Favorite Alternative to Magic: The Gathering?

[Zuras]

What other games out there do you guys enjoy playing that fill the same niche as Magic?

Personally, I enjoy the game, but eventually burned out on it, and only play the occasional Commander format game these days.

My main alternatives have been The Lord of the Rings LCG, which is great for solo play, and Dominion, which I can actually get my Euro-game loving friends to play.

I’ve tried several other games, including Epic, Star Realms, Mage Wars and Ascension, but none of them match Dominion it LotR for the combination of depth and availability of actual opponents.

Are the other dueling games out there like Ashes or Sorcerer worth a shot? What about the fighting games out there like Exceed or Yomi? Do deck builders like Dominion satisfy your cravings for a combo-tastic game, or is pre game deck building a core part of the fun for you?

[Eldan]

What is that niche for you, exactly? Because I'd call Lord of the Rings LCG a very different game from MtG, given that it's scenario based and cooperative. If scenario-based and competitive deck building is allowed, Arkham Horror the card game is unbeaten for me. Probably the best game I've ever played on the tabletop. It takes Lord of the Rings and just makes about everything about it better as far as I'm concerned.

For competitive deckbuilding, Netrunner. Unlike Magic, it is inherently assymetric, but that only makes it more interesting, as far as I'm concerned. Out of print now, though.

(Edit: and if anyone wants to get into Arkham Horror the LCG, it should be the perfect time towards the end of this year. They just thoroughly revamped their production model and sometime by this autumn, will release a revised core set and they are going to be releasing entire story campaigns in one box with all necessary materials and bound campaign guides, instead of separate blister packs for every scenario that are annoying to hunt down. Plus they released pretty competent solid starter decks last year.)

[Silfir]

Slay the Spire times a million. But I was always a fan of Sealed or Booster draft, not so much Constructed formats. There's plenty of room for combotastic fun in Slay the Spire, but you have to adapt to the cards you're offered, and the relics you find. Which means you can't do the same thing with your deck in every run, so that just makes it more interesting.

For group play on a table, especially involving your Euro-loving friends, I heartily recommend Wingspan. There's a PC version of it, too. If you enjoy quietly building your value engine without outside interference, it's perfect. If you're more the Blue or Black "no you don't" or "please discard your entire hand" type, it's not quite your thing, since there is no form of hostile interaction. The difficulty level is modest, which means you can play it with normal people, like your mom, rather than Magic players. A definite upside.

I really enjoyed Yomi when I played it online for a while (during an Alpha, when it was free), but have never played the physical version. Come to think of it, why don't I own it yet? I have to look into that.

[Zuras]

What is that niche for you, exactly? Because I'd call Lord of the Rings LCG a very different game from MtG, given that it's scenario based and cooperative. If scenario-based and competitive deck building is allowed, Arkham Horror the card game is unbeaten for me. Probably the best game I've ever played on the tabletop. It takes Lord of the Rings and just makes about everything about it better as far as I'm concerned.

For competitive deckbuilding, Netrunner. Unlike Magic, it is inherently assymetric, but that only makes it more interesting, as far as I'm concerned. Out of print now, though.

(Edit: and if anyone wants to get into Arkham Horror the LCG, it should be the perfect time towards the end of this year. They just thoroughly revamped their production model and sometime by this autumn, will release a revised core set and they are going to be releasing entire story campaigns in one box with all necessary materials and bound campaign guides, instead of separate blister packs for every scenario that are annoying to hunt down. Plus they released pretty competent solid starter decks last year.)

As far as game niche goes, LotR LCG basically covers the deck-building as puzzle side for me, without the need to keep up with the publishers rate of output. I liked Arkham Horror too, but felt it was less combo-centric and more story driven, not really the same niche in terms of being a substitute. In Magic archetype terms LotR speaks to my inner Johnny more.

I like Netrunner, but it seemed problematic in terms of finding a good opponent. When each game is fairly long and the skill component is fairly high, it’s challenging to find an opponent at the same skill level. You’re either getting absolutely crushed, crushing them, or annoyed because you’re winning but you *know* it’s because they’re holding back. It requires about the same level of mental investment to achieve proficiency as Magic, which is a real drawback to me compared to something simpler like Star Realms.

[Spore]

I liked TES Legends for a while but I have HEARD they dropped support?

Other than that LoR is kinda fire, but the recent power creep in champions (particularly the dive-mechanic) is putting me off. I did have a Demacia MR, the typical Shadow Isles Elise Aggro, but as with most CCGs, I cannot get into control feasibly as a budget player.

Finally, I WOULD have played Hearthstone's latest expansion but I cannot in good conscience give that company any more attention (they don't get money from me anyhow).

[Psyren]

Hearthstone is my go-to but I can't blame anyone for giving Blizzard a wide berth at present.

If you want the fun of deckbuilding without the expense, try a PvE video game deckbuilder like Hand of Fate (2) or Slay The Spire.

[enderlord99]

If you want the fun of deckbuilding without the expense, try a PvE video game deckbuilder like Hand of Fate (2) or Slay The Spire.

Fair warning: the Hand of Fate games are... different. They do not play like Magic, they do not play like Slay the Spire, they play only like themselves. You do build/ custom decks of cards, but that's about where the similarities end.

They're still really good games, but you shouldn't go into them expecting anything specific, and especially not expecting "this will be like Magic"

[Rydiro]

Star Trek 2nd Edition and LotR TCG (Fellowship Block) by Decipher.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I would second PvE deckbuilder Roguelites such as Slay the Spire, Monster Train, and others in that genre.

[Man_Over_Game]

What other games out there do you guys enjoy playing that fill the same niche as Magic?

I'm making one, called The Unholy War.

I basically wanted to make a game that fixed all of the things I hated about Magic: The Gathering while still playing similarly to the source.

So far, it plays very differently than anything I've played before, but it's incredibly interactive and engaging for what's essentially a board-state combat game. Think Star Realms with MTG Conspiracy Draft-style of interactivity and gameplay, and that's probably the best example I could come up with without going on a massive tangent.

The core combat mechanics are complete and are still a lot of fun even without the extra frills that will be added. The features I'm adding next are items the players can equip onto themselves to turn into combatants, as well as spells that have a trigger and an effect that modify combat to make things more-and-less predictable.

Being able to watch people having fun with my game has been the most amazing experience. Can't wait until everything else is finished and I get to show it off!

[LansXero]

Force of Will is an anime-art Magic sort of clone. Alice block sets and decks were hella fun to play, game has lost direction lately.

[Zuras]

I'm making one, called The Unholy War.

I basically wanted to make a game that fixed all of the things I hated about Magic: The Gathering while still playing similarly to the source.

So far, it plays very differently than anything I've played before, but it's incredibly interactive and engaging for what's essentially a board-state combat game. Think Star Realms with MTG Conspiracy Draft-style of interactivity and gameplay, and that's probably the best example I could come up with without going on a massive tangent.

The core combat mechanics are complete and are still a lot of fun even without the extra frills that will be added. The features I'm adding next are items the players can equip onto themselves to turn into combatants, as well as spells that have a trigger and an effect that modify combat to make things more-and-less predictable.

Being able to watch people having fun with my game has been the most amazing experience. Can't wait until everything else is finished and I get to show it off!

What exactly did you end up hating about Magic? I got burned out from the cost, both in money and time, but I never stopped liking the game itself.

[PhantomFox]

I've seen good stuff about Legends of Runeterra

[Man_Over_Game]

What exactly did you end up hating about Magic? I got burned out from the cost, both in money and time, but I never stopped liking the game itself.

The game rewards denial as a powerful mechanics constantly, with the best abilities generally being things that prevent your opponents from interacting with you. Things like Hexproof, unblockable/flying with attack riders, counters, bouncing to prevent effects, sacrificing to counter destruction, etc. become more prevalent the better you get at the game.

But these things remove options for your opponents. So what ends up happening is that as you get better, your opponents play less of a game. This can create a fun balance if your opponent is on equal footing with you, but it will mean that they don't get to play the game if you're better.

Additionally, you become stronger with more and more of a board state, stabilizing your board state even further. With cards like Privileged Position, you can almost lock in your state to further prevent interaction against your cards.

Given, they've realized a lot of these mistakes, which is why we've seen things like Fear or Intimidate be phased out in favor of effects like Menace, but it's still a game that rewards removing interaction from the game. You don't see effects like Monarchy be relevant in much mid-high tier play, because they're fair.

MTG is a game that rewards you for not being fair. So the better you get at it, the less game there is to play. Sure, that adds to the deckbuilding strategy, but that's basically trading strategic value from the decisions you make with an opponent to the decisions you make by yourself, essentially rewarding solitaire.

MTG also isn't very adaptive. You can't attack a specific creature without a special rule saying you can. Removing value from a player's board state isn't something that's written in the core rules, it's all from card-based exceptions. So now you're putting a card in your deck that has to be relevant for a future situation, spending the resources to draw that card, spending the mana to draw that card, just to choose to interact with your opponent's power curve.

That's the standard when it comes to interacting with your opponent: You need permission first. That just seems kinda stupid to me. Heck, it's not even uncommon for a round of MTG to just be a bunch of nerds playing Solitaire, trying to reach a high score first. For a multiplayer game, MTG sucks at being multiplayer a lot of the time.



I tried to design my game to counter every single one of those decisions. Every decision you make is made in-game with your opponent changing his decisions based off of your own. Your board state becomes more fragile the larger it is. Power comes with risk. Strategy requires foresight in-game, not based on prior decisions that happened before you started fighting your opponent. Counter effects require prior investment but pay off when you planned well. Combat is strategic yet somewhat unpredictable (so you may have to adapt on the fly). You can pick your targets to attack, but your opponent has facedown cards that can interfere with your attempts to dismantle his board state, and those facedown cards have to have their investments determined earlier in the round (so you have to predict how much you need or what's going to happen before it happens if you want to respond to it).

So I took every trend I hated in MTG and made new ones that added more fun for the players.

Changing my strategy around my opponent, and vice-versa, is my favorite part in MTG. It's a shame mechanics that do so aren't the standard. But that doesn't make a good business model for a trading card game.

Nobody would pay for a powerful card if it came with balanced side effects, which is why mine is a deckbuilder (like Star Realms or Ascension).


I will say that the Stack mechanic is something magical about MTG, and is a Wonder in the game design world. The sad part about that is that card draw is too expensive, relevant activated effects are too niche, and denial too strong for the Stack to be too relevant. You could have these awesome mage battles as two players essentially play tennis back and forth within the stack as they both risk investment to pull off these amazing effects. But instead, we either get short stacks that end quickly due to a counter spell (that are only really relevant in 1/5th of the game's color identities), or someone just plasters a universal solution with Hexproof, Shroud, or Bounce that basically nullifies anything interesting that could have happened from a stack chain.

Once again, though, I see this being solved through things like Ward or single-ability counter effects, so maybe they're finally going in a better direction after all of these years.

[LansXero]

The game rewards denial as a powerful mechanics constantly, with the best abilities generally being things that prevent your opponents from interacting with you. Things like Hexproof, unblockable/flying with attack riders, counters, bouncing to prevent effects, sacrificing to counter destruction, etc. become more prevalent the better you get at the game.

I've reached mythic using Selesnya Magecraft for Standard 2020. My game plan is plop down things, hit with things. So no, you're pretty much wrong.

You don't see effects like Monarchy be relevant in much mid-high tier play, because they're fair.

Effects aren't fair or unfair. Its individual cards that make or break them. Also, a Multiplayer mechanic not doing a lot in 1 vs 1 is pretty much normal.

MTG is a game that rewards you for not being fair.

Thats every game ever. Why trade punches when you can dodge? Why run only slightly faster than the other guy when you can leave them in the dust?

Heck, it's not even uncommon for a round of MTG to just be a bunch of nerds playing Solitaire, trying to reach a high score first. For a multiplayer game, it sucks at being multiplayer a lot of the time.

Thats a matter of playgroup. But also rose tinted glasses. You want people to make bad / suboptimal choices 'for fun'. Trading defensively and falling for combat tricks, removing things and losing card advantage, etc. Your preferences fly against what defines the genre. So good luck finding a game that fits them, but most magic clones wont.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thats every game ever. Why trade punches when you can dodge? Why run only slightly faster than the other guy when you can leave them in the dust?

It's not the player's fault for taking advantage of those things, it's the game's fault for making non-interactive abilities too effective.

Hexproof is strictly better than Ward, yet Ward is a better multiplayer mechanic since it adds more strategy for BOTH players. The enemy's mana state is now constantly relevant for both players, as opposed to Hexproof's Set It And Forget It mentality both players adopt that don't add more "game".***

It's not that Denial is a bad mechanic, but STRICT Denial is. Simply making a removal/counter effect less efficient rather than a strict Yes/No adds so much dynamic interaction in the game in so many ways. I'm having a lot more fun just by seeing these kinds of effects gain traction and having to play around them, whereas Hexproof is NEVER fun to play with on either side (unless you just care about winning and not the gameplay, I guess).

Because of the fact that you can't interact with your opponents' board states without an exception strictly saying you can, I'd say that strict denial (or the lack of interaction) is something built into the very foundation of MTG. If you're going to add interaction to MTG, it has to cost you instead of it being an inherent part of the gameplay.

Put another way, MTG is only as interactive as its players choose to make it.

The transition from Hard Denial (Hexproof) to Soft Denial (Ward) does a lot to enhance the game, but that doesn't address what I'd consider a fault in the foundation.

The most interactive portion of the game is the Stack, and even that is a pretty niche mechanic to interact with except by 1 of the game's 5 color identities. It's a very small chance that a deck that interacts with the stack will face another that's equally as competent, so the Stack often ends up being relevant for maybe 1 player at the table (instead of the tug-of-war it can be).

I don't think that MTG isn't enjoyable, it's just...not the kind of multiplayer experience I want it to be. At least, not without a lot of work.

As of just a week ago, I finally have a decent MTG deck that makes the gameplay exactly how I want it to feel: A Breena Commander deck where I play as a merchant of death at the table. It has been the most fun I've had playing Magic in 10 years, and it kicks ass.

With that deck, and Conspiracy drafts, its one of the few times I remember actually having a lot of fun playing MTG.

So good luck finding a game that fits them, but most magic clones wont.

Spoiler: ***Yup, that's why I'm making my own!

Show

Adding more "Game" was an important design goal. I hated the fact that in MTG, as your board state grew, fewer and fewer attacks were being made, and the fewer options there were for Art/Enc removal due to passive protections, replacements or mana for counters.

So what ends up happening in MTG is that you build up these big armies, this massive amount of tension and...the game stalls. At the worst possible moment, cruising 70 down a freeway, you hit smack dab into Stop-And-Go traffic. You each inch a little bit at a time until one of you breaks away and is able to leave the other in the dust.

Maybe some folks like that kind of slow build of tension, but it wasn't my schtick. So I wanted to make it so that my game accelerates in intensity and action, while also making individual decisions matter greatly.

For the accelerating aspect, I made it so that you start with 5 Power and you get more when you are Hit. 10 is the limit, after that you dead. Each Power causes players to draw and play more cards , beef up their units with bigger dice rolls and more actions, with both players being more cautious despite each opponent being 1-2 hits from death.

For the board state = immortality problem, that solved by assigning your Power/dice to your cards, minimum of 1 per card. Dice represent how many Actions it can take, as well as improving its combat rolls. The mechanical balance of this game is punishing for empowering 1 card with all of your dice, as well as when you're flooding your board with a 1-Power army, so each individual card and die actually becomes a dozen tiny decisions.



The core rules playtesting surpassed my expectations, it's a solid strategy game even just with basic creatures (like the equivalent of 2/4 or 4/1 creatures with no powers).

Now I'm working on Might Cards (Equipment the player can equip to fight like a monster, relevant because resources on monsters are returned to the player when they attack or die, which can be recycled in the same round through Might cards), and Magic Cards (essentially trigger-based trap cards that have a specific niche and can be a powerful solution to a predicted problem).

After making a last core-mechanical tweak, there haven't even been any noticeable imbalances, since most value from a trade is based off of each players' decisions rather than the cards themselves, although that might change once I add in the deckbuilding mechanics.

It is turning out a lot better than I expected it to, I thought it'd be a much bigger hassle to get working correctly. I like to think that years of being disappointed in MTG has finally paid off in the ultimate revenge fantasy.

[Zuras]

MoG, the real problem with denial in Magic is that it’s so cheap relative to what it’s killing. A 6/6 creature dies to a “Destroy Target Creature” effect just as easily as a 2/2, barring some sort of defenses, and Wrath of God style complete table wipes are a common occurrence in constructed play.

Most more recent dueling games involving summoning dudes to fight for you are much more limited in their removal options. In Mage Wars, for example, you generally can only kill creatures by dealing damage, so expensive creatures are generally harder to kill, unlike Magic. The drawback is that a typical MW game is 90 minutes long.

[Man_Over_Game]

MoG, the real problem with denial in Magic is that it’s so cheap relative to what it’s killing. A 6/6 creature dies to a “Destroy Target Creature” effect just as easily as a 2/2, barring some sort of defenses, and Wrath of God style complete table wipes are a common occurrence in constructed play.

Most more recent dueling games involving summoning dudes to fight for you are much more limited in their removal options. In Mage Wars, for example, you generally can only kill creatures by dealing damage, so expensive creatures are generally harder to kill, unlike Magic. The drawback is that a typical MW game is 90 minutes long.

I think that's a big one, the biggest one being that there just aren't enough ingrained mechanics that allow you to deal with problems.

It's not like the game inherently has a way for you to deal with a 6/6 with a bunch of random resources. You need relevant resources. Your deck needs to give you permission to deal with it, which means that the game is only interactive when your deck can interact with their deck, and that can come down to RNG.

Whether or not I can interact with my opponent, or they can interact with me, shouldn't come down to a coin toss or anything as specific as "what cards I put in my deck". Regardless of what I put in my deck, I should have a way to deal with a problem regardless of how inefficient it might be in that specific moment.
MTG creates interactivity by printing cards that do so, I think a better game wouldn't need to.

For example, having core mechanics for creatures attacking creatures, creatures attacking artifacts and enchantments, and for a defending player to have ways to deal with both. Those things are not natural for MTG, and would require changing to a new chassis entirely, despite adding a lot of missing interactivity to the game.

Not having those interactions means that you're now relying on cards to solve those problems. And since Card A needs to be solved with Card B instead of a new strategy, you now have an excellent business model for selling trading cards. Strategizing around this problem comes from how you build your deck, not how you play it, and so the player with the most cards has the most strategies to work with.

I don't blame them for being profit-oriented, I'm just saying it has consequences on how players are allowed to play the game. We've all been in a game where it's Turn 3 and nothing you do or can do will matter, and that's not fun for half the players in that game. A good game is fun even when you're losing, MTG is not that.