New (M10) Rule Changes Poll

[Forbiddian]

This has generated a lot of discussion. The thread reached a general consensus, but since only the most active and belligerent posters have cashed in their two cents, I'd like to see what the average person sees.



For those living under a rock: http://wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a

The discussion thread is here; if you have something interesting to say, it's more likely to get read there, this is just for the poll: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13917

The changes implemented are designed to streamline the game. "While the changes we arrived at don't approach the scope of the Sixth Edition rules changes, we did find room for improvement in a few fundamental areas."

[DrJones]

I think it still too soon for me to make an informed decision.

[Nihil Credo]

I think it still too soon for me to make an informed decision.

[mercenarybdu]

Shards of fail is more like it.

[Leftconsin]

I'm really going to miss using symbiote to have my Fyndhorn Elves live and also out a dude. So... Slightly unfavorable.

[JeroenC]

I think it still too soon for me to make an informed decision.

This.
But I think, after my first anger, it won't change so very much of the way I play the game. I can mostly say this because I've heard of a friend of my, who works at Wizards and has been playing with these rules for three months. He tells me/our playgroup that the rules are really quite acceptable. Sure, some things will change, but all in all, Magic will still be the game you love.

[Koby]

I don't really see what the fuss is about. It's hardly going to change the way most decks play.

Mogg Fanatic- may you now work as you did when you first got printed.

[ParkerLewis]

I don't really see what the fuss is about. It's hardly going to change the way most decks play.

Mogg Fanatic- may you now work as you did when you first got printed.

WHAT ? Don't you realize IT'S A CHANGE ??! MAGIC IS DEAD !!

How can they DO THAT to US ?

It might be their full-time dream job since years on the line, but it's our little HOBBY ! How can they not see how much more qualified we are to judge about these changes ?

I mean, we've posted on the internet a lot about it. Man, how can they not learn from this AND the Sixth Edition rules changes episode that the player base obviously knows better than them ?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

But I think, after my first anger, it won't change so very much of the way I play the game. I can mostly say this because I've heard of a friend of my, who works at Wizards and has been playing with these rules for three months. He tells me/our playgroup that the rules are really quite acceptable. Sure, some things will change, but all in all, Magic will still be the game you love.

I agree. What pisses me off though is that the changes do not improve any aspect of the game and were not needed (or at least i haven't yet seen a compelling argument from any of the very few supporters), and changes for change's sake seems unnecessary and stupid, and an excellent way to annoy players for no good reason.

And yeh, in the end we will all get used to the new rules and complaints will fade away making WotC think they were right all along :mad:

[Wargoos]

WHAT ? Don't you realize IT'S A CHANGE ??! MAGIC IS DEAD !!

How can they DO THAT to US ?

It might be their full-time dream job since years on the line, but it's our little HOBBY ! How can they not see how much more qualified we are to judge about these changes ?

I mean, we've posted on the internet a lot about it. Man, how can they not learn from this AND the Sixth Edition rules changes episode that the player base obviously knows better than them ?

Don't overextend or the wrath of god will come upon you.

[Tacosnape]

I voted favorable. The token ownership rule is stupid as testicles. Other than that? I'm in.

[Otter]

I think the changes remove a bit of depth from the game, so I'd say they'll make it slightly less enjoyable. However, it really doesn't affect legacy too much, so I'm not alll that upset. LED decks can't break them on upkeep and float to draw, Fanatic works as originally printed, Qasali Pridemage is a bit worse, Aggro Loam can't "abuse" Burning Wish as well. None of that sounds like the apocalypse to me.

[Pinder]

I voted that it would make the game less enjoyable, for me at least, but with that said I'm okay with most of the changes. I don't really like them, but at least they have reasoning behind most of them.

The new way attackers have to assign damage is so stupid, though.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

WHAT ? Don't you realize IT'S A CHANGE ??! MAGIC IS DEAD !!

How can they DO THAT to US ?

It might be their full-time dream job since years on the line, but it's our little HOBBY ! How can they not see how much more qualified we are to judge about these changes ?

I mean, we've posted on the internet a lot about it. Man, how can they not learn from this AND the Sixth Edition rules changes episode that the player base obviously knows better than them ?

I disagree. Traditionally, the handful of casual Magic players who got jobs at Wizards have been better judges of metagame health than the tens of thousands of experienced players' collective playtesting. That's how we got healthy things like Raffinity, Skullclamp, GP: Hulk-Flash, Tarmogoyf, Standard Faeries, the Storm mechanic, etc., etc., etc..

If anything, experience has shown that Wizards shouldn't rely on the wisdom of those who are merely better at the game, but should do what seems like a really cool idea just 'cuz brah.

[TheCramp]

I voted favorable, since I like everything except combat damage, which I am somewhere between indifferent and annoyed.

I am baffled by their ruling on how trample and the new deathtouch interact now however. Based on what those abilities read on the cards (without dipping into comprehensive rules) they are synergistic. Cairn Wanderer not withstanding, it requires at least a two card creature based combo to pull off, and this from the people who put out Devoted Druid and Quillspike recently.

[Malchar]

I voted favorable because lots of spastic newbies will quit the game on account of the changes.

[Pulp_Fiction]

It is fucking bullshit. This is what I think caused the rule change: ignorant people who want to learn the game, don't understand how the stack works and instead of asking about the rules they are to lazy to care; and instead of taking the time to LEARN the rules they mindlessly say "oh, its to complicated, I don't get it."

I think Wizards is just dumbing down the game so it is "easier" to understand for people who don't want to think much and are to lazy to attempt to understand complex rules.

Unlike some of the first posters I am jumping to conclusions because I always thought of Magic as a thinking game, and Wizards is taking the role that Ad Nauseam plays in combo, take skill out so anyone can play (although I do like that they took away the MT in to AdN with LED play).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I voted favorable because lots of spastic newbies will quit the game on account of the changes.

It hasn't been spelled "Newbies" in ten years. Fail.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Option 3. The only change I liked were the changes to the mulligan rule as it was long overdue. Often in tournaments if I'm on the draw and I know I'm going to mulligan I will ask my opponent if it's okay if I mulligan before he's finished taking his mulligans in the interest of saving time. Spending 10 minutes to do the mulligans one at a time in a 50 minute tournament round is definitely something I am not going to miss.

The term changes I'm pretty indifferent to as for the most part they don't actually change the functionality of the cards with the exception of a few cards such as wishes which I personally believe should get errata to be consistent with their current functionality.

The rest of the changes though are totally bogus and unnecessary. I could probably live with the changes to mana and tokens but the combat rules changes are too much and are ones I definitely cannot support.

[ParkerLewis]

I disagree. Traditionally, the handful of casual Magic players who got jobs at Wizards have been better judges of metagame health than the tens of thousands of experienced players' collective playtesting. That's how we got healthy things like Raffinity, Skullclamp, GP: Hulk-Flash, Tarmogoyf, Standard Faeries, the Storm mechanic, etc., etc., etc..

If anything, experience has shown that Wizards shouldn't rely on the wisdom of those who are merely better at the game, but should do what seems like a really cool idea just 'cuz brah.

Actually, consider the whole duration for which the game has lived and went on. There has been a few bumps on the way - but on all other cases (ie the extreme majority of the time), they did their job right. Just taking your list, we see three months of horror in T2 (Raffinity before the bannings), three months of craziness in a semi-obscure format with the unfortunate occurence of a GP in the same period (GP HF), a really proeminent critter (Tarmogoyf), a mechanic that deserved a few bannings in a semi-obscure format (Storm's Mind Desire, unless there had also been other storm-related bannings in T2 ?), and I don't buy into the Faerie thing ;) (from what I read, it was dominant for a time and keeps reappearing once in a while and that's it, but i might be wrong).

Add the Urza's set episode and you'll probably be done with it.

Now consider the game has been going on for 15 years. Consider they're a relatively small team creating environments that will be studied by tens of thousands, including hundreds of Pros, and have to test and check all they can for (not limited to !) brokenness and that things will go smoothly.

All in all, I sincerly think the success rate is pretty high and that they can be trusted 1) to know what's best for the game, 2) to continue trying to make it happen all the time, and 3) to succeed in doing so.

On the other hand (and this is not specifically directed at you), but classic internet forum outrages are classic. It happens all the time, on all subjects, and especially change, no matter what kind of change.

Creation of different formats ? Would kill the game.
The stack ? Combat damage on the stack ? Would kill the game.
Changing the card frames ? Would kill the game.
Planeswalkers ? Would kill the game.

History has proven each of these decisions absolutely right, yet (almost) all you could hear at the time from the player base were whining and complaining and quitting the game and stuff.

Combat damage not on the stack anymore ? ...

[Dan Turner]

I personally don't give a crap either way, ten years from now when wizards adds combat back to the stack People are going to complain about how it is killing amgic and how dead creatures shouldn't be able to do stuff. I play goblins its my favorite deck and its just became tier 2 if that thanks to these rules. Honestly I would rather see this then a long list of newly banned cards because Fanatic is not dead, I can use it to chump block goyf and then fling it at opponents head, sure it will not do the one point of damage to the goyf but iI am not taking that 4 or 5 points of damage either.

[Fossil4182]

I'll find it troublesome to adjust, but I don't care otherwise. I accept that games are always going to change and evolve. Additionally, those changes are going to nurf the game in some respects and they're going to suck for a while, but I also understand the their justifications for wanting to let new people in the game. Overall, I'd rather spend my energy working/playtesting/whatever in order to prepare for GenCon than worrying about the rule changes.

(On a personal note, the only thing that truly upsets me is that Morphling is now a lot less powerful)

I also think that if these chagnes bring about new players then it may be worth it. I would gladly sac some degree of complexity and tricks in order to allow for more players to enter. This also might have been done in response to the economy in order to keep the game profitable so I understand. THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME NUMBERS FROM WIZARDS IN 6 & 12 MONTHS TO TRACK PARTICPATION AND TO SEE HOW THESE CHANGES HAVE IMPACTED THE PLAYER BASE (IE increasing or decreasing the number of players)

[socialite]

Too early to tell.

However I think it will work out well.

[Bardo]

Forsythe was clear that the rule changes were not about our personal enjoyment of the game. Sure, vote in the poll; but existing players are not the intended audience of the M10 changes. Rules were modified to make the game more intuitive for new players and those that may be introduced, six months or two years from now.

To someone who said "They're dumbing the rules down." Yeah, that's exactly right. They're dumbing down rules that were pretty corn-ball to begin with and make card interaction happen the way you'd think they should happen (without the benefit of learning how they work under the pre-M10 scheme).

Everyone who's been playing since Mirrodin block understands (to one degree or another) tricks with damage on the stack, but it's smoke and mirrors to the newbs. And never forget: the continued existence of this game is built on newbs. I'm pretty invested in this game (playing from RV/3rd/Fallen Empires to Mirage and then from Mirrodin to now), but the money I put into this game is dismally small. Maybe a pack or two here or there, some singles on the secondary market--that's it. If the game relied on old-times like me, it would go from a strong/profitable brand in one quarter to mass-layoffs and life-support in the next quarter. New players inject $$ into the game and it's not going to survive any other way.

I read the Forsythe/Gottleib article twice this week and I have no problem with any of their changes. Some are even welcome. It will take some getting used to and my Affinity deck seems to have taken a hit, but I trust the brains in R&D. Most of their past changes have helped (I believe) the long-term growth and survival of this game. That's their job.

Overall, I think the changes to my enjoyment will be negligible with the benefit for others in the long-haul positive. So, thumbs up from me.

[Happy Gilmore]

Have you guys seen the threads on the MTG forums? Its already up to 5000 posts! Clearly ppl are a bit upset with some of these changes.

[Maveric78f]

I think it still too soon for anybody to make an informed decision.
Fixed.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm not sure what the logic behind that is. If the World Chess Federation decided to remove Castling tomorrow, I'm pretty sure the reaction from chess players around the world wouldn't be, "Well let's wait and see how it plays out".

They removed something that added strategic depth to the game for no gain, not even clarity or simplicity.

[Bardo]

Thing is, chess has six pieces which each has rules to its movement; not 10,000+. Also, the World Chess Federation does not produce 1,000 new chess pieces every year--each which does a little something differently than every other piece (more or less). M10 rule changes were acknowledged to be an effort to manage complexity creep. They removed something that added strategic depth, but there are many others left.

I don't want to be an apologist for WotC, but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they think these changes will help recruitment and retention of new players, I'm down with that. That seems to trump whatever benefits "damage on the stack" tricks gave us.

[Adan]

I'm not sure what the logic behind that is. If the World Chess Federation decided to remove Castling tomorrow, I'm pretty sure the reaction from chess players around the world wouldn't be, "Well let's wait and see how it plays out".

They removed something that added strategic depth to the game for no gain, not even clarity or simplicity.

I disagree: In the past you simply needed a certain knowledge about the rules to make the good play. The system itself was hader to understand, but when you understood it, you knew that you can take both the X/1 creature down with your STE and get the land by putting the damage onto the stack and so on.

This "chaos" has been cleansed by the new system and I would agree that it's easier to understand for newcomers, but nor you actually have to make a decision:

a) Take down the X/1 creature?
b) Take the extra land?

I'd say that this decision adds strategic depth to the process of a match (but I could also imagine that some players will take a long time to make such a decision).

This could also neuter the time-advantage gained from the new mulligan regulation.

And as Bardo ninja'ed me, you can't compare Chess to MtG.

[phoenix33]

I'm not sure what the logic behind that is. If the World Chess Federation decided to remove Castling tomorrow, I'm pretty sure the reaction from chess players around the world wouldn't be, "Well let's wait and see how it plays out".

The ammount Chess, Shogi and Xiangqi (Japanese and Chinese Chess) have changed from Shatranj (the earliest known form of chess) shows that during the first 20 years of their existance (and a few hundred more besides), the rules of these games changed a lot.

[paK0]

Why is everyone comparing chess and Magic?

Chess is bigger, and not as much profit orientated, which is the basic reason WotC made these changes.

[DragoFireheart]

How the hell did chess enter the argument?

The comparison is nowhere close: it's like trying to compare a bow and arrow with a M1 Abrams tank and then saying that simplifying the controls for the M1 Abrams is making it less complex than a bow and arrow.

And anyone that stops playing magic over these changes is over-reacting. It's still magic and you can do many combat tricks, but now they aren't quite as odd and make a bit more sense. Blocking now favors the defender (good change) and actually nerfs Gofy decks and buffs swarm decks like Merfolk and Goblins.

IBA, aren't you one that felt Goyf was overpowered? Well, the blocking changes nerf him in a sense.

[Icapica]

I answered that the changes won't have effect on my enjoyment. I don't like battlefield and not being able to divide combat damage as I wish, but otherwise the changes seem okay. I'm somewhat curious about how the public opinion will change after everyone has played with the new rules. There should be a poll with the same question some months later.

[SomeRandomDude]

Am i happy with the change? No, but no matter how much we cry about it it won't change the fact that the rule are changing. (I'm getting a little sick over people saying its the end of the world)

Yes, i feel the change could have been better, but then again it could be a lot worse and I for one never understood why my mogg fanatic could kill a 2/2... it just doesn't make any sense (and yes i understand how it work).

I'm more concerned whats going to happen on B/R day (hoping for so big changes).

If anyone is really planing on quitting over this, send me your cards :tongue:

[Forbiddian]

This "chaos" has been cleansed by the new system and I would agree that it's easier to understand for newcomers, but nor you actually have to make a decision:

a) Take down the X/1 creature?
b) Take the extra land?


No, the strategic decision is: "Wow, Sakura Tribe Elder is shitty, I can't play that garbage."[/quote]



And as Bardo ninja'ed me, you can't compare Chess to MtG.

As the first person to compare these rules changes to castling (and en passant), I think it's extremely apt.

Every Chess Federation worldwide is trying to make money. To make money, they need new players to join their tournaments, sign up for magazines, etc.. In short, they need new players to play Chess. Although the tournament players are the steady income source, chess needs new players in order to survive (or even to prevent an ELO collapse).

The fact that Chess has fewer pieces is totally irrelevant. Chess can still have confusing elements that would appear as "smoke and mirrors" to newbs everywhere.

The Chess Federation could remove Queenside Castling or En Passant in order to get new players into the game. In fact, the existence of those moves is pretty arbitrary, and chess would still be a zero sum game with all information revealed.

In the same way, Magic will still be the same game after virtually ANY change. Rules changes would just shift the metagame. But the changes could still be terrible for Magic.



Sure, the game is 1/1,000,000th less confusing. But I've taught a huge number of people how to play Magic (at least a dozen, probably two or three dozen), and nobody's been confused about Damage on the Stack. It's fundamentally NOT a confusing rule.

If you want to fix unintuitive rules, make Mishra's Factory a 1/1 under Humility. Make a countered Demigod go to the graveyard and not trigger its ability. Make Morphs have 3 converted mana cost.

And certainly nobody has asked me, "Hey, how come we have the Library and Graveyard, but our hands aren't called our "Book Collection" and the In Play zone isn't called "The Arena" and the cards that are removed from the game aren't ripped into tiny pieces."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Chess may only have six pieces, but there are many billions of potential moves in a game of chess. In complexity it's certainly comparable to Magic.

However, I think anyone would realize that in terms of complexity creep, the fastest way to make the game unmanageable would be to constantly alter the rules.

Also, you're going to have to explain how these changes hurt Goyf at all. The only creatures hurt by this are those with a relevant sac mechanism, such as Tribe-Elder, Pridemage, Fanatic. Large creatures with sac mechanisms such as Grave-Shell Scarab, Ravenous Baloth and Loxodon Hierarch get hit particularly hard. Every other creature seems like it gets better by association.

And Forbiddian is right, this simply isn't the most confusing rule. Storm and Cascade working even if the original spell is countered, or Cycle effects still triggering if the card draw is Stifled, and everything having to do with Humility or Trinisphere, are way larger sources of confusion from my experience.

The fact is that lots of times there is no "intuitive, streamlined" answer. People tend to think that whatever favors them in a given situation is intuitive, and whatever they've lost to in the past is unintuitive. People have a natural bias. You can't have rules for a game this complex that completely explain themselves.

[Eldariel]

If we're talking about confusing rules, how about the fact that you can play spells before opponent draws a card for their turn?

Or the fact that the End-step is repeated if anything happened during Clean Up?

Or that creatures can't use "T:" abilities the turn they come into play yet they can be Tapped for a cost of another card's ability just fine?

Or the fact that there's no official term for a creature's inability to attack/tap the turn it comes into play?

Or the fact that manlands suddenly lose their ability to tap for mana if you turn them into creatures the turn they come into play?

Or how about that 7-card limit?

Or how about the fact that Swat can kill a 2/3 Goyf, but Lightning Bolt can't (unless one of the card types is an instant)?

Or the fact that a card killed by Lightning Bolt wasn't actually killed by your opponent and thus doesn't come back with Sacred Grounds (for example)?

Or the fact that cantrip removal suddenly doesn't draw you a card if the target is removed?

How about the fact that lands are colorless? That has to be the most common misconception of new guys - "What, are you telling me Mountains aren't red?"


They didn't hit one-billionth of the confusing rules, and they didn't hit the ones that come up most often (especially lands being colorless, damage not being the same as destroying, "summoning sickness" being inconsistent, cards without any legal targets being countered; those come up all the time and confuse the hell out of new people), while hitting complete trivialities like token ownership and lifelink.

[Happy Gilmore]

Zvi spelled it out perfectly, the changes to combat do the opposite of making the game more intuitive. Combat will become an exception to the stack rule which every magic player has to learn to use to be good. Try explaining to a new player that you use the stack at all times "except" durring combat damage Step. It makes no sense, unless they can find a more intuitive way to redefine the stack, which is already intuitive. The changes to combat have a huge effect on the card pool. And I love how stupid forsythe is to use nantuko shade and SGC in his example since neither will see much play after these changes.

Every other rules change is intuitive and makes sense. The only one that needs to be looked at is combat damage.

[paK0]

Zvi spelled it out perfectly, the changes to combat do the opposite of making the game more intuitive. Combat will become an exception to the stack rule which every magic player has to learn to use to be good. Try explaining to a new player that you use the stack at all times "except" durring combat damage Step. It makes no sense, unless they can find a more intuitive way to redefine the stack, which is already intuitive. The changes to combat have a huge effect on the card pool. And I love how stupid forsythe is to use nantuko shade and SGC in his example since neither will see much play after these changes.

Every other rules change is intuitive and makes sense. The only one that needs to be looked at is combat damage.


Without the change you would have to explain them why no dmg uses the stack EXCEPT combat damage

[Malchar]

Without the change you would have to explain them why no dmg uses the stack EXCEPT combat damage

This is the fundamental argument. The only reason people are up in arms over this is because they happened to be spoiled for all this time with the wackiness of combat damage that does use the stack. It never should have been the way it is.

[pi4meterftw]

I'm not sure what the logic behind that is. If the World Chess Federation decided to remove Castling tomorrow, I'm pretty sure the reaction from chess players around the world wouldn't be, "Well let's wait and see how it plays out".

They removed something that added strategic depth to the game for no gain, not even clarity or simplicity.

I'm not sure what the logic behind this is. Are you claiming that players ought not to wait it out, or that players will probably not wait it out in reality? If the latter, I agree, but it is not relevant to whether or not we should be quiet and wait. If the former, then obviously not. Of course people should wait it out. It's just whether our patience allows us to or not. Even from a practical standpoint, what benefit is there agonizing now before we wait it out and try the new system? I, for one, don't care. I just played some 20 games under the old rules, and at every combat phase, I checked to see if the new rules would matter. The number of times the new rules mattered was:

0

Also, IBA, goyf's power is slightly reduced by the new rules because double blocking becomes more profitable. For example, let's say I have a 1/3 and a 3/3, and you a 3/4 goyf. (A common situation. The 1/3 is our fathom seer, the 3/3 a serra avenger.) Now you can take my crappy fathom seer. Or perhaps, the even more common 4/5 goyf. I trust that I don't even have to give examples of blocking with a 2/2 and a 3/3, since 2/2s and 3/3s clearly are played in the format. More peripherally, what if you have a high toughness creature?

I don't make an argument about whether the new rules are intuitive or not. I can see how tap abilities seem to correspond to throwing a grenade, but the more common situation is the sac situation, and if a creature has to sacrifice to ping the other guy, it doesn't seem like the action in question is throwing a grenade, since that is not an action of self-sacrifice. It seems more like the action (say for fanatic) is self-detonation, in which case, how is it fighting exactly? I see both sides, but I also think it's irrelevant. If wizards happens to get more newbs to come, great. (their intended audience, don't forget, so it's actually a nonsequitur to comment that we don't benefit from this change, though I disagree with this claim anyway.) All that affects the old players is how the game works out, and if you actually sit down and play 20 games, unless you play D&T, slivers, Ad Nauseam, or goyf (Slightly) you won't notice a difference. Also, I would hardly claim that Ad Nauseam is now crippled, nor that slivers is unplayable. (Some builds don't even play hibernation sliver.) Death and taxes I would consider significantly harmed, but I always thought nogoyf was a natural evolution of it anyhow. Can someone please state testing/well-thought out reasons why he believes a significant number of decks will be significantly impacted? (Say, 10 decks in the top 3 tiers that drop even 1 tier.)

[Tosh]

The number of times the new rules mattered was:

0

As with many rules changes, it affects some decks more than one and you can't judge whether the changes affected the game in either (or no) direction at all with only a limited amount of testing. They could remove creatures attacking at all and then I play 20 games with TES and it will hardly change it at all.

Whether or not it affects you, the changes DO affect some people which will indirectly affect you. Almost 4/10 times with TES I was using the LED + Mystical Tutor trick in order to win and because that's gone, TES (and most other combo decks) will be even slower and therefore strengthens the control that Counterbalance decks have on this format.

The new combat rules would have come up on several occasions (if we were playing with them, which we weren't. We still took note, however) while playing EDH yesterday and today.

To finish up with the other changes, I think that the flavor changes (except the "battlefield" seems more clunky than "play") weren't too bad and the mana burn thing isn't too bad either. I wouldn't be sad at all if they implemented just these rules.

(side note: I really don't care about how creatures would "physically" do effects while damage was on the stack (TBH, who really thinks that they're sorcerers casting spells at enemies... if they stuck strong to this concept, a lot of cards would make absolutely no sense), I'm just sad that they're dumbing down the game and remove a big piece of strategy)

[Forbiddian]

This is the fundamental argument. The only reason people are up in arms over this is because they happened to be spoiled for all this time with the wackiness of combat damage that does use the stack. It never should have been the way it is.

Nice Red Herring. Try my hypothetical:

What if they suddenly switched Power and Toughness on everything (so that Toughness was reported first). This would have no effect on new players who would simply learn the new way. The only reason why we'd be "up in arms" about the change is because we expect power to come first. So we have no real reason to complain, right?

I mean, if the ONLY thing on our side is like ten years of Magic tradition....

[pi4meterftw]

Nice Red Herring. Try my hypothetical:

What if they suddenly switched Power and Toughness on everything (so that Toughness was reported first). This would have no effect on new players who would simply learn the new way. The only reason why we'd be "up in arms" about the change is because we expect power to come first. So we have no real reason to complain, right?

I mean, if the ONLY thing on our side is like ten years of Magic tradition....

Even if you don't think that argument was good, the difference is that it was actually at one point (And for all time before that point, which is a significant chunk of magic's existance.) the way it is about to become.

In other words, even those who think the past holds significance don't have grounds for debate.

[Michael Keller]

I am trying to understand what the logic behind the analogy of using chess with Castling is compared to the new rule configurations M10 will present.

There are approximately sixteen pieces each player is capable of controlling in a chess game. There are thousands upon thousands of different Magic cards. The complexities of Magic are far greater than that of chess. Yes; the fundamental principle of each game may be similar in theory, but there are countless mechanics in Magic. There are three in chess: Castling, En passant, and Promotion. Castling has also been an implemented maneuver in chess for the last five centuries (first by Ruy Lopez, a priest in the 16th century). I seriously doubt the absence of "mana burn" and "damage on the stack" will be that catastrophic to the game compared to the absence of a 500 year-old mechanic.

I'm sure Wilhelm Steinitz would be rolling in his grave if he heard that analogy.

[pi4meterftw]

As with many rules changes, it affects some decks more than one and you can't judge whether the changes affected the game in either (or no) direction at all with only a limited amount of testing. They could remove creatures attacking at all and then I play 20 games with TES and it will hardly change it at all.

Whether or not it affects you, the changes DO affect some people which will indirectly affect you. Almost 4/10 times with TES I was using the LED + Mystical Tutor trick in order to win and because that's gone, TES (and most other combo decks) will be even slower and therefore strengthens the control that Counterbalance decks have on this format.

The new combat rules would have come up on several occasions (if we were playing with them, which we weren't. We still took note, however) while playing EDH yesterday and today.

To finish up with the other changes, I think that the flavor changes (except the "battlefield" seems more clunky than "play") weren't too bad and the mana burn thing isn't too bad either. I wouldn't be sad at all if they implemented just these rules.


(side note: I really don't care about how creatures would "physically" do effects while damage was on the stack (TBH, who really thinks that they're sorcerers casting spells at enemies... if they stuck strong to this concept, a lot of cards would make absolutely no sense), I'm just sad that they're dumbing down the game and remove a big piece of strategy)

I agree that nothing can be affirmed with finitely many trials. (although as you shall see below, in a certain sense, they can be "acceptable" or a good model after finitely many trials, which is what, sensibly speaking, we need.) In fact, you need to accept as an axiom that statistics is a good model for the way things work in our world. In that case, it seems alright to play 20 games and to start making some fairly general claims. Sure, it may be that you can spit out a real number > 0 for a desired measure of accuracy, and the number of games I have played may not squeeze the error bar below the desired accuracy, but that is fine with me. Because of my axiom, I do not aim to be able to reduce my error beyond 10^-6502040230. (For those of you interested, the rate of decay in similar things to this is 1/sqrt(N), and the above is, indeed, an allusion to the definition of limit. I refuse to say such things as playing infinitely many games, an idea that makes no sense, but if that is what you must think, then go for it.)

Furthermore, you seem to think that even though I am now able (by the above) to use my results for at least my deck, and my opponent's deck, that I have no ability to generalize my claim. You cite as an example that there exist changes for which TES is unaffected. However, I agree that I would react the same way to your TES example, and claim that with no pause, I also believe that my results can be generalized to other decks. Logically speaking, you can't just suggest an example and hope for it to do something. More specifically, you can't ask me a specific question ("Wouldn't you think it would be messed up for a TES player to draw the conclusion.") and take my answer and apply it to any other situation, because the other situation is simply different. I will even spell out where the difference is here: I was playing a deck that does not completely ignore the combat phase unlike TES. In fact, my deck is not totally unaffected directly by the combat changes. Specifically, fathom seer can no longer eat ringleaders, frogmites, warchief, etc. and live to tell the tale.

[pi4meterftw]

I am trying to understand what the logic behind the analogy of using chess with Castling is compared to the new rule configurations M10 will present.

There are approximately sixteen pieces each player is capable of controlling in a chess game. There are thousands upon thousands of different Magic cards. The complexities of Magic are far greater than that of chess. Yes; the fundamental principle of each game may be similar in theory, but there are countless mechanics in Magic. There are three in chess: Castling, En passant, and Promotion. Castling has also been an implemented maneuver in chess for the last five centuries (first by Ruy Lopez, a priest in the 16th century). I seriously doubt the absence of "mana burn" and "damage on the stack" will be that catastrophic to the game compared to the absence of a 500 year-old mechanic.

I'm sure Wilhelm Steinitz would be rolling in his grave if he heard that analogy.

Pay no attention to the analogies. They hold no logical significance. In fact, as you point out, they are even quite far off.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Without the change you would have to explain them why no dmg uses the stack EXCEPT combat damage

Redundancy. All non-combat damage is dealt by spells and abilities that all use the stack and can be responded to. Having a Lightning Bolt resolve to only put the damage on the stack and then to have that damage later resolve would be pointless as it is totally redundant and serves no purpose. There is no similar redundancy about combat damage using the stack.

[Nihil Credo]

Also, IBA, goyf's power is slightly reduced by the new rules because double blocking becomes more profitable. For example, let's say I have a 1/3 and a 3/3, and you a 3/4 goyf. (A common situation. The 1/3 is our fathom seer, the 3/3 a serra avenger.) Now you can take my crappy fathom seer. Or perhaps, the even more common 4/5 goyf. I trust that I don't even have to give examples of blocking with a 2/2 and a 3/3, since 2/2s and 3/3s clearly are played in the format. More peripherally, what if you have a high toughness creature?

If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on.

If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on.

If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on.

Also, Fathom Seer hates the new M10 rules.

[Nihil Credo]

dpftw


Steve Sadin has attached a few M10 combat quizzes at the end of his latest article (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/li/43). Take a look at them, it's an interesting example at the kind of tactics that are possible with the new system - essentially mini-max evaluations with a dash of game of chicken.

[paK0]

Redundancy. All non-combat damage is dealt by spells and abilities that all use the stack and can be responded to. Having a Lightning Bolt resolve to only put the damage on the stack and then to have that damage later resolve would be pointless as it is totally redundant and serves no purpose. There is no similar redundancy about combat damage using the stack.

Still it was an exception, now everything is in line, like WotC wants it to be.

Its not better if you look from the tactical side, but it definately makes sense.

[Maveric78f]

Steve Sadin has attached a few M10 combat quizzes at the end of his latest article (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/li/43). Take a look at them, it's an interesting example at the kind of tactics that are possible with the new system - essentially mini-max evaluations with a dash of game of chicken.
I'm probably missing it all, mainly because I don't know the limited format (even if the examples might show all the boosting spells). But I'll give it a try.

#1 No instant to play but a very good aggro plan. Mosstodon and Natcatl Outlander seem to indicate that the 2/2 attribute versus the 3/3 one is very relevant, so that I assign the 3/3 first and the 2/2 second, disregarding the risk that my opponent plays Sigil Blessing. But I'm really not sure...

#2 I know I can answer any boost spell with Resounding Thunder, so that I take absolutely no risk in assigning the 3/3 first.

#3 I can play a single boost spell (only 1 forest). Me boost spells either target or are too small to guarantee that a single blocker would kill the Thoctar. So, I'd block with both creatures. Then, if the elf is the first blocker, I would play Gleam of resistance because it's the most expensive and situational boost spell. If minotaur is the first blocker I would try to save it with Sigil Blessing (in order not to lose both creatures on an opposing Sigil Blessing or Might of Alara).

#4 Well I'm mostly fucked up. I've bluffed like a champ until now since I made my opponent think that I have 4 plains in hand. I block with all and hope that my opponent will assign first on the minotaur and that he does not have any boost.

[pi4meterftw]

Also, Fathom Seer hates the new M10 rules.

Agreed. Then why are people saying the attacking player lost tactical advantage?

EDIT: nevermind i see it. The attacking player has to assign the ordering earlier than before. Wow really guys? That's not even close to as major of a change as I thought it was going to be. This is not a significant shift of tactical advantage to the defending player. Can someone please give a significant situation where the attacking player now comes out significantly worse off than before?

[Happy Gilmore]

I'm probably missing it all, mainly because I don't know the limited format (even if the examples might show all the boosting spells). But I'll give it a try.

#1 No instant to play but a very good aggro plan. Mosstodon and Natcatl Outlander seem to indicate that the 2/2 attribute versus the 3/3 one is very relevant, so that I assign the 3/3 first and the 2/2 second, disregarding the risk that my opponent plays Sigil Blessing. But I'm really not sure...

#2 I know I can answer any boost spell with Resounding Thunder, so that I take absolutely no risk in assigning the 3/3 first.

#3 I can play a single boost spell (only 1 forest). Me boost spells either target or are too small to guarantee that a single blocker would kill the Thoctar. So, I'd block with both creatures. Then, if the elf is the first blocker, I would play Gleam of resistance because it's the most expensive and situational boost spell. If minotaur is the first blocker I would try to save it with Sigil Blessing (in order not to lose both creatures on an opposing Sigil Blessing or Might of Alara).

#4 Well I'm mostly fucked up. I've bluffed like a champ until now since I made my opponent think that I have 4 plains in hand. I block with all and hope that my opponent will assign first on the minotaur and that he does not have any boost.

With #1 you put the elf first regardless if they have pump or not. If they don't, you get a 2 for 1, if they do, you still get a 2 for one, if you put the 3/3 first you get 1 for 1 which is poor.

#2, I agree with you

#3, If he has the thunder or any other removal spell he is going to get a 3 for 1 which is so poor. Its a bad situation no matter what. What you do is block only with the 3/3 and cast might of Alara on the 3/3, this way at least your still blocking but don't get completely destroyed by a removal spell.

[Team-Hero]

R.I.P. Ghost Council

I hope they print some new mechanics with these new combat rules. I think control players benefit more from this change than aggro players... but only time will tell.

[TheCramp]

Wasn't Ghost Dad dead once he rotated out of type 2? Whats with all this nostalgia for cards we don't play in legacy?

You know what, I am going to keep playing Mogg Fantastic in zoo and send the little bastard into the red zone under M10 rules same as ever. I'll do this just to piss off curmudgeons who proclaimed the little guys death, and they can go grief grief in the losers bracket. He 187's bob, birds, wins goyf wars, pumps goyf the turn they are both attacking, plays boogie man to nantuku shade, same as ever. He still can't swing into Factory or goyf. They can't kill Mogg, hes fantastic.

[Michael Keller]

You know what, I am going to keep playing Mogg Fantastic in zoo and send the little bastard into the red zone under M10 rules same as ever. I'll do this just to piss off curmudgeons who proclaimed the little guys death, and they can go grief grief in the losers bracket. He 187's bob, birds, wins goyf wars, pumps goyf the turn they are both attacking, plays boogie man to nantuku shade, same as ever. He still can't swing into Factory or goyf. They can't kill Mogg, hes fantastic.

Not anymore.

[pi4meterftw]

Not anymore.

IYO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!1111111ELEVENELEVEN

[Dark_Cynic87]

These new rules turn Stone-Tongue Basilisk into a suicidal bastard at best.

I know you guys won't care about that card, but the ruling on Deathtouch turns it's fundemental purpose into a joke. It was a green WoG, and now it's poo, even in casual games and Tabletop Magic.

Pce,

--DC

[AngryTroll]

These new rules turn Stone-Tongue Basilisk into a suicidal bastard at best.

I know you guys won't care about that card, but the ruling on Deathtouch turns it's fundemental purpose into a joke. It was a green WoG, and now it's poo, even in casual games and Tabletop Magic.

Pce,

--DC

Edit: I see. This does neuter it...he doesn't actually have Deathtouch. If he did have Deathtouch, he would be functionally identical to the pre-M10 Rules. However, he doesn't have Deathtouch, so he has to deal lethal combat damage to a creature before he can assign more damage to the next one.

Alright, now I actually want to email Wizards. That is a functional change to the card that isn't neccesary; he should probably be errata'd to say Deathtouch, even though that is slightly different than what he does now. It wasn't collateral damage, like Mogg Fanatic and Pridemage, but an unintended casualty.