Hearthstone vs. Magic: The Gathering Arena

Play Mode Discussion
10/27/2018 05:33 AMPosted by WarrenBleezy
<span class="truncated">...</span>

"Heartstone has more depth because hero powers"? Really? That's your stance? Hero power trumps enchantments, hard removal, instants, planeswalkers and creature activated abilities?

It's ok to like one game more than anouther but when you refuse to accept any other design has its own set of strengths then you just become a blatant fanboy.


No, my stance was:

"Hearthstone has more tactical depth, because you get to make more meaningful decisions"

your response is:

"Magic has more tactical depth, because the card type "enchantment" exists"

Wtf? Are you stupid? What do the amount of different card types have to do with what I've been saying?

The only reason why you don't understand what I'm saying, is because you probably just play whatever random !@#$ comes into your head, without thinking about it. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you are stuck at dumpster ranks in both games.


Not sure why you're getting so aggressive about this. My stance is that you have more options available in magic as there's more card types, more opportunities to interact with cards, due to turn phases, acting in your opponents turns, making timing and bluffing more important than it is in hearthstone. You keep talking about "meaningful choices" but that's completely subjective.

Whats not subjective is that Magic has more choices available, and more mechanics - HS chose to forgoe a lot of this to streamline play and make it easier to play in a digital format. That isn't a bad thing, it's a perfectly valid design choice. But you refuse to accept that any other design choice also has strengths that HS cant replicate.

If you can't figure out why having different card types with different effects in different situations adds complexity to a game, then I can't really help you.

Anywhere you look and anyone you speak to will generally agree Magic is the deeper of the two, and Hearthstone is the more accessible. You are very much the minority on your opinion, so acting like your opinion is somehow fact is beyond arrogant.
IN Magic the Gathering you wont be "given" the game like Hearthstone does with discover and take cards from your opponents mechanism.

Was up agains thee old Deathrattle Quest Priest.

Got em beat but he/she steals cold blood. Well there ya go now you can clear the board before you couldnt.

Could have been give your weapon poison or something useless but no cold blood

Got em beat a second time - has to get past a 1/5 taunt this time. Steals...another cold blood. Well thats just so convenient isnt it?

How can drop a 2/6 tort i have to get past so delayed a round.

Now just in time for Psychic Scream and the pattern is heavily flowing in their direction and yep now at turn 10 drop my 2 cost deahtrattle and now my 8 cost I get 40 health. Thanks for the winning me the game pattern AI and "I only steal the most useful cards" mechanism.

Bad luck RNG? No that was the game before my Odd Rogue vs Version C of a Heal Zoo. He/She getting all the cards to stay in, Leroy for me any day now and I win. Nope. Drags out long enough where he/she uses heal power to get a second Soulfire with 2 health left so now they can go face and win vs lose next round.

MTG uses strategy vs RNG luck and a AI Reliable dealing system you can bank on for your wins.
I'm not sure I'm on board with some of what's being said.

Complexity and variety are different things. I am fully on board with how magic is a far more complex deck building game. Lands, multicolored decks...the doors are wider there.

In play? Some things like blockers aren't more complex just different. Theres an equal amount of choice, in magic for the defender and HS for the attacker.

Card types? Non factor. The effects are what drive choice not the type by itself.

Instants...well it adds a layer to timing. Slight increase.

But....activated effects....

That's a whole fat sack of complexity. The stack? Even more. Though hearthstone also has a stack..seen when multiple effects occur at once. Its far less frequent so...slight advantage there.

Magic is more complex in small ways during play. Where its complexity actually shows up is in deck construction.
...

No, my stance was:

"Hearthstone has more tactical depth, because you get to make more meaningful decisions"

your response is:

"Magic has more tactical depth, because the card type "enchantment" exists"

Wtf? Are you stupid? What do the amount of different card types have to do with what I've been saying?

The only reason why you don't understand what I'm saying, is because you probably just play whatever random !@#$ comes into your head, without thinking about it. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you are stuck at dumpster ranks in both games.


Not sure why you're getting so aggressive about this. My stance is that you have more options available in magic as there's more card types, more opportunities to interact with cards, due to turn phases, acting in your opponents turns, making timing and bluffing more important than it is in hearthstone. You keep talking about "meaningful choices" but that's completely subjective.

Whats not subjective is that Magic has more choices available, and more mechanics - HS chose to forgoe a lot of this to streamline play and make it easier to play in a digital format. That isn't a bad thing, it's a perfectly valid design choice. But you refuse to accept that any other design choice also has strengths that HS cant replicate.

If you can't figure out why having different card types with different effects in different situations adds complexity to a game, then I can't really help you.

Anywhere you look and anyone you speak to will generally agree Magic is the deeper of the two, and Hearthstone is the more accessible. You are very much the minority on your opinion, so acting like your opinion is somehow fact is beyond arrogant.


Most people have no clue.

You obviously can't help me, because you have a very basic understanding of "tactical depth".

That's why I would beat you at both games :)
10/27/2018 09:21 AMPosted by WarrenBleezy
...

Not sure why you're getting so aggressive about this. My stance is that you have more options available in magic as there's more card types, more opportunities to interact with cards, due to turn phases, acting in your opponents turns, making timing and bluffing more important than it is in hearthstone. You keep talking about "meaningful choices" but that's completely subjective.

Whats not subjective is that Magic has more choices available, and more mechanics - HS chose to forgoe a lot of this to streamline play and make it easier to play in a digital format. That isn't a bad thing, it's a perfectly valid design choice. But you refuse to accept that any other design choice also has strengths that HS cant replicate.

If you can't figure out why having different card types with different effects in different situations adds complexity to a game, then I can't really help you.

Anywhere you look and anyone you speak to will generally agree Magic is the deeper of the two, and Hearthstone is the more accessible. You are very much the minority on your opinion, so acting like your opinion is somehow fact is beyond arrogant.


Most people have no clue.

You obviously can't help me, because you have a very basic understanding of "tactical depth".

That's why I would beat you at both games :)


If you're just gonna keep trying to go for insults instead of keeping on topic then there's not much point in this debate continuing.

I'll continue to enjoy both games while recognising their strengths and flaws, and you can keep closing your eyes and shoving your fingers in your ears and lash out whenever anyone tries to offer objective comparisons, because that's normal, rational adult behaviour apparently.
10/27/2018 06:31 AMPosted by Slimjim
MTG uses strategy vs RNG luck and a AI Reliable dealing system you can bank on for your wins.


This type of comment shows your clear bias towards Magic. RNG happens in every CCG and I would argue that Magic has more RNG with the land system (getting to turn 5? then praying to have enough 5 land cards with the correct color to play your cards on curve).

The reason that mechanics like Discover was not allowed in Magic is not because Magic's devs have a better "insight", it's just that they can't implement those mechanic on physical cards. Also discover effects forces player to have to think more about statistical outcomes (what is the chance that I got a taunt from this discover to save myself?) than Magic players. This is another level of depth that does not exist in Magic.

HS set the standard of what a CCG should be in modern age, it learnt the best mechanics from Magic and create features that Magic doesn't have. So HS is without a doubt better and more complex, but it's not fair to compare between the two games because Magic cannot fix itself because of compatible issues.
...

Most people have no clue.

You obviously can't help me, because you have a very basic understanding of "tactical depth".

That's why I would beat you at both games :)


If you're just gonna keep trying to go for insults instead of keeping on topic then there's not much point in this debate continuing.

I'll continue to enjoy both games while recognising their strengths and flaws, and you can keep closing your eyes and shoving your fingers in your ears and lash out whenever anyone tries to offer objective comparisons, because that's normal, rational adult behaviour apparently.


You called me a fanboy and claimed I am just saying things because I hate Magic... I responded by saying that you say what you are saying, because you have no experience playing either game at a competitive level.

The thing is I love Magic. I've been playing it for 20 years and I would not even say that Hearthstone has more tactical depth than Magic. What I am saying is that Hearthstone has more tactical depth than the standard format in MTG.

Magic has a steeper learning curve, but that does not mean it has more tactical depth... and that is what you don't get...
<span class="truncated">...</span>

If you're just gonna keep trying to go for insults instead of keeping on topic then there's not much point in this debate continuing.

I'll continue to enjoy both games while recognising their strengths and flaws, and you can keep closing your eyes and shoving your fingers in your ears and lash out whenever anyone tries to offer objective comparisons, because that's normal, rational adult behaviour apparently.


You called me a fanboy and claimed I am just saying things because I hate Magic... I responded by saying that you say what you are saying, because you have no experience playing either game at a competitive level.

The thing is I love Magic. I've been playing it for 20 years and I would not even say that Hearthstone has more tactical depth than Magic. What I am saying is that Hearthstone has more tactical depth than the standard format in MTG.

Magic has a steeper learning curve, but that does not mean it has more tactical depth... and that is what you don't get...


I've tried being measured in my responses, and to be as kind to you as I can, but honestly I'd be surprised if you were 20 years old, never mind having played magic for 20 years...

You obviously have a unique view on these games, and your logic in interesting. I'm happy to know you enjoy card games - It obviously plays a big part in your life, even if you don't see it the same way most people do.

I run a group for some of the kids at my local school to get them into board / card games, and positive ways to express themselves. All this aside, genuinely If it's something you're interested in, PM me.
Well, that last post that I spent ages typing and gave a great deal of critical thought vanished into thin air and I was foolish enough not to copy it before hitting "add reply" so here's the super truncated version:

They're both great games. I haven't really been able to get into any other digital CCGs, but I've played MtG off and on since 1994 so I already know I love it. MtG Arena has a great interface that blows away all of the previous attempts at digital MtG.

I'll continue to play both, though I'm enjoying MtG Arena more right now. A big part of that is the draft modes - I do enjoy them a lot more than HS's arena mode. I personally feel like I have more control over the quality of my deck and how well I do than in HS, but that's not a scientific analysis - just my personal "feels".

I highly doubt either one kills the other. I imagine most people who care about such things will end up playing both, and MtG Arena may attract an audience that HS didn't appeal to. I don't see it wholesale stealing HS's player base though. I'll be playing both personally.
10/27/2018 04:46 PMPosted by Wick
...

You called me a fanboy and claimed I am just saying things because I hate Magic... I responded by saying that you say what you are saying, because you have no experience playing either game at a competitive level.

The thing is I love Magic. I've been playing it for 20 years and I would not even say that Hearthstone has more tactical depth than Magic. What I am saying is that Hearthstone has more tactical depth than the standard format in MTG.

Magic has a steeper learning curve, but that does not mean it has more tactical depth... and that is what you don't get...


I've tried being measured in my responses, and to be as kind to you as I can, but honestly I'd be surprised if you were 20 years old, never mind having played magic for 20 years...

You obviously have a unique view on these games, and your logic in interesting. I'm happy to know you enjoy card games - It obviously plays a big part in your life, even if you don't see it the same way most people do.

I run a group for some of the kids at my local school to get them into board / card games, and positive ways to express themselves. All this aside, genuinely If it's something you're interested in, PM me.


So, you teach them lessons like:

"If someone has a different opinion from yours, just ignore their arguments and call them fanboys"

or

"If you don't understand the argument someone is making, don't ask what he meant by that... just pretend he made a different argument"

I still don't believe you understood the point I was trying to make at all.
So here, let me try to explain one last time.

You claimed saying Hearthstone has more tactical depth than MTG is like saying Checkers has more than Chess.
But it's not. It's like saying Go has more tactical depth than Chess.

Chess has more different Pieces and relatively complex rules, but Go offers more alternatives to consider per move. That's why I would argue Go has more tactical depth. You don't have to agree with that, but pretending it's a completely nonsensical argument that only a biased fanboy who hates Chess could make is silly.

The same is true with Hearthstone and MTG. Yes, MTG has more different cardtypes and complex rules, but Hearthstone also offers more alternatives to consider per move. That's what gives it more tactical depth.
10/28/2018 04:50 AMPosted by WarrenBleezy
Hearthstone also offers more alternatives to consider per move. That's what gives it more tactical depth.


I just saw this skimming up quickly and I don't even need to read anything else in your post to tell you you're wrong and to lay off the drugs.
I played MTG for several years. The complex learning curve and enormous expense of keeping up with new card sets led me to Hearthstone when it debuted. I've always considered Hearthstone to be "MTG lite", although the current MTG Arena is a vast improvement over the old on-line version. For those of us who just don't have the time to remain competitive in MTG, Hearthstone is a reasonable alternative.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum