Author's note - I'm still proofreading for errors and redundancies since this is a long opinion post covering several points (and no draft option). I'm aware of the controversial point this tries to drive, so please feel free to point out missed observations or logic gaps. I could've easily expanded this further, so I'm trying to condense the important points as much as possible. And I am more than glad to argue these points in the comments.
I'm mostly writing this article due to some of the "popular" opinions I hear regarding Hearthstone vs Magic in terms of skill/luck (I am referring to Standard Format in MTG). I'm a huge fan of both games and have played numerous online tournaments of MTG for several years in the past, but came to many of these observations well before Hearthstone. Bare with me...but controversially, I actually feel Hearthstone requires much more player skill and less luck factors in the actual play of the game and that MTG has much more depth in terms of meta analysis and deck construction. I'm aware this creates a kneejerk reaction to a lot of players who instantly think of Magic's long history and Hearthstone's many RNG cards...but allow me to explain.
Valid Play Options
I'm going to start with the biggest argument first (mainly to avoid the "stop-read 'wtf are you talking about?' " prattling over the small stuff). In a game of MTG there are only so many plays with the nature of the cards and top deck draws, while Hearthstone offers many mixes of plays due to the more general role of cards, Hero Power, and how resources are handled.
Resources Thin Options - MTG uses a system of land to pay for spells. Drawing lands means you are not drawing options, so over time, you draw less options with each land pull. You then are required to pull enough lands and of the right variety to enable those options as well. This issue alone often leads to only a few options actually being available per turn and making top deck very crucial the longer the game continues. Too many/few lands at the wrong point can completely invalidate all plays and make games unwinnable to no fault of the player or deck design.
Hearthstone uses a mana per turn system, freeing up your entire deck to almost always be playable options. Every draw is a new thing you can do. Overtime players will maintain equal numbers of options in hand if they are trading equally. You also don't have to fear mana color limitations that can lead to a classic case of "if only this was a an island and not a swamp". When you draw a card, you know you'll get a chance to play it in time. In MTG you must rely on top deck to give you the proper mix of resources and options to make something happen.
The Hero Power - Along with drawing nothing but options, Hearthstone gives each player a Hero Power for 2 mana. This is a free option that adds tons of depth. You can use it to maintain cards in hand rather than expend all resources to over extend from your hand. Even when top decking, you always have this option.
Card Roles - MTG boasts huge variety of card types, which leads to a double edge sword on this argument. On one hand, having all these options means players have to account for many things to come at them. On the flip side, all these types of cards tend to cater to a vary specific purposes. Key examples are things like type removal, land, counters, conditional cards, etc... Some cards are only valid plays during certain moments and can fill your hand with options that aren't actually options. Your opponent is doing the same as well, possibly drawing big threats while you are drawing the wrong removal and early utility cards, leaving you with no play. This all makes you dependent on drawing many types of cards at the right moments, leaving you at the mercy of top decking the right mix.
In Hearthstone the simple nature of the cards (and two other mechanics we'll point out later) actually makes it so their roles are less defined and can be used in more ways than MTG offers. Almost all cards will have a way of interacting with something on the board. Creatures act as removal, potential defensive obstacles, and threats all in one. Removal in hand often has a use at any given moment since the only permanent types are creatures and weapons, many come with legs, or are usable as damage to the hero. The take away here is a sense of "what do I use this for?" versus "When do I use this...if I can". You rarely have no use for a card in hand and many cards can be used in many different ways. The potential of the card falls in the creativity of use.
Top Deck Consistency - MTG normally supports a 60 card deck, with about to 18-24 lands and 4 copies of non-basic land cards max. You get nice control of weighting the deck, but you also need a lot of 'fixer' utility cards to improve consistency. Dual lands, deck thinners, tutors, draw engines, etc... These lead to a lot of skill in deck design to solve problems, but in actual play the reality is that your deck is thinned of options to make room for more non-options just to play your options. It also can lead to unfortunate tempo loss simply be being drawn at the wrong time. Tap lands are a good case of essential fixers that can arrive at the wrong time.
In Hearthstone you run 30 cards, 2 copies max besides legends. You're also consistently drawing options since you are not being bogged down by resources and fixers, so your odds of drawing game impacting cards goes up drastically. More options drawn equals more decisions and player influence.
Multiple Solutions to threats - Going back to card roles, I mentioned how cards have more flexibility in Hearthstone. The mechanics of targeting creatures and permanent damage give you more ways to remove cards. An 8/8 can be mobbed by many small threats over time, brought in range of removal, you can play another fatty, buff a guy to trade, you can use hard removal like Hex, or tie it up with taunters, bounces, and freezes. You never see a card and realize you must draw your only answer no matter what point in the game it is.
MTG's many card types and case specific answers can often leave you with no option till your draw it. An unopposed enchantment or creature with protective properties can literally win the entire game just for being on the field. You may have tons of answers to many scenarios, but some cards require very specific ones and not having them immediately can be the whole game. MTG can fall into a "you have it or you don't" and may make playing around it your only solution if even an option.
Determining Optimal Play and Frequency of Tough Decisions - Here's my biggest point in the skill factor of Hearthstone vs MTG; relating to the things we just covered. Since you're drawing less options, cards have specific uses, and resources are limited, there's only a finite amount of practical plays. Many cards won't have context to the game state, you can't play with current resources, or are an autoplay such as a land (in most cases). It usually comes down to "can answers be played to key threats and do you have and can play counter answers". There's skill in weighing those decisions, but rarely does every move become a deeply layered decision of consequences. You either provide a solid answer or you don't. A deck only has a limited number of answers to things and must be drawn. So it's very easy to make a judgement on worth to cast something, because there are only a small variance of outcomes.
In Hearthstone, nearly every card has a context that interacts with the game state. Beyond a few spells, you aren't limited by case specifics. You can play things to help later or forego a battlecry for a body on the field. You also have constant targets for most spells because they are less situational. Since everything has decaying health, the game state advances with every move. You can't counter spell or keep blocking with the same body forever to keep maintaining the same board state till you win; threats are vulnerable and will be answered eventually, so planning on how you use cards becomes more important. Every decisions is small wins with a limited timeframe of dominance in that board state. If you win the board with a trade, you don't have a full health creatures to keep driving the win, you have a weakened ones that can still be taken out by subpar top deck options. Last but not least is the Hero Power once again preserving card uses and always being available. You never have a dead play in Hearthstone, you will have many in MTG.
All in all you have VASTLY more play options in Hearthstone and many more outcomes. This makes optimal decisions making harder. You can easily misplay with so many choices and you have more solutions from your opponent to account for. You're not looking for one answer to counter you, you're looking at all the different answers they may have and what the board state will be on your next turn. You also have a MUCH higher frequency of tough decision making since nearly every turn is like this. Something happens EVERY turn, even if it's just your Hero Power. In MTG you can be at a stalemate playing lands and having no options in hand, both at the mercy of your top deck...and it happens a LOT.
RNG
A lot of discussion bases around RNG (basically random chance). Right out...every TCG has RNG. Top decks, coin flips, dice rolls, etc... Generally the consensus is RNG, while essential and unavoidable, is bad for competitive play. TCGs need some variance, which justifies it and makes the game interesting, but there's a balance of how volatile the RNG is to the outcome of the game. Hearthstone indeed has some cards that have some very volatile RNG theme, but I would still argue that it has less RNG than magic, which tends to leave RNG cards to "Johnny" cards that aren't competitive. But why would I say such a silly thing you ask?
What We Just Talked About - The limited plays and dependance on key cards presents a HUGE RNG issue. Top deck is everything in Magic. If you don't draw key cards, you won't win. Players lose to land screw/flood all the time at the highest level of play and not drawing certain cards at the right time can lead you to lose a whole game to a single card. A close game of magic is one where the board control is back and forth, but most games result in break away plays that control the board state and requires an answer drawn. You also have combos, hard to evasive/protective spells, and etc that can make the game rather opportunistic off a single play...disregarding many of the plays earlier. If you look up the deck Dragonstorm from Guildpact/Timespiral era, you have a major example of a deck that would win tun 3-6 and was extremely hard to counter. It held it's own RNG issues, but would easily eliminate opponents simply because no answer was drawn or Dragonstorm drew Gigadrowse to counter pretty much any counter to it. Yes it could be beat, but it was more about RNG and matchup than player decisions. No single card in Hearthstone is going to win you the whole game because you played it and require a need a specific card to stop you. There's many events that can neutralize it or stop it.
Mulligan - Each use a different mulligan system. Magic allows a full hand swap -1 card, per mulligan. Hearthstone allows you one mulligan but the chance to select individual cards. In short, MTG's is pretty brutal. 90% of mulligans are over land in relation to card casting costs. It's very easy to get the wrong mix and forced to take 1 less card in a game where you already have limited plays and top deck dependence. Hearthstone's version would'nt work to well in MTG due to how powerful "perfect hands" can be, but it offers a much more consistent game. You will rarely play a game of Hearthstone and feel you have an unplayable start.
So What About RNG cards? - This is totally valid. Hearthstone has some YOLO factor cards, however they're not as bad as people think. There is a risk to them and often the best case is a small victory. You also have the multiple plays per turn and often can assess when the time to take the risk is. Depending on RNG cards can be a players downfall, so it takes skill to determine when is the time to roll the dice. In Magic, limited options makes it too risky to depend on RNG. Even so, I think Hearthstone could do with a little less RNG embedded in the cards.
Overall the RNG in Hearthstone cards is not as overpowering as the top deck nature of MTG. You will lose less games to a Ragnaros than a competitive combo deck in magic doing unwinnable top decks.
Card Pool
This is where Magic is king. Tons of types of cards and a vast library of cards leads to some awesome complexity in decks. It's easy to say this is where MTG dominates Hearthstone in terms of deck building skill. You're required to have a much broader knowledge of possible encounters and meta shifts and variants. You simply have way more you can do and must face. This is where most of the game winning decisions are made. But in all fairness Hearthstone is brand new. They're still learning the nature of their work and keeping mechanics simple. We even get the added bonus of balance updates (so we don't have to ban cards like MTG's "Skullclamp").
Sideboarding - A really cool thing Magic does is the sideboard. This gives decks extra room to counter bad matchups or further an advantage (as well as make games a fairer 2/3...unless you're playing control mirrors with an hour limit -_-). Hearthstone tournaments have their own system, but the sideboard offers more layers of thinking. You don't just pick a counter deck, you have to make assumptions on what you saw and make small edits. This can separate good and bad players in both decision making and understanding of the meta.
Conclusion
Despite what I've said here, I have genuine love for both games. I'm never gonna say one's better than the other (unless you bring up the price of cardboard...seriously wtf), but I feel people have a vast misunderstanding of these games at higher levels and what truly attributes a win over a loss. People look at Hearthstone's RNG cards and limited card pool, then focus on MTG's diversity of cards and assume Hearthstone is the casual kid's game in comparison to the behemoth that is MTG.
I by no means am a pro of either, but have a long history of competitive Magic and high level play and do fairly decently in Hearthstone. I genuinely feel MTG has a cap on skill in terms of how you play the deck once you understand the meta. A lot of people feel that's not the case, but when you really analyze the possible decisions a player can make, many choices are obvious and often times, play error doesn't factor into the loss. You can play a perfect game and simply not win and it happens a lot.
People feel that MTG winners hold a higher tier of understanding for how they play during the actual game, but the true nature of success is in meta deck analysis, design decisions, and sideboarding. You will run into game scenarios with tough decisions what will divide better players from great ones, but it's not the dominating factor between win averages of high level play. Those moments occur on some games, they don't occur every game. Expenses and resources to keep ahead of meta shifts are also another major factor. You can study the meta trends and have a great theory to beat it, but it might mean you have to drop your current build for a new one for $100+...just to see if it works. Many potentially great players simply can't afford the game for high level play, much less the money and time off needed to travel to compete on top of it all.
More valid play options per turn + more flexible use of cards = more player influence
The problem with a general comparison like this is that the skill and skillsets required to play various MTG formats is pretty different. Sure, standard in MTG can be extremely straightforward depending on the matchup and there can be very few significant decisions made throughout that sort of game. On the other hand, when you get into formats with bigger card pools (like legacy, vintage, and even modern) and significantly more deck options, the complexity of an MTG game increases dramatically because of the variety of mechanics and cards that you get to play around with. This often forces players to find the line of play that best plays around multiple scenarios where its not super obvious what your opponent is going to do.
I would agree with your argument more as a comparison between hearthstone and new world order era magic but old school MTG cards bring some serious complexity to MTG and some very insane games. I prefer hearthstone overall as a game right now because of the direction that new world order and WOTC are taking but the skill required to play with the older cards at a high level I think is higher then that required to play hearthstone at a similar level. Having said that, hearthstone is still very new and its very conceivable that hearthstone will reach the same level of complexity to old school mtg in time.
That was a chunk o text. ;) I love reading these comparisons from MTG players, as someone who tried to get into it when interrupts and instants were a thing (and failing miserably), Hearthstone is just the right mix of simplicity and dept for me.
One other thing you didn't mention is the design choice that Hearthstone has, that you do not do ANYTHING on your opponent's turn. In a way, this is a internet game design choice (do you want to play an instant Yes/No x 1000), but I've heard that this also promotes aggro style decks, because the attacker always as the advantage in deciding to trade well or go for face etc. Do you think this is a valid concern?
The problem with a general comparison like this is that the skill and skillsets required to play various MTG formats is pretty different. Sure, standard in MTG can be extremely straightforward depending on the matchup and there can be very few significant decisions made throughout that sort of game. On the other hand, when you get into formats with bigger card pools (like legacy, vintage, and even modern) and significantly more deck options, the complexity of an MTG game increases dramatically because of the variety of mechanics and cards that you get to play around with. This often forces players to find the line of play that best plays around multiple scenarios where its not super obvious what your opponent is going to do.
I would agree with your argument more as a comparison between hearthstone and new world order era magic but old school MTG cards bring some serious complexity to MTG and some very insane games. I prefer hearthstone overall as a game right now because of the direction that new world order and WOTC are taking but the skill required to play with the older cards at a high level I think is higher then that required to play hearthstone at a similar level. Having said that, hearthstone is still very new and its very conceivable that hearthstone will reach the same level of complexity to old school mtg in time.
I'm referring mainly to Standard in MTG (I actually edited that part out). The argument being the decks in standard are so efficient they often play themselves as optimal plays are fairly obvious and the strength of cards leads to volatile changes in game state.
I don't think its so much the efficiency on standard mtg decks but the power creep of creatures to a point where it really does not matter what overpowered super value 5 drop you plop down because its probably going to workout. The midrange creatures in mtg have gotten to a pretty stupid point where the hearthstone equivalent would be like Loatheb that gains you 5 life and makes a 3/3 when it dies is a pretty standard midrange card for MTG. There is just too much power and value along the creature curve in standard mtg to give you much of an opportunity to make decisions that actually matter. Hearthstone is at a point where it has the same sort of effects that some of the MTG midrange guys offer but they are put on individual minions instead of putting all the effects on just 1 minion. Thus you have to actually make a significant choice which minion to play instead of just playing the 1 MTG minion that has does the same thing as 2 separate hearthstone guys.
Ben Brode in an interview said that the reason they added more RNG elements like Knife Juggler, Mad Bomber, etc. is because at one point Hearthstone didn't have ENOUGH variance, precisely for the reason you outlined regarding lands. The fact that you can always confidently be able to play a card on turn X (whether it's good in that spot or not is a different question) greatly reduces the amount of poor drawing you can do.
I am also a Magic player, and I follow the game very heavily, though I don't have the time or money to play on any competitive level. However, I do think that MTG also has some factors you haven't included, and some points that might need more focus.
First, you talk about the fact that in Magic, you will have no play on a turn, or no relevant cards for the situation, but you say in Hearthstone that isn't true. I'm not 100% sure how you decided this, but especially based on the match-up or current board state you have way more dead cards. Because of how combat works if you get far enough behind you can much more easily lose a game or have 1-2 outs in your entire deck. This is part of why, at least in the low and middle ranks Zoo is so popular, because its easy to get a snowball lead and force you opponent to have one of the couple of relevant cards in their entire deck. Its why Miracle rogue was one of the most popular decks in the upper legendary rank, because if could draw until it had all the answers and won the game, as long as it drew and protected a Gadgetzan, and as the opponent you have to have the right cards at the right time to answer everything or you lost. It is true that almost every creature is relevant at least in your early opening turns, and most of your spells don't have as many restrictions as MTG spells, but that doesn't mean that you often have to have the right cards to win some games, and you generally only have 2 of them ever, where in Magic you probably have 6-8 of a couple cards that fit a situation.
Secondly, and still in the same vein, in Magic nothing is determined by one game, its a match of 3 or 5 based on the level of play. This factor is also huge. Its gives you a chance to win if you had bad luck or got mana screwed/flooded. Now, that can happen to you again, but it gives the game alot more play. Now I know it doesn't exist in hearthstone for 2 reasons. First one being that the game is meant to be quick, pick it up, play one game if you have time and put it back down, you never need more than 20-30 minutes for any one game, and most are much quicker. Second one being you have to design a system, like many different tournament organizers have where you either change your current deck or you change classes, but because hearthstone have many more classes, and mostly neutral cards shared by everyone making this system work and be fair would be alot tougher. Currently people can built one deck with all its options and not need other cards for additional games. However, it is a factor in the depth of the games.
On the topic of RNG. Yes, by nature every card game is RNG, you draw random cards, but that isn't really close to the stuff that Hearthstone pulls. They have many many random effects on top of the basic RNG nature of any game, and while you can help control them, losing to someones super crazy luck RNG card effect isn't something that happens in Magic. There have been plenty of games won or lost entirely on a Rag shot, Avenging Wrath, Knife Juggler or even Soulfire or Doomguard discards. Magic decided this was mostly toward unfun, and after a short time attached it only to casual play cards. In Hearthstone its almost front and center. \
Also, just from watching alot of GP and Pro Tour Top 8/Finals, and competing in the game personally I feel like the play level has alot more range to it in Magic, and the Top pros really have knowledge and skill beyond what I've seen personally from any Hearthstone games, but the game is also much newer, far fewer cards, far fewer interactions to think of and play around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
I created an account just to post my two cents because of how passionate I am about this topic, but i'll try and keep it short and to the point.
First of all, anyone that says Hearthstone uses way more RNG than Magic is using that as an excuse for sucking at the game, period. Even when random elements are involved, there are SO many ways to manipulate the board in a way in which the random events happen in your favor. Also, last time I checked, Magic revolves around playing land, what's more RNG than topdecking 4 consecutive lands for the auto-loss? So yeah, that's a bad argument. Besides, random elements are a part of ANY card game, so just learn to accept it. As a matter of fact, I take the stance that Hearthstone has significantly LESS RNG than Magic, and I stand by that statement simply from not requiring land and the hero power ability coming into effect. Brilliant implementations I might add. I've never had a game of Hearthstone that I didn't enjoy because of how amazing hero powers and mana crystals are, and it's a huge problem for Magic. It's just like poker in that it's a game of incomplete information and even with randomness (luck) involved, you can still push big edges and crush the competition.
Secondly, simplicity is SORELY underrated. I played magic for over ten years and loved it, but after a certain period of time, having 10 billion different cards to choose from and 200 different abilities is incredibly overwhelming. To say that more options is better is true for the most part, but come on, at some point it's way too much. Pretty much the only way to keep the game reasonable is to stick to playing the standard format or block constructed formats, leaving old cards far behind. Hearthstone, when my friends turned me on to it right before launch was so incredibly refreshing. Hearthstone being simple is EXACTLY why I love it, yet it still remains extremely deep at the same time. One tiny mistake can cost you a game, I see it time and time again. In essence this idea that complexity + more cards = less luck + better game is complete horseshit.
Hearthstone is phenomenal for a million different reasons and I continue to find more each and every day. The UI is super sexy and non-resource hungry *cough* MTGO *cough*, the crafting ability is pure genius, the fact that I can play the game for free FOREVER is pretty dope considering MTG card prices are outrageous, the fact that you can take cards as slowly as you want in arena and not wait for a round to finish like in draft on Magic and play at your own pace, the list is endless. I mean really, Hearthstone's arena variant is a BETTER implementation of Magic's drafting format, and it's free instead of costing $15 for a draft (when you aren't going infinite on MTGO.) Why in the world would I ever play Magic again? Often times Hearthstone is so well put together I'm starting to think Ben Brode sat down and asked himself "how can I take magic, improve on ALL of its shortcomings and blow it out of the water?" because that's pretty much what he's done.
TL;DR - Hearthstone CRUSHES Magic in my opinion and it isn't even close for me. Hearthstone is the game I ALWAYS wanted Magic Online to be, but it never became or was. Oh, I must point out again that Hearthstone's interface and level of polish/quality takes a huge steaming dump on Magic Online. Yes, this stuff is very important, for the amount of money Wizards has made over the years, their software is absolute garbage and inexcusable; it should have the same level of polish as Hearthstone in the least. I played MTGO for 5 years if not more and god that software is garbage. When they updated to the new 2.0 a several years back it started going downhill and has been ever since. Not to mention bots make trading a life-less and depressing experience.
For the record, I play poker for a living and was a high level competitive magic player for almost 10 years. I have left Magic for Hearthstone, and I'll never look back. It blows my mind that anyone would want to play Magic if they've given Hearthstone a fair shot. Wizards would have to make some monumental changes to even gain my attention again.
- Sorry I got off-topic a bit haha, but my first paragraph pretty much sums up how I feel on the skill vs luck factor.
i feel exactly like twistedspine. The rng in MAGiC is much more brutal. i rember some seasons in the mocs losing in the semifinals because of land flood...
Also the amount of options is big but you saw 95% the same decks. I played legacy , and all the games you faced one of the 6-8 archetipes that existed ( so barely LESS variety than hearstone). Also the price was so big each viable deck except one (dredge) costed 1000 dollars +. and if you want to draft (like arena) 3-4 times a week you need to invest 180-240$ each month!
Even if i need to pay the european price of hearstone cards (much more expensive that us ones) with like 500$ (half a MTGO deck or 4 rishadians ports) and some play i got a full colection and 2 fully viable golden decks. (golden beeing muuuch nicer that magic foil and i never thought of making a legacy foil deck easily 3-4k $)
So yes even paying in hearstone you get a better gameplay as twistedspineDroptimal explained. Personally i already sold my mtgo collecction on december. i think hearstone would eat mtgo in some years,
There will obviously be some Hearthstone bias since we are on a Hearthstone forum, but to me, Magic is by far the superior game when it comes to skill.
The fact there is no way to interact with the opponent during their turn makes it so Hearthstone tends to play itself and most of its complexity comes from simple math problems. The idea of having only 90 seconds to play your turn would be ludicrous to Magic players when you have to evaluate all the possible ways your opponent can block, and all the spells they can represent with their open man. In Hearthstone, bad plays are when you don't notice you had the cards to do something stronger or win the game, in Magic, bad plays are when you don't play around cards your opponent might have telegraphed with the ways they played the game.
In Hearthstone, the cards are much more powerful which leads to much more topdeck heavy games. I've lost to my opponent's topdeck in Hearthstone way more often then I've lost to mana screw or mana flood in Magic, to the point where it's just natural. In Magic, a topdeck win is something big.
And when you compare Magic's drafting to Hearthstone's arena... Oh boy... Since in Magic you are passing your first and third pack to the left and then the second one to the right, it means your opponents' choices affect your picks, and yours affect the opponents'. You need to figure out which colour is opened based on what you are getting passed, and be careful not to pass good stuff in your colour since that player could then jump in that colour and cut you next pack. In Hearthstone, you pick the best card. That's it.
I won't deny that as a video game, Hearthstone is significantly better than MTGO or DotP, but as a game, it is significantly inferior to Magic.
I actually like the mana system in Magic. It allows true control decks to exist (in Hearthstone even control decks like Warrior and Priest are midrangey at best. I mean, they play 2-drops).
The thing about lands is that they put a very real constraint on your gameplan based on the number you put in your deck. You can't cast 6-drops in your 21-land aggro deck, and only a very few 4-drops for example. The fact that you need to draw extra cards in order to play more expensive spells while still having something to play each turn means that playing cards with the sole purpose of drawing extra cards enables expensive spells. This is the whole crux of control decks, and is also the reason why card that cost 6+ mana can be so powerful compared to 5 drops even though they only cost one mana more. They cost more than one turn more than a 5 mana spell, in other words.
In addition, without card draw spells (a control deck staple) you will eventually draw dead lands in the late game and fall behind. Aggressive decks need to choose between aggression (low cost creatures) and late game (card draw) instead of having both like in Hearthstone. Zoo is basically starting with Greed in play as well, which is absurd.
As far as digital products go, Hearthstone is a far superior video game. Magic is too complicated to play digitally since you have to pass priority 10+ times a turn and it gets annoying and non-intuitive.
I love both games and can't decide which I like better, though I think Magic is a better game.
I agree with Tackman, mainly because of the fact that the inability to interact with your opponent on their drastically reduces your options, and, I think, some of the fun. It's a killer when I have an opponent who takes a long time in MTG, but at least I need to pay attention in case I need to do something in response to them. It's ten times worse in Hearthstone. If I'm facing someone who takes a while, I just tab away and come back once I figure their turn is probably over. And it doesn't matter. I can read their entire turn on the left side of the screen, look at the boardstate, and be no worse off than if I'd paid attention, which means that I'm not really playing for half of every game, which is definitely not the case in MTG. I get why they don't want to implement instants, but the idea that no cards should ever interact with both players decision making process at once is bad, in my opinion.
didn't read all those text walls so maybe things similar to my oppinion have been stated.
on rng: comparing hearthstone to magic youre drawing 2 cards (landdrop + action) a turn for the first 10 turns, therefore hearthstone is much more consistent. there are staples in hearthstone that are rng based but they don't outweight the fact that games in magic are lost because of mana screw or flood. sure you can be screwed on your curve, but the same thing counts for mtg too. therefore imo hearthstone is less rng based then mtg.
on skill: magic has more card mechanics and a deeper set of rules, therfore it requires a lot more knowledge, especially in older formats like legacy and vintage. also casual formats like cube drafting have a strategic complexity that you can't reach with a fresh card game like hearthstone. arena is a joke, even compared to normal booster draft, when it comes to skill. on the dimension of sequencing your actions and fleshing out your plays to be able to pilot a certain deck perfectly against the meta i think hearthstone is on the level of modern, which is pretty nice for the limited card pool. overall the skill required to play older constructed formats and or limited is a lot higher in mtg then in hearthstone. i won't even get into deck building or building your own cube, there the distance between mtg and hearthstone is miles.
on fun: hearthstone xD attackers advantage compared to defenders advantage, nuff said.
I agree with the OP, and a lot of the replies. Thanks for the well thought out posts. It's great to finally read an intelligent analysis of the differences between HS and MtG. Too many players have superficial reactions to things like the RNG cards and the small card pool, and reach the wrong conclusions about HS.
Magic will always have a place in my life, mostly because of nostalgia and the vast amount of time (and money!) I've invested in it over the years, but HS is definitely a better designed game IMO. As it should be, standing on the shoulders of giants etc.
I created an account just to post my two cents because of how passionate I am about this topic, but i'll try and keep it short and to the point.
First of all, anyone that says Hearthstone uses way more RNG than Magic is using that as an excuse for sucking at the game, period. Even when random elements are involved, there are SO many ways to manipulate the board in a way in which the random events happen in your favor. Also, last time I checked, Magic revolves around playing land, what's more RNG than topdecking 4 consecutive lands for the auto-loss? So yeah, that's a bad argument. Besides, random elements are a part of ANY card game, so just learn to accept it. As a matter of fact, I take the stance that Hearthstone has significantly LESS RNG than Magic, and I stand by that statement simply from not requiring land and the hero power ability coming into effect. Brilliant implementations I might add. I've never had a game of Hearthstone that I didn't enjoy because of how amazing hero powers and mana crystals are, and it's a huge problem for Magic. It's just like poker in that it's a game of incomplete information and even with randomness (luck) involved, you can still push big edges and crush the competition.
Secondly, simplicity is SORELY underrated. I played magic for over ten years and loved it, but after a certain period of time, having 10 billion different cards to choose from and 200 different abilities is incredibly overwhelming. To say that more options is better is true for the most part, but come on, at some point it's way too much. Pretty much the only way to keep the game reasonable is to stick to playing the standard format or block constructed formats, leaving old cards far behind. Hearthstone, when my friends turned me on to it right before launch was so incredibly refreshing. Hearthstone being simple is EXACTLY why I love it, yet it still remains extremely deep at the same time. One tiny mistake can cost you a game, I see it time and time again. In essence this idea that complexity + more cards = less luck + better game is complete horseshit.
Hearthstone is phenomenal for a million different reasons and I continue to find more each and every day. The UI is super sexy and non-resource hungry *cough* MTGO *cough*, the crafting ability is pure genius, the fact that I can play the game for free FOREVER is pretty dope considering MTG card prices are outrageous, the fact that you can take cards as slowly as you want in arena and not wait for a round to finish like in draft on Magic and play at your own pace, the list is endless. I mean really, Hearthstone's arena variant is a BETTER implementation of Magic's drafting format, and it's free instead of costing $15 for a draft (when you aren't going infinite on MTGO.) Why in the world would I ever play Magic again? Often times Hearthstone is so well put together I'm starting to think Ben Brode sat down and asked himself "how can I take magic, improve on ALL of its shortcomings and blow it out of the water?" because that's pretty much what he's done.
TL;DR - Hearthstone CRUSHES Magic in my opinion and it isn't even close for me. Hearthstone is the game I ALWAYS wanted Magic Online to be, but it never became or was. Oh, I must point out again that Hearthstone's interface and level of polish/quality takes a huge steaming dump on Magic Online. Yes, this stuff is very important, for the amount of money Wizards has made over the years, their software is absolute garbage and inexcusable; it should have the same level of polish as Hearthstone in the least. I played MTGO for 5 years if not more and god that software is garbage. When they updated to the new 2.0 a several years back it started going downhill and has been ever since. Not to mention bots make trading a life-less and depressing experience.
For the record, I play poker for a living and was a high level competitive magic player for almost 10 years. I have left Magic for Hearthstone, and I'll never look back. It blows my mind that anyone would want to play Magic if they've given Hearthstone a fair shot. Wizards would have to make some monumental changes to even gain my attention again.
- Sorry I got off-topic a bit haha, but my first paragraph pretty much sums up how I feel on the skill vs luck factor.
hearthstone crushes magic? no offense but are you one of those fnm scrubs that get beat by "net decks" every week and complains?
i know its your opinion, but its pretty asinine. hearthstone is fine for what it is, but the fact that you actually think with 1 set thats actually a better game than magic... ya. theres some hate for magic flowing through your veins.
It more sounds like the OP is a predominantly online player, in which case Hearthstone is leagues better than MTGO, which is borderline unplayable and would never get a second look if Magic wasn't the best game on the planet.
It more sounds like the OP is a predominantly online player, in which case Hearthstone is leagues better than MTGO, which is borderline unplayable and would never get a second look if Magic wasn't the best game on the planet.
I played many FNM and prerelease tournaments since Mirrodin. I would practice with friends who placed in regionals and I simply couldn't go due to finances and age at the time. Most of my experience after that is from Magic Workstation tournaments since you weren't limited by the cards you owned. Currently I only play casual cube/commander and FNM draft, mainly due to the sheer cost of the game for Standard. So it really isn't about offline/online. I'm looking purely at the game mechanics and I can honestly spend much less time stressing over tough decisions in MTG than HS.
I'm a fuking old player of mtg (15 years) and i have to say, that beside i love HS, mtg is quite superior on formats, cards option, skill level and gameplay interaction. But be aware, HS is a simplify version of the WoW TCG, a game that i found to be superior that MtG, becouse have the base of mtg, but remove the mana flow or mana scrub (and the color scrub btw), you can win or lose but at least you can play your cards. And for me, have a better flavour and lore than magic (you cant equip a dog with 2 greatsword, for example).
I agree with Tackman, mainly because of the fact that the inability to interact with your opponent on their drastically reduces your options, and, I think, some of the fun. It's a killer when I have an opponent who takes a long time in MTG, but at least I need to pay attention in case I need to do something in response to them. It's ten times worse in Hearthstone. If I'm facing someone who takes a while, I just tab away and come back once I figure their turn is probably over. And it doesn't matter. I can read their entire turn on the left side of the screen, look at the boardstate, and be no worse off than if I'd paid attention, which means that I'm not really playing for half of every game, which is definitely not the case in MTG. I get why they don't want to implement instants, but the idea that no cards should ever interact with both players decision making process at once is bad, in my opinion.
I have to disagree here, you are really shortchanging the game unfairly by saying stuff like this. If you alt-tab out of the game or don't pay attention to your opponents turn you're doing it very wrong. First of all, what if an opponent does something like play a dark iron dwarf and then right click to undo it when he finds he has a better play? If you aren't paying attention you just missed some huge information that you can use to your advantage. What if he is a mage and tries to target a creature like faerie dragon forgetting it can't be targeted? Now you just missed the fact that he has a burn spell for upcoming turns, and you can bait appropriately. What about using emotes like "well played" pretending you have lethal and getting your opponent to concede even though you didn't have the win? That's all high level stuff imo. People just don't think about it hard enough or consider these things.
didn't read all those text walls so maybe things similar to my oppinion have been stated.
on rng: comparing hearthstone to magic youre drawing 2 cards (landdrop + action) a turn for the first 10 turns, therefore hearthstone is much more consistent. there are staples in hearthstone that are rng based but they don't outweight the fact that games in magic are lost because of mana screw or flood. sure you can be screwed on your curve, but the same thing counts for mtg too. therefore imo hearthstone is less rng based then mtg.
on skill: magic has more card mechanics and a deeper set of rules, therfore it requires a lot more knowledge, especially in older formats like legacy and vintage. also casual formats like cube drafting have a strategic complexity that you can't reach with a fresh card game like hearthstone. arena is a joke, even compared to normal booster draft, when it comes to skill. on the dimension of sequencing your actions and fleshing out your plays to be able to pilot a certain deck perfectly against the meta i think hearthstone is on the level of modern, which is pretty nice for the limited card pool. overall the skill required to play older constructed formats and or limited is a lot higher in mtg then in hearthstone. i won't even get into deck building or building your own cube, there the distance between mtg and hearthstone is miles.
on fun: hearthstone xD attackers advantage compared to defenders advantage, nuff said.
I'd really like a better explanation if possible as to why you think drafting is so much more complex. I read everyones responses and the only thing I gathered is that hate drafting and sending color signals is involved. In my opinion, hate drafting is very overrated, for a couple of reasons. First of all, whatever you pass to the players on your left or right, you don't have to play them in the first round, and probably not until the last round of the draft. Secondly, if you'd take a strong card to keep away from your opponent, rather than take a lower power card to round out the power level, curve and consistency of your own, I can tell you with confidence you're going to be less successful. You should always be focusing on making your deck the best it can be, not worrying about how theirs turns out. True, some of my positives were more towards the aesthetic portion of Hearthstone arena like no time limit and no rounds or waiting for other players, but they still count. If Arena is a joke compared to Booster Draft, then why is it that the same people like myself who crushed drafting also crush arena? And why are some players able to consistently win 6-7 games on average, getting 12 wins a decent amount of the time? If it was a joke everyone could do this, correct, because it would be based all on luck?
I created an account just to post my two cents because of how passionate I am about this topic, but i'll try and keep it short and to the point.
First of all, anyone that says Hearthstone uses way more RNG than Magic is using that as an excuse for sucking at the game, period. Even when random elements are involved, there are SO many ways to manipulate the board in a way in which the random events happen in your favor. Also, last time I checked, Magic revolves around playing land, what's more RNG than topdecking 4 consecutive lands for the auto-loss? So yeah, that's a bad argument. Besides, random elements are a part of ANY card game, so just learn to accept it. As a matter of fact, I take the stance that Hearthstone has significantly LESS RNG than Magic, and I stand by that statement simply from not requiring land and the hero power ability coming into effect. Brilliant implementations I might add. I've never had a game of Hearthstone that I didn't enjoy because of how amazing hero powers and mana crystals are, and it's a huge problem for Magic. It's just like poker in that it's a game of incomplete information and even with randomness (luck) involved, you can still push big edges and crush the competition.
Secondly, simplicity is SORELY underrated. I played magic for over ten years and loved it, but after a certain period of time, having 10 billion different cards to choose from and 200 different abilities is incredibly overwhelming. To say that more options is better is true for the most part, but come on, at some point it's way too much. Pretty much the only way to keep the game reasonable is to stick to playing the standard format or block constructed formats, leaving old cards far behind. Hearthstone, when my friends turned me on to it right before launch was so incredibly refreshing. Hearthstone being simple is EXACTLY why I love it, yet it still remains extremely deep at the same time. One tiny mistake can cost you a game, I see it time and time again. In essence this idea that complexity + more cards = less luck + better game is complete horseshit.
Hearthstone is phenomenal for a million different reasons and I continue to find more each and every day. The UI is super sexy and non-resource hungry *cough* MTGO *cough*, the crafting ability is pure genius, the fact that I can play the game for free FOREVER is pretty dope considering MTG card prices are outrageous, the fact that you can take cards as slowly as you want in arena and not wait for a round to finish like in draft on Magic and play at your own pace, the list is endless. I mean really, Hearthstone's arena variant is a BETTER implementation of Magic's drafting format, and it's free instead of costing $15 for a draft (when you aren't going infinite on MTGO.) Why in the world would I ever play Magic again? Often times Hearthstone is so well put together I'm starting to think Ben Brode sat down and asked himself "how can I take magic, improve on ALL of its shortcomings and blow it out of the water?" because that's pretty much what he's done.
TL;DR - Hearthstone CRUSHES Magic in my opinion and it isn't even close for me. Hearthstone is the game I ALWAYS wanted Magic Online to be, but it never became or was. Oh, I must point out again that Hearthstone's interface and level of polish/quality takes a huge steaming dump on Magic Online. Yes, this stuff is very important, for the amount of money Wizards has made over the years, their software is absolute garbage and inexcusable; it should have the same level of polish as Hearthstone in the least. I played MTGO for 5 years if not more and god that software is garbage. When they updated to the new 2.0 a several years back it started going downhill and has been ever since. Not to mention bots make trading a life-less and depressing experience.
For the record, I play poker for a living and was a high level competitive magic player for almost 10 years. I have left Magic for Hearthstone, and I'll never look back. It blows my mind that anyone would want to play Magic if they've given Hearthstone a fair shot. Wizards would have to make some monumental changes to even gain my attention again.
- Sorry I got off-topic a bit haha, but my first paragraph pretty much sums up how I feel on the skill vs luck factor.
hearthstone crushes magic? no offense but are you one of those fnm scrubs that get beat by "net decks" every week and complains?
i know its your opinion, but its pretty asinine. hearthstone is fine for what it is, but the fact that you actually think with 1 set thats actually a better game than magic... ya. theres some hate for magic flowing through your veins.
I figured I'd get a few responses like this, but I only got one so I'll humor you. I was one of the top players in my area for the duration of my playing Magic locally, but unfortunately since I haven't played any sanctioned tournaments in years my DCI number doesn't show up in the system when you search for it or I could show you proof. I never had the money or time to travel to big tournaments because I was a teenager when I took the game very seriously, but I had a couple of very deep runs at some big events when I was able to go. My Magic Online limited rating for draft and sealed deck tournaments broke 1900 at one point (which is insanely difficult to do on MTGO), but i was always hovering in the mid 1800s my entire career. I always focused my attention on limited because it's what I love (hence why I love arena.) I'm not amazing at constructed and I admit that which is true for both Hearthstone and Magic, but was always in the mid 1700s during my time as well which I would consider solid, but certainly not great. I can definitely reach legend when I am able to find the time, I look forward to doing that one day. I average in the neighborhood of 6-7 wins in arena, and I can assure you, it requires plenty of skill. Just like in magic, tiny mistakes or genius plays here or there cost games, and a small decision you made on turn 2 or that 1 point of damage you missed can cost you matches all the time. And yes, I do think Hearthstone is a better game than Magic after 1 set, and it's because of land screw and mana crystals by themselves, not to mention a hundred other reasons why it's better (though those are more in the with the UI and aesthetics than the game itself, but still very important to me.) Mana crystals and hero powers are complete game changers and the #1 reason why Hearthstone is superior imo, because the consistency is miles ahead of magic, hence why the RNG is less in Hearthstone.
I'm sorry that I don't have the popular opinion that Magic is a superior game like you do, but the fact that you can't wrap your head around it isn't my problem. Number of cards and game mechanics doesn't automatically make a game better as i've already explained. Also, a big part of the reason high level hearthstone players complain about RNG or say it's inferior to Magic is one of 2 things. 1) it's because they have a bad attitude or are being tilted by their short term variance against them (I completely understand this as a pro poker player) or 2) Are afraid to have a voice or opinion that is not popular among everyone even if they DO think the game is superior.
Your right about one thing though, I do have a small hatred for magic nowadays, but it's mainly because of how frustrating MTGO was and how Hearthstone has allowed me to not use that program anymore. Like I said, Hearthstone is what I wanted Magic Online to always be, and, the frustration also comes from people who still applaud Magic and (more-so) down talk Hearthstone completely and unfairly.
Author's note - I'm still proofreading for errors and redundancies since this is a long opinion post covering several points (and no draft option). I'm aware of the controversial point this tries to drive, so please feel free to point out missed observations or logic gaps. I could've easily expanded this further, so I'm trying to condense the important points as much as possible. And I am more than glad to argue these points in the comments.
I'm mostly writing this article due to some of the "popular" opinions I hear regarding Hearthstone vs Magic in terms of skill/luck (I am referring to Standard Format in MTG). I'm a huge fan of both games and have played numerous online tournaments of MTG for several years in the past, but came to many of these observations well before Hearthstone. Bare with me...but controversially, I actually feel Hearthstone requires much more player skill and less luck factors in the actual play of the game and that MTG has much more depth in terms of meta analysis and deck construction. I'm aware this creates a kneejerk reaction to a lot of players who instantly think of Magic's long history and Hearthstone's many RNG cards...but allow me to explain.
Valid Play Options
I'm going to start with the biggest argument first (mainly to avoid the "stop-read 'wtf are you talking about?' " prattling over the small stuff). In a game of MTG there are only so many plays with the nature of the cards and top deck draws, while Hearthstone offers many mixes of plays due to the more general role of cards, Hero Power, and how resources are handled.
Resources Thin Options - MTG uses a system of land to pay for spells. Drawing lands means you are not drawing options, so over time, you draw less options with each land pull. You then are required to pull enough lands and of the right variety to enable those options as well. This issue alone often leads to only a few options actually being available per turn and making top deck very crucial the longer the game continues. Too many/few lands at the wrong point can completely invalidate all plays and make games unwinnable to no fault of the player or deck design.
Hearthstone uses a mana per turn system, freeing up your entire deck to almost always be playable options. Every draw is a new thing you can do. Overtime players will maintain equal numbers of options in hand if they are trading equally. You also don't have to fear mana color limitations that can lead to a classic case of "if only this was a an island and not a swamp". When you draw a card, you know you'll get a chance to play it in time. In MTG you must rely on top deck to give you the proper mix of resources and options to make something happen.
The Hero Power - Along with drawing nothing but options, Hearthstone gives each player a Hero Power for 2 mana. This is a free option that adds tons of depth. You can use it to maintain cards in hand rather than expend all resources to over extend from your hand. Even when top decking, you always have this option.
Card Roles - MTG boasts huge variety of card types, which leads to a double edge sword on this argument. On one hand, having all these options means players have to account for many things to come at them. On the flip side, all these types of cards tend to cater to a vary specific purposes. Key examples are things like type removal, land, counters, conditional cards, etc... Some cards are only valid plays during certain moments and can fill your hand with options that aren't actually options. Your opponent is doing the same as well, possibly drawing big threats while you are drawing the wrong removal and early utility cards, leaving you with no play. This all makes you dependent on drawing many types of cards at the right moments, leaving you at the mercy of top decking the right mix.
In Hearthstone the simple nature of the cards (and two other mechanics we'll point out later) actually makes it so their roles are less defined and can be used in more ways than MTG offers. Almost all cards will have a way of interacting with something on the board. Creatures act as removal, potential defensive obstacles, and threats all in one. Removal in hand often has a use at any given moment since the only permanent types are creatures and weapons, many come with legs, or are usable as damage to the hero. The take away here is a sense of "what do I use this for?" versus "When do I use this...if I can". You rarely have no use for a card in hand and many cards can be used in many different ways. The potential of the card falls in the creativity of use.
Top Deck Consistency - MTG normally supports a 60 card deck, with about to 18-24 lands and 4 copies of non-basic land cards max. You get nice control of weighting the deck, but you also need a lot of 'fixer' utility cards to improve consistency. Dual lands, deck thinners, tutors, draw engines, etc... These lead to a lot of skill in deck design to solve problems, but in actual play the reality is that your deck is thinned of options to make room for more non-options just to play your options. It also can lead to unfortunate tempo loss simply be being drawn at the wrong time. Tap lands are a good case of essential fixers that can arrive at the wrong time.
In Hearthstone you run 30 cards, 2 copies max besides legends. You're also consistently drawing options since you are not being bogged down by resources and fixers, so your odds of drawing game impacting cards goes up drastically. More options drawn equals more decisions and player influence.
Multiple Solutions to threats - Going back to card roles, I mentioned how cards have more flexibility in Hearthstone. The mechanics of targeting creatures and permanent damage give you more ways to remove cards. An 8/8 can be mobbed by many small threats over time, brought in range of removal, you can play another fatty, buff a guy to trade, you can use hard removal like Hex, or tie it up with taunters, bounces, and freezes. You never see a card and realize you must draw your only answer no matter what point in the game it is.
MTG's many card types and case specific answers can often leave you with no option till your draw it. An unopposed enchantment or creature with protective properties can literally win the entire game just for being on the field. You may have tons of answers to many scenarios, but some cards require very specific ones and not having them immediately can be the whole game. MTG can fall into a "you have it or you don't" and may make playing around it your only solution if even an option.
Determining Optimal Play and Frequency of Tough Decisions - Here's my biggest point in the skill factor of Hearthstone vs MTG; relating to the things we just covered. Since you're drawing less options, cards have specific uses, and resources are limited, there's only a finite amount of practical plays. Many cards won't have context to the game state, you can't play with current resources, or are an autoplay such as a land (in most cases). It usually comes down to "can answers be played to key threats and do you have and can play counter answers". There's skill in weighing those decisions, but rarely does every move become a deeply layered decision of consequences. You either provide a solid answer or you don't. A deck only has a limited number of answers to things and must be drawn. So it's very easy to make a judgement on worth to cast something, because there are only a small variance of outcomes.
In Hearthstone, nearly every card has a context that interacts with the game state. Beyond a few spells, you aren't limited by case specifics. You can play things to help later or forego a battlecry for a body on the field. You also have constant targets for most spells because they are less situational. Since everything has decaying health, the game state advances with every move. You can't counter spell or keep blocking with the same body forever to keep maintaining the same board state till you win; threats are vulnerable and will be answered eventually, so planning on how you use cards becomes more important. Every decisions is small wins with a limited timeframe of dominance in that board state. If you win the board with a trade, you don't have a full health creatures to keep driving the win, you have a weakened ones that can still be taken out by subpar top deck options. Last but not least is the Hero Power once again preserving card uses and always being available. You never have a dead play in Hearthstone, you will have many in MTG.
All in all you have VASTLY more play options in Hearthstone and many more outcomes. This makes optimal decisions making harder. You can easily misplay with so many choices and you have more solutions from your opponent to account for. You're not looking for one answer to counter you, you're looking at all the different answers they may have and what the board state will be on your next turn. You also have a MUCH higher frequency of tough decision making since nearly every turn is like this. Something happens EVERY turn, even if it's just your Hero Power. In MTG you can be at a stalemate playing lands and having no options in hand, both at the mercy of your top deck...and it happens a LOT.
RNG
A lot of discussion bases around RNG (basically random chance). Right out...every TCG has RNG. Top decks, coin flips, dice rolls, etc... Generally the consensus is RNG, while essential and unavoidable, is bad for competitive play. TCGs need some variance, which justifies it and makes the game interesting, but there's a balance of how volatile the RNG is to the outcome of the game. Hearthstone indeed has some cards that have some very volatile RNG theme, but I would still argue that it has less RNG than magic, which tends to leave RNG cards to "Johnny" cards that aren't competitive. But why would I say such a silly thing you ask?
What We Just Talked About - The limited plays and dependance on key cards presents a HUGE RNG issue. Top deck is everything in Magic. If you don't draw key cards, you won't win. Players lose to land screw/flood all the time at the highest level of play and not drawing certain cards at the right time can lead you to lose a whole game to a single card. A close game of magic is one where the board control is back and forth, but most games result in break away plays that control the board state and requires an answer drawn. You also have combos, hard to evasive/protective spells, and etc that can make the game rather opportunistic off a single play...disregarding many of the plays earlier. If you look up the deck Dragonstorm from Guildpact/Timespiral era, you have a major example of a deck that would win tun 3-6 and was extremely hard to counter. It held it's own RNG issues, but would easily eliminate opponents simply because no answer was drawn or Dragonstorm drew Gigadrowse to counter pretty much any counter to it. Yes it could be beat, but it was more about RNG and matchup than player decisions. No single card in Hearthstone is going to win you the whole game because you played it and require a need a specific card to stop you. There's many events that can neutralize it or stop it.
Mulligan - Each use a different mulligan system. Magic allows a full hand swap -1 card, per mulligan. Hearthstone allows you one mulligan but the chance to select individual cards. In short, MTG's is pretty brutal. 90% of mulligans are over land in relation to card casting costs. It's very easy to get the wrong mix and forced to take 1 less card in a game where you already have limited plays and top deck dependence. Hearthstone's version would'nt work to well in MTG due to how powerful "perfect hands" can be, but it offers a much more consistent game. You will rarely play a game of Hearthstone and feel you have an unplayable start.
So What About RNG cards? - This is totally valid. Hearthstone has some YOLO factor cards, however they're not as bad as people think. There is a risk to them and often the best case is a small victory. You also have the multiple plays per turn and often can assess when the time to take the risk is. Depending on RNG cards can be a players downfall, so it takes skill to determine when is the time to roll the dice. In Magic, limited options makes it too risky to depend on RNG. Even so, I think Hearthstone could do with a little less RNG embedded in the cards.
Overall the RNG in Hearthstone cards is not as overpowering as the top deck nature of MTG. You will lose less games to a Ragnaros than a competitive combo deck in magic doing unwinnable top decks.
Card Pool
This is where Magic is king. Tons of types of cards and a vast library of cards leads to some awesome complexity in decks. It's easy to say this is where MTG dominates Hearthstone in terms of deck building skill. You're required to have a much broader knowledge of possible encounters and meta shifts and variants. You simply have way more you can do and must face. This is where most of the game winning decisions are made. But in all fairness Hearthstone is brand new. They're still learning the nature of their work and keeping mechanics simple. We even get the added bonus of balance updates (so we don't have to ban cards like MTG's "Skullclamp").
Sideboarding - A really cool thing Magic does is the sideboard. This gives decks extra room to counter bad matchups or further an advantage (as well as make games a fairer 2/3...unless you're playing control mirrors with an hour limit -_-). Hearthstone tournaments have their own system, but the sideboard offers more layers of thinking. You don't just pick a counter deck, you have to make assumptions on what you saw and make small edits. This can separate good and bad players in both decision making and understanding of the meta.
Conclusion
Despite what I've said here, I have genuine love for both games. I'm never gonna say one's better than the other (unless you bring up the price of cardboard...seriously wtf), but I feel people have a vast misunderstanding of these games at higher levels and what truly attributes a win over a loss. People look at Hearthstone's RNG cards and limited card pool, then focus on MTG's diversity of cards and assume Hearthstone is the casual kid's game in comparison to the behemoth that is MTG.
I by no means am a pro of either, but have a long history of competitive Magic and high level play and do fairly decently in Hearthstone. I genuinely feel MTG has a cap on skill in terms of how you play the deck once you understand the meta. A lot of people feel that's not the case, but when you really analyze the possible decisions a player can make, many choices are obvious and often times, play error doesn't factor into the loss. You can play a perfect game and simply not win and it happens a lot.
People feel that MTG winners hold a higher tier of understanding for how they play during the actual game, but the true nature of success is in meta deck analysis, design decisions, and sideboarding. You will run into game scenarios with tough decisions what will divide better players from great ones, but it's not the dominating factor between win averages of high level play. Those moments occur on some games, they don't occur every game. Expenses and resources to keep ahead of meta shifts are also another major factor. You can study the meta trends and have a great theory to beat it, but it might mean you have to drop your current build for a new one for $100+...just to see if it works. Many potentially great players simply can't afford the game for high level play, much less the money and time off needed to travel to compete on top of it all.
More valid play options per turn + more flexible use of cards = more player influence
The problem with a general comparison like this is that the skill and skillsets required to play various MTG formats is pretty different. Sure, standard in MTG can be extremely straightforward depending on the matchup and there can be very few significant decisions made throughout that sort of game. On the other hand, when you get into formats with bigger card pools (like legacy, vintage, and even modern) and significantly more deck options, the complexity of an MTG game increases dramatically because of the variety of mechanics and cards that you get to play around with. This often forces players to find the line of play that best plays around multiple scenarios where its not super obvious what your opponent is going to do.
I would agree with your argument more as a comparison between hearthstone and new world order era magic but old school MTG cards bring some serious complexity to MTG and some very insane games. I prefer hearthstone overall as a game right now because of the direction that new world order and WOTC are taking but the skill required to play with the older cards at a high level I think is higher then that required to play hearthstone at a similar level. Having said that, hearthstone is still very new and its very conceivable that hearthstone will reach the same level of complexity to old school mtg in time.
That was a chunk o text. ;) I love reading these comparisons from MTG players, as someone who tried to get into it when interrupts and instants were a thing (and failing miserably), Hearthstone is just the right mix of simplicity and dept for me.
One other thing you didn't mention is the design choice that Hearthstone has, that you do not do ANYTHING on your opponent's turn. In a way, this is a internet game design choice (do you want to play an instant Yes/No x 1000), but I've heard that this also promotes aggro style decks, because the attacker always as the advantage in deciding to trade well or go for face etc. Do you think this is a valid concern?
I'm referring mainly to Standard in MTG (I actually edited that part out). The argument being the decks in standard are so efficient they often play themselves as optimal plays are fairly obvious and the strength of cards leads to volatile changes in game state.
I don't think its so much the efficiency on standard mtg decks but the power creep of creatures to a point where it really does not matter what overpowered super value 5 drop you plop down because its probably going to workout. The midrange creatures in mtg have gotten to a pretty stupid point where the hearthstone equivalent would be like Loatheb that gains you 5 life and makes a 3/3 when it dies is a pretty standard midrange card for MTG. There is just too much power and value along the creature curve in standard mtg to give you much of an opportunity to make decisions that actually matter. Hearthstone is at a point where it has the same sort of effects that some of the MTG midrange guys offer but they are put on individual minions instead of putting all the effects on just 1 minion. Thus you have to actually make a significant choice which minion to play instead of just playing the 1 MTG minion that has does the same thing as 2 separate hearthstone guys.
If someone hates RNG cards then don't play them.
Check out my newest contest thread! Pirate contest
Ben Brode in an interview said that the reason they added more RNG elements like Knife Juggler, Mad Bomber, etc. is because at one point Hearthstone didn't have ENOUGH variance, precisely for the reason you outlined regarding lands. The fact that you can always confidently be able to play a card on turn X (whether it's good in that spot or not is a different question) greatly reduces the amount of poor drawing you can do.
I am also a Magic player, and I follow the game very heavily, though I don't have the time or money to play on any competitive level. However, I do think that MTG also has some factors you haven't included, and some points that might need more focus.
First, you talk about the fact that in Magic, you will have no play on a turn, or no relevant cards for the situation, but you say in Hearthstone that isn't true. I'm not 100% sure how you decided this, but especially based on the match-up or current board state you have way more dead cards. Because of how combat works if you get far enough behind you can much more easily lose a game or have 1-2 outs in your entire deck. This is part of why, at least in the low and middle ranks Zoo is so popular, because its easy to get a snowball lead and force you opponent to have one of the couple of relevant cards in their entire deck. Its why Miracle rogue was one of the most popular decks in the upper legendary rank, because if could draw until it had all the answers and won the game, as long as it drew and protected a Gadgetzan, and as the opponent you have to have the right cards at the right time to answer everything or you lost. It is true that almost every creature is relevant at least in your early opening turns, and most of your spells don't have as many restrictions as MTG spells, but that doesn't mean that you often have to have the right cards to win some games, and you generally only have 2 of them ever, where in Magic you probably have 6-8 of a couple cards that fit a situation.
Secondly, and still in the same vein, in Magic nothing is determined by one game, its a match of 3 or 5 based on the level of play. This factor is also huge. Its gives you a chance to win if you had bad luck or got mana screwed/flooded. Now, that can happen to you again, but it gives the game alot more play. Now I know it doesn't exist in hearthstone for 2 reasons. First one being that the game is meant to be quick, pick it up, play one game if you have time and put it back down, you never need more than 20-30 minutes for any one game, and most are much quicker. Second one being you have to design a system, like many different tournament organizers have where you either change your current deck or you change classes, but because hearthstone have many more classes, and mostly neutral cards shared by everyone making this system work and be fair would be alot tougher. Currently people can built one deck with all its options and not need other cards for additional games. However, it is a factor in the depth of the games.
On the topic of RNG. Yes, by nature every card game is RNG, you draw random cards, but that isn't really close to the stuff that Hearthstone pulls. They have many many random effects on top of the basic RNG nature of any game, and while you can help control them, losing to someones super crazy luck RNG card effect isn't something that happens in Magic. There have been plenty of games won or lost entirely on a Rag shot, Avenging Wrath, Knife Juggler or even Soulfire or Doomguard discards. Magic decided this was mostly toward unfun, and after a short time attached it only to casual play cards. In Hearthstone its almost front and center. \
Also, just from watching alot of GP and Pro Tour Top 8/Finals, and competing in the game personally I feel like the play level has alot more range to it in Magic, and the Top pros really have knowledge and skill beyond what I've seen personally from any Hearthstone games, but the game is also much newer, far fewer cards, far fewer interactions to think of and play around.
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
I created an account just to post my two cents because of how passionate I am about this topic, but i'll try and keep it short and to the point.
First of all, anyone that says Hearthstone uses way more RNG than Magic is using that as an excuse for sucking at the game, period. Even when random elements are involved, there are SO many ways to manipulate the board in a way in which the random events happen in your favor. Also, last time I checked, Magic revolves around playing land, what's more RNG than topdecking 4 consecutive lands for the auto-loss? So yeah, that's a bad argument. Besides, random elements are a part of ANY card game, so just learn to accept it. As a matter of fact, I take the stance that Hearthstone has significantly LESS RNG than Magic, and I stand by that statement simply from not requiring land and the hero power ability coming into effect. Brilliant implementations I might add. I've never had a game of Hearthstone that I didn't enjoy because of how amazing hero powers and mana crystals are, and it's a huge problem for Magic. It's just like poker in that it's a game of incomplete information and even with randomness (luck) involved, you can still push big edges and crush the competition.
Secondly, simplicity is SORELY underrated. I played magic for over ten years and loved it, but after a certain period of time, having 10 billion different cards to choose from and 200 different abilities is incredibly overwhelming. To say that more options is better is true for the most part, but come on, at some point it's way too much. Pretty much the only way to keep the game reasonable is to stick to playing the standard format or block constructed formats, leaving old cards far behind. Hearthstone, when my friends turned me on to it right before launch was so incredibly refreshing. Hearthstone being simple is EXACTLY why I love it, yet it still remains extremely deep at the same time. One tiny mistake can cost you a game, I see it time and time again. In essence this idea that complexity + more cards = less luck + better game is complete horseshit.
Hearthstone is phenomenal for a million different reasons and I continue to find more each and every day. The UI is super sexy and non-resource hungry *cough* MTGO *cough*, the crafting ability is pure genius, the fact that I can play the game for free FOREVER is pretty dope considering MTG card prices are outrageous, the fact that you can take cards as slowly as you want in arena and not wait for a round to finish like in draft on Magic and play at your own pace, the list is endless. I mean really, Hearthstone's arena variant is a BETTER implementation of Magic's drafting format, and it's free instead of costing $15 for a draft (when you aren't going infinite on MTGO.) Why in the world would I ever play Magic again? Often times Hearthstone is so well put together I'm starting to think Ben Brode sat down and asked himself "how can I take magic, improve on ALL of its shortcomings and blow it out of the water?" because that's pretty much what he's done.
TL;DR - Hearthstone CRUSHES Magic in my opinion and it isn't even close for me. Hearthstone is the game I ALWAYS wanted Magic Online to be, but it never became or was. Oh, I must point out again that Hearthstone's interface and level of polish/quality takes a huge steaming dump on Magic Online. Yes, this stuff is very important, for the amount of money Wizards has made over the years, their software is absolute garbage and inexcusable; it should have the same level of polish as Hearthstone in the least. I played MTGO for 5 years if not more and god that software is garbage. When they updated to the new 2.0 a several years back it started going downhill and has been ever since. Not to mention bots make trading a life-less and depressing experience.
For the record, I play poker for a living and was a high level competitive magic player for almost 10 years. I have left Magic for Hearthstone, and I'll never look back. It blows my mind that anyone would want to play Magic if they've given Hearthstone a fair shot. Wizards would have to make some monumental changes to even gain my attention again.
- Sorry I got off-topic a bit haha, but my first paragraph pretty much sums up how I feel on the skill vs luck factor.
i feel exactly like twistedspine. The rng in MAGiC is much more brutal. i rember some seasons in the mocs losing in the semifinals because of land flood...
Also the amount of options is big but you saw 95% the same decks. I played legacy , and all the games you faced one of the 6-8 archetipes that existed ( so barely LESS variety than hearstone). Also the price was so big each viable deck except one (dredge) costed 1000 dollars +. and if you want to draft (like arena) 3-4 times a week you need to invest 180-240$ each month!
Even if i need to pay the european price of hearstone cards (much more expensive that us ones) with like 500$ (half a MTGO deck or 4 rishadians ports) and some play i got a full colection and 2 fully viable golden decks. (golden beeing muuuch nicer that magic foil and i never thought of making a legacy foil deck easily 3-4k $)
So yes even paying in hearstone you get a better gameplay as twistedspine Droptimal explained. Personally i already sold my mtgo collecction on december. i think hearstone would eat mtgo in some years,
There will obviously be some Hearthstone bias since we are on a Hearthstone forum, but to me, Magic is by far the superior game when it comes to skill.
The fact there is no way to interact with the opponent during their turn makes it so Hearthstone tends to play itself and most of its complexity comes from simple math problems. The idea of having only 90 seconds to play your turn would be ludicrous to Magic players when you have to evaluate all the possible ways your opponent can block, and all the spells they can represent with their open man. In Hearthstone, bad plays are when you don't notice you had the cards to do something stronger or win the game, in Magic, bad plays are when you don't play around cards your opponent might have telegraphed with the ways they played the game.
In Hearthstone, the cards are much more powerful which leads to much more topdeck heavy games. I've lost to my opponent's topdeck in Hearthstone way more often then I've lost to mana screw or mana flood in Magic, to the point where it's just natural. In Magic, a topdeck win is something big.
And when you compare Magic's drafting to Hearthstone's arena... Oh boy... Since in Magic you are passing your first and third pack to the left and then the second one to the right, it means your opponents' choices affect your picks, and yours affect the opponents'. You need to figure out which colour is opened based on what you are getting passed, and be careful not to pass good stuff in your colour since that player could then jump in that colour and cut you next pack. In Hearthstone, you pick the best card. That's it.
I won't deny that as a video game, Hearthstone is significantly better than MTGO or DotP, but as a game, it is significantly inferior to Magic.
I actually like the mana system in Magic. It allows true control decks to exist (in Hearthstone even control decks like Warrior and Priest are midrangey at best. I mean, they play 2-drops).
The thing about lands is that they put a very real constraint on your gameplan based on the number you put in your deck. You can't cast 6-drops in your 21-land aggro deck, and only a very few 4-drops for example. The fact that you need to draw extra cards in order to play more expensive spells while still having something to play each turn means that playing cards with the sole purpose of drawing extra cards enables expensive spells. This is the whole crux of control decks, and is also the reason why card that cost 6+ mana can be so powerful compared to 5 drops even though they only cost one mana more. They cost more than one turn more than a 5 mana spell, in other words.
In addition, without card draw spells (a control deck staple) you will eventually draw dead lands in the late game and fall behind. Aggressive decks need to choose between aggression (low cost creatures) and late game (card draw) instead of having both like in Hearthstone. Zoo is basically starting with Greed in play as well, which is absurd.
As far as digital products go, Hearthstone is a far superior video game. Magic is too complicated to play digitally since you have to pass priority 10+ times a turn and it gets annoying and non-intuitive.
I love both games and can't decide which I like better, though I think Magic is a better game.
I agree with Tackman, mainly because of the fact that the inability to interact with your opponent on their drastically reduces your options, and, I think, some of the fun. It's a killer when I have an opponent who takes a long time in MTG, but at least I need to pay attention in case I need to do something in response to them. It's ten times worse in Hearthstone. If I'm facing someone who takes a while, I just tab away and come back once I figure their turn is probably over. And it doesn't matter. I can read their entire turn on the left side of the screen, look at the boardstate, and be no worse off than if I'd paid attention, which means that I'm not really playing for half of every game, which is definitely not the case in MTG. I get why they don't want to implement instants, but the idea that no cards should ever interact with both players decision making process at once is bad, in my opinion.
didn't read all those text walls so maybe things similar to my oppinion have been stated.
on rng: comparing hearthstone to magic youre drawing 2 cards (landdrop + action) a turn for the first 10 turns, therefore hearthstone is much more consistent. there are staples in hearthstone that are rng based but they don't outweight the fact that games in magic are lost because of mana screw or flood. sure you can be screwed on your curve, but the same thing counts for mtg too. therefore imo hearthstone is less rng based then mtg.
on skill: magic has more card mechanics and a deeper set of rules, therfore it requires a lot more knowledge, especially in older formats like legacy and vintage. also casual formats like cube drafting have a strategic complexity that you can't reach with a fresh card game like hearthstone. arena is a joke, even compared to normal booster draft, when it comes to skill. on the dimension of sequencing your actions and fleshing out your plays to be able to pilot a certain deck perfectly against the meta i think hearthstone is on the level of modern, which is pretty nice for the limited card pool. overall the skill required to play older constructed formats and or limited is a lot higher in mtg then in hearthstone. i won't even get into deck building or building your own cube, there the distance between mtg and hearthstone is miles.
on fun: hearthstone xD attackers advantage compared to defenders advantage, nuff said.
I agree with the OP, and a lot of the replies. Thanks for the well thought out posts. It's great to finally read an intelligent analysis of the differences between HS and MtG. Too many players have superficial reactions to things like the RNG cards and the small card pool, and reach the wrong conclusions about HS.
Magic will always have a place in my life, mostly because of nostalgia and the vast amount of time (and money!) I've invested in it over the years, but HS is definitely a better designed game IMO. As it should be, standing on the shoulders of giants etc.
hearthstone crushes magic? no offense but are you one of those fnm scrubs that get beat by "net decks" every week and complains?
i know its your opinion, but its pretty asinine. hearthstone is fine for what it is, but the fact that you actually think with 1 set thats actually a better game than magic... ya. theres some hate for magic flowing through your veins.
It more sounds like the OP is a predominantly online player, in which case Hearthstone is leagues better than MTGO, which is borderline unplayable and would never get a second look if Magic wasn't the best game on the planet.
I played many FNM and prerelease tournaments since Mirrodin. I would practice with friends who placed in regionals and I simply couldn't go due to finances and age at the time. Most of my experience after that is from Magic Workstation tournaments since you weren't limited by the cards you owned. Currently I only play casual cube/commander and FNM draft, mainly due to the sheer cost of the game for Standard. So it really isn't about offline/online. I'm looking purely at the game mechanics and I can honestly spend much less time stressing over tough decisions in MTG than HS.
I'm a fuking old player of mtg (15 years) and i have to say, that beside i love HS, mtg is quite superior on formats, cards option, skill level and gameplay interaction. But be aware, HS is a simplify version of the WoW TCG, a game that i found to be superior that MtG, becouse have the base of mtg, but remove the mana flow or mana scrub (and the color scrub btw), you can win or lose but at least you can play your cards. And for me, have a better flavour and lore than magic (you cant equip a dog with 2 greatsword, for example).
I have to disagree here, you are really shortchanging the game unfairly by saying stuff like this. If you alt-tab out of the game or don't pay attention to your opponents turn you're doing it very wrong. First of all, what if an opponent does something like play a dark iron dwarf and then right click to undo it when he finds he has a better play? If you aren't paying attention you just missed some huge information that you can use to your advantage. What if he is a mage and tries to target a creature like faerie dragon forgetting it can't be targeted? Now you just missed the fact that he has a burn spell for upcoming turns, and you can bait appropriately. What about using emotes like "well played" pretending you have lethal and getting your opponent to concede even though you didn't have the win? That's all high level stuff imo. People just don't think about it hard enough or consider these things.
I'd really like a better explanation if possible as to why you think drafting is so much more complex. I read everyones responses and the only thing I gathered is that hate drafting and sending color signals is involved. In my opinion, hate drafting is very overrated, for a couple of reasons. First of all, whatever you pass to the players on your left or right, you don't have to play them in the first round, and probably not until the last round of the draft. Secondly, if you'd take a strong card to keep away from your opponent, rather than take a lower power card to round out the power level, curve and consistency of your own, I can tell you with confidence you're going to be less successful. You should always be focusing on making your deck the best it can be, not worrying about how theirs turns out. True, some of my positives were more towards the aesthetic portion of Hearthstone arena like no time limit and no rounds or waiting for other players, but they still count. If Arena is a joke compared to Booster Draft, then why is it that the same people like myself who crushed drafting also crush arena? And why are some players able to consistently win 6-7 games on average, getting 12 wins a decent amount of the time? If it was a joke everyone could do this, correct, because it would be based all on luck?
I figured I'd get a few responses like this, but I only got one so I'll humor you. I was one of the top players in my area for the duration of my playing Magic locally, but unfortunately since I haven't played any sanctioned tournaments in years my DCI number doesn't show up in the system when you search for it or I could show you proof. I never had the money or time to travel to big tournaments because I was a teenager when I took the game very seriously, but I had a couple of very deep runs at some big events when I was able to go. My Magic Online limited rating for draft and sealed deck tournaments broke 1900 at one point (which is insanely difficult to do on MTGO), but i was always hovering in the mid 1800s my entire career. I always focused my attention on limited because it's what I love (hence why I love arena.) I'm not amazing at constructed and I admit that which is true for both Hearthstone and Magic, but was always in the mid 1700s during my time as well which I would consider solid, but certainly not great. I can definitely reach legend when I am able to find the time, I look forward to doing that one day. I average in the neighborhood of 6-7 wins in arena, and I can assure you, it requires plenty of skill. Just like in magic, tiny mistakes or genius plays here or there cost games, and a small decision you made on turn 2 or that 1 point of damage you missed can cost you matches all the time. And yes, I do think Hearthstone is a better game than Magic after 1 set, and it's because of land screw and mana crystals by themselves, not to mention a hundred other reasons why it's better (though those are more in the with the UI and aesthetics than the game itself, but still very important to me.) Mana crystals and hero powers are complete game changers and the #1 reason why Hearthstone is superior imo, because the consistency is miles ahead of magic, hence why the RNG is less in Hearthstone.
I'm sorry that I don't have the popular opinion that Magic is a superior game like you do, but the fact that you can't wrap your head around it isn't my problem. Number of cards and game mechanics doesn't automatically make a game better as i've already explained. Also, a big part of the reason high level hearthstone players complain about RNG or say it's inferior to Magic is one of 2 things. 1) it's because they have a bad attitude or are being tilted by their short term variance against them (I completely understand this as a pro poker player) or 2) Are afraid to have a voice or opinion that is not popular among everyone even if they DO think the game is superior.
Your right about one thing though, I do have a small hatred for magic nowadays, but it's mainly because of how frustrating MTGO was and how Hearthstone has allowed me to not use that program anymore. Like I said, Hearthstone is what I wanted Magic Online to always be, and, the frustration also comes from people who still applaud Magic and (more-so) down talk Hearthstone completely and unfairly.