caliber MTG players then quality VS players. I think this is probably true since there is the whole pro tour club & lets face it MTG has been around allot longer. Mtg has allot more players involved too. When you think about how many people show up to MTG events it is no wonder it is so difficult to make it competitively.

I heard Stu say one time that every single great VS pro couldn't cut it in MTG. Even Kyle Dembinski who is a PC winner & an amazing card player has had allot of trouble cutting it in MTG. With all of this in mind I think MTG players just have a different mind set then Vs players. I think I agree with Erik that MTG isn't harder or even more complex it is more that the competition is that much more intense becuase of the quality & quanity of good players.

I have always agreed with Dave Spear's view of MTG that it was much simplier then VS because:

a) you attack/block instead of attacking each character into a defender. This makes it more likely to make mistakes. In MTG you don't have to reinforce or team attack ect.. ect..

b) You have formation step which is crucial to so many aspects of the game. In MTG you just attack & block.

c) In VS your build phase can just be insane. Anybody play Rat Catcher burn? Rigged Elections? Teen Titans (with Roy)? JLOA? Exiles? FatBat? Faces of Evil? Anybody not play a deck in a tournament cause you didn't want a headache afterwards?

d) Vs has more phases & abuses them all makeing it very difficult for newer players to play & adjust to the game. This was one point that Tim Batow argued to the hilt. Look at the cards that you can play during the draw phase, before the draw phase, build step, during formation & during recovery. MTG really doesn't have so many sub steps nor the amount of cards that refer to them

e) Vs is broken when it comes to the amount of colors it has. Instead of 5 colors we have a ridculous amount of team affilations with ways to team attack reinforce & even in some cases reset attacks making deck building very different then MTG.

f) There seems to be so much search in Vs that it is hard to get Character screwed. I have lost games because I recruited the wrong character, formated wrong & not used Dective Chimp agency as much as I should have. Whatever the case generally you lose games cause you mess up in VS.

I have played MTG only a handful of times but I found it so much less of a headache to play then VS. I have always liked character based games however. The creatures in MTG mean nothing to me. I want to play a game where I can bust out Han Solo or Spiderman or at least a character that I can identifiy with & whip up on my buddies.

All & all I think the point is there are allot better MTG players then there are good VS players. If Vs had the number of quality players that MTG I don't think we would be having this debate. If anything Vs makes you a better gamer & maybe even a smarter gamer.

Everything you said after (c) is false.

care to elaborate as to why it's false because it seems as if what he's said is true.

After playing both games, I can pretty much say that apart from combat issues, MtG is much more difficult to play.

I biuld VS decks following the same basic curve list every time and then tweak it after playing it a few times. Usually the list changes a bit but otherwise my curve list is a great starting point.

There is no such thing for MtG. Your land / creature / artifact / enchantment / whatever ratio is very different. Apart from the affinity deck, I have to really be involved whne I build the deck.

I often compare MtG to Pokemon (the game, not the TCG). I play Pokemon rather well, and alot of the skill involved is pre-battle. This is where MtG edges out VS. VS also had time to study the flaws of MtG and *try* to improve...but I have yet to see any results.

Maybe I'm the minority...but I still have yet to see someone actually tell me why VS is more complex. Short answer is because it isn't.

EDIT: Specific short version:

There are alot of cards in MtG that refer to step or phase, etc.

The amount of colours makes VS easier, not harder, because there are tons and tons of different themes within MtG. Take the X-Men from each set, put them together and try to make the best deck in under 30 min. It would be hard because there's so many possibilities and interactions.

The amount of search makes VS easier, not harder (except on the wallet).

Headache = complexity = depth.

This thread has been wonderful to read thru. Very informative and much debated from post to post. It reminds me of the great "Who would win: Star Wars or Star Trek in a war". There are even websites that have debated this for years. No one has proved a thing in all the debates.

And while I respect all the comments, information, and knowledgeable debate here on VS is or is not more or less complex or easier that MTG, really don’t think anyone is going to prove this.

Whether or not the game engine or mechanics is harder or more complex may not really be the issue. It may be as simple as many people don't like the way the mechanics play.

I have played many CCG's including MTG and WOW. I personally don't like games that use "lands" to pay for doing things in the game. It may be a flaw in my brain or a stylic thing but it drives me mad. On the other hand I love the resource based system for paying for or allowing things to be done in VS. My son loves the Lands thing in MTG and the way WOW. He also likes VS. He'd rather play WOW, but there is no opportunity for him so he plays VS with me.

Sometimes I think it boils down to the way people are wired, their taste in methods and flavor a game offers. I personally believe VS is the best game. I have many friends that disagree and they play something else. Complexity is a real fact in VS. But there are other games that complexity is very much present. My other son would not be caught dead playing a CCG...he lives for chess. Having played a lot of chess at a high level...well it is complex. It’s just a matter of how he is wired to appreciate certain styles and flavor of games. He also loves mindless first person shooters (I may be opinionated on this point…I not a fan of shooters.)

Now how this all adds up for VS, I am not sure. I am sure it is not the only factor as to why VS seems to appeal to a smaller group at the time.

These are my two cents. Thanks for listening or if nothing else maybe a few flames.

Have a nice day.

Perhaps, but many of the best decks in the format have strayed from normal curve structures. Also, this is pertaining to deck building, not actually playing the deck.

Again, the complexity is front loaded. It's about building the right deck. It's strategy. However, you have made no mention of in game tactics. If all the complexity of magic is in the pre-battle, deck building and deck selection ... then it's about bringing the right deck to he event and piloting it adequately, and mostly it comes down to luck in drawing and in match ups.

I would say that rewarding in game play more than pregame play (especially since someone else could have built the deck for you) is probably a step up.

The lack of a solution does not prove something to be unsolvable ...

The longer answer is that you've made up your mind, and it's very unlikely someone is going to give an answer that is compelling enough to convince you. Especially since you've prioritized the parts of Magic where it is more complex. If those "count more" than Magic is going to "win", but that is based on your criteria.

Is it an amount that is comparable to Vs.? Are the number of steps and phases comparable? If either of those are "no", then his point was not false.

Many decks in Vs. are built with themes in mind, instead of teams. Themes are not exclusive to teams, BUT teams often share the same theme. Similarly, colors often share certain themes. While there will be cards of other colors that are involved in say ... card draw, but blue is the primary color of that type.

There may be more themes, but there are still only so many colors. If your deck wants to use themes X, Y and Z, they may be able to run it with only one color. In Vs., you can make similar options, but most teams have only a few themes, and not all of them are completely filled out. In some cases, if you want to really focus on a theme, you have to go with multiple teams, which means team-ups, and making sure the search cards apply, etc.

Consistency gives more options. More options, especially in terms of characters like alfred/boris or toolbox type character search, can lead to added complexity, not just in deck building, but also in terms of in game tactics. When you have to worry about 1 game instead of 2 out of 3, no sideboard, and having to factor in the clock, in game decisions are more important.

Also, you gave the reason for magic being more complex (when talking about 5 colors vs. tons of teams) is that you have lots of options. Search gives you lots of options, whereas without lots of search, you have to make a lot of decisions that are sort of "automatic" to increase consistency (i.e. you have to include X characters at drop Y to make sure you regularly hit it by the time ... or you need to include Z lands to make sure you don't have too much or too little). Similarly, freeing Vs. from mana screw by making you be able to use any resource you want gives players more options. Because plot twists and locations use threshold instead of spending the same resources you use for characters, your opponent can only rely on what cards you have in hand/face down for what you are able to do, while in Magic, you may get a better idea of knowing what your opponent can do based on his remaining mana available

My point is, you say that one of his points is wrong before more options in each color makes Magic more complex, but then you say that search makes things easier, even though it opens up more options which means more possible decisions i.e. more complexity. Either more options means more complexity, or it doesn't, it can't be both.

EDIT: Also, as chess has been mentioned many times ... the "pre-battle" complexity of chess is which side to go first ... and maybe the opening game ... but most of the complexity has to do with what happens during the game.