Anti-M10 Rules Petition

[Eldariel]

Well, it was bound to happen; someone's started a petition to keep combat damage stacking. Does/can it make a difference? Who knows, but if you oppose the changes, might as well take the two seconds to sign this - it's far more likely to have an effect than any number of forum posts anyways.

Link:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/give-stacked-combat-damage-a-chance

[voltron00x]

Even if I thought such a thing would mean anything to WotC, and I don't, surely people who share this opinion can find something better written than the following:

"These new rules in M2010 making the game harder to teach, killin' allknown classical mechanic everyone used to.

Don't turn MTG to Soliter!"

Man, I hate when things turn to Soliter...

[Eldariel]

It would be better to just open up another petition, but seeing that that already has few thousand names, I don't think that's really a relevant option anymore.

[phoenix33]

I find it amusing that it's titled "Give stacked damage a chance", when clearly nobody's had the time to give the new rules a chance.

[FakeSpam]

I'm pretty sure these changes are going through no matter what.

The Archangel Gabriel could appear and strongly suggest that the combat changes are unnecessary, Aaron Forsythe will fail to notice.

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm pretty sure these changes are going through no matter what.

The Archangel Gabriel could appear and strongly suggest that the combat changes are unnecessary, Aaron Forsythe will fail to notice.
This.

[JeroenC]

I'm already regretting having put my name on a petition after I first heard about the rules- I'm siding with the "Wizards knows good enough" camp as of now.

[quicksilver]

I'm pretty sure these changes are going through no matter what.

The Archangel Gabriel could appear and strongly suggest that the combat changes are unnecessary, Aaron Forsythe will fail to notice.

True. I am also pretty confident the combat damage rules will get changed again with the next core set.

[TsumiBand]

It seems like if they cared a damn about Limited they wouldn't fuck with "Damage On?"

Seriously, of all the putative Constructive plays that go away, drafters are going to be sad at this.

[rockout]

I know it won't make a different, but that slight chance it might, is the reason I signed.

[Dan Turner]

This is a real Quote from the DOJO I thought it was funny as hell considering.


A bunch of people bitching about 6th edition rules changes and starting a petition to save magic from the change (http://theclassicdojo.com/b985/)




Dear WOTC,

If these rumors about 6th edition are true please read this message:

1. No more interrupts.
2. No more Damage Prevention Phase.
3. No more Mana Pool.
4. Tapped artifacts will function normally.

If these rumors are false, ignore this message and please accept my
humble apology for sending the message.

WOTC is not in a unique position with their MtG game product. Other
companies have been in a similar situation (TSR, White Wolf, Steve
Jackson Games, etc.) WOTC should learn from their mistakes and WOTC's
own mistakes and not make the same ones again. The position I am
talking about is having a unique and wonderful product and in an attempt
to profit monger and "expand" the market they kill the product.

Let me recap the history of Magic as I see it (and as it relates to
these issues). First an amazing product is created, this is followed by
some ok expansions and then by some "less than great" expansions.
Interest in magic starts to wane. WOTC sees this problem and calls in
the best game designers they have to design a new "Cycle". Tempest is
the result. Garfield, Rosewater and others did AMAZING work on Tempest
and Rath cycle. Rath cycle is, in my opinion, probably the best
designed game product ever. It is without peer in terms of balance and
strategic options in Sealed, Draft and Constructed play. It was a great
year for magic.

Urza's Saga seems a let down after Tempest - but then almost anything
would. I still did not think this would have a big impact on people's
interest in the game... US has enough to keep people playing and the
type two environment still contains Rath cycle. However, if you start
to make the game "dumber" by simplifying the rules in the hopes of
"attracting" more interest you are going to get into big trouble. The
moronic new trample rule is an example of how changing the rules to make
them simpler rules the game. Trample is now one of the least useful of
the creature abilities. It used to be quiet useful in some strategic
situations.

As it is, the lack of strategic possibilities in US (as compared to
Tempest) has me a little discouraged. Recently I have not been feeling
not as excited about playing Magic. I normally play Magic for
entertainment. In a typical week I would play 2 sealed deck events and
possibly a draft (this translates into $35-$50 in sales). But, because
of the "flatness" of the US in sealed deck play I have not been as
excited about playing and have been considering other options.

I know it does not matter much what I as one person think... but
consider this analogy: different types of people play Chess then play
Checkers.... if you change Magic from Chess to Checkers you will lose
your market. If you don't want your current market then go ahead - but
at least know what you are doing.

Portal already exists. Portal by itself is not fun because it is
boring. Don't make magic boring in the hopes that the people who say
"it is to hard to play" will suddenly become interested. There are lots
of things for those people to do... let them do those things. Don't
take away the stuff we as Magic players enjoy because you want those
people to play Magic. You already have us playing magic.

Let us play magic the way Garfield designed it. He did a good job.


adding creature combat to the stack killed Magic back in 6th edition...:laugh:

[Amber VII]

I wrote my own letter to Wizards today reflecting on the changes in M10. A decade from now I too hope to look back at my words and realize how wrong I was and how much Wizards was in the right.


Dear Wizards,

I've known Magic for over a decade now. I started in Tempest when my older brother handed me a pile of cards and no rule book. I remember Craw Wurm being my favorite creature. I was attracted more to the artwork and the flavor than what the actual cards did. When I showed my friends the game they acted uninterested and preferred to go to the mall instead.

In college I was reintroduced to Magic by some friends on our dorm floor. Since then I've slowly developed into a competent player with a good understanding of the rules. I still consider myself a casual player, having never attended a sanctioned tournament. Through the years, I've invested countless hours into Magic. I introduced Magic to other friends as well – many of whom are still playing today.

Today was the day I gave up on Magic. Let me clarify myself. I won't stop playing Magic or give my decks away. But I will no longer be buying your product.

As you probably surmised, my actions were bought on by the recent changes in M10. When I first read the article "Magic 2010 Rule Changes" by Mr. Forsythe and Mr. Gottlieb, many of the changes made sense. The new rules regarding Mulligans, Lifelink, and the End Step were sensible and a welcome change. I didn't care much for the change in terminology, but I reasoned it would grow on me after time.

I was initially displeased Wizards did away with Mana Burn, as I felt it was important for players - new players especially - to plan each move correctly. Thanks to debit cards we no longer have to worry about balancing a checkbook. But I thought teaching players how to manage a Mana Pool would breed good habits. Admittedly, Mana Burn was never an issue in 99.8% of the games we've played. I don't think it's ever costed me a game. It makes sense for you guys to remove it, if only because new players don't have to learn a rule that often doesn't account for anything.

What turned me off to Magic were the changes to the Combat Phase. By removing combat damage from the stack and forcing players to assign damage in a specific order, Wizards has removed a layer of tactical depth from the game. I use to believe Magic was a skill based game. With these changes the pendulum has swung more towards deck building and luck. If I wanted to play a dumbed down version of Magic I would pick up Yu-Gi-Oh or something.

By making Magic a less intricate game, once filled with wonderful nuances and 'gotcha!' type moments, Wizards has done its fans a disservice. The combat phase has lost its luster – the uncertainty and excitement that abounds in combat. You use to be able to play your "moment of truth" cards (Bounce Spells, Damage Redirection, Sacrifice..., etc.) in the nick of time to rescue your creatures and deliver the coup de grâce to your opponent. Now we're forced to regenerate our creatures before combat occurs. What sense is there in preventing damage before damage is even dealt? The new rules have not proven easier to explain to players. Truthfully, I had to read the article a few times to understand the changes.

To make sure I wasn't being stubborn or fixated in my ways, I played some games of Magic under the new rules. I was saddened by what I saw. Magic has become a sterile, stagnant game, devoid of lifelessness. When I entered the combat step, it was like going through the motions. My friends felt the same way. It was more than one woman could take. Causalities of our games included: Echoing Truth, Pyroclasm, Morphling, Goblin Legionnaire, Loxodon Hierarch, and a plethora of others. No doubt many other cards will be affected that have yet to see play. At least when Wizards redid Artifacts in Sixth Edition (Always 'On'), they errata'ed a few of the older artifacts to retain their original functionality (i.e. Winter Orb). Will Wizards grant an errata to these cards? I doubt it.

Wizards has taken a joyful experience and made it unfun. How can I support that? Do you reward a pup for bad behavior? By continuing to buy your product I would be sending a message that what you're doing is okay. Since it's not okay - no matter how much I cherish you guys - we're through.

Sincerely,

Amber VII

[Aggro_zombies]

As Magic Fanatic alluded to, all of this happened when the Sixth Edition rules came out. WoTC didn't listen to the vocal players then; they won't listen now. Give it up. The new rules don't actually change very much if you test them out, even in Limited.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

They won't listen, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong and they're not making poor decisions.

We actually had a sort of replicated situation, similar to the Token situation, come up in a game of Pile this evening. Pile is a game of Magic with one big shared deck and graveyard everyone plays from, singleton with a lot of Timmy crap (hence, "Pile").

Our friend Nick cast Exhume. I put Weatherseed Treefolk into play. Matt Evangelize'd it and then I killed it. The question became;

Whose hand does Weatherseed Treefolk return to? Everyone has the same deck so the usual standard for "owner" doesn't apply. Matt's the controller now, and I was the original controller, but we all agreed that what made the most sense was for it to return to Nick's hand. Why? Because he was the one who cast Exhume, the spell that put it into play originally.

I only mention this because it's the same argument with the tokens and this was SpatulaOfTheAges Matt, the same Matt that tried to defend this stupid decision in this thread.

These changes are minor, but that's half of what's annoying. This isn't like 6th Edition where they needed to overhaul the game. This is just Gottlieb and crew getting the greenlight to tinker and fucking with the rules just because they could.

Ditto to the changes to combat damage. They've been trying since Alpha to get the rules to work to accomdoate damage prevention like it's supposed to work. The existing rules worked pretty well for that, and if they hated Mogg Fanatic and crew working the way they did they could have, as Nihil notes, changed the rules to say that dead creatures can't deal combat damage, which is actually pretty intuitive. Instead they created a bunch of complicated new rules that they immediately have to contradict to preserve the mechanics they want.

It demonstrates a really unhealthy mentality towards the structure of the game. This is just fucking with things to fuck with them.

[MattH]

There was a shit-ton more outcry regarding the Mirrodin card frame change than this, too.

[Arctic_Slicer]

There was a shit-ton more outcry regarding the Mirrodin card frame change than this, too.

Did you see the thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1201480) on the official site? It's actually 3 threads long because the first two got too long and had to be locked due to the limitations of vbuliten. Neither the new card frames nor the 6th edition rules changes got near as much negative feedback as these announced changes are getting. This is unprecedented and is a sure sign that they are doing something wrong.

[Nihil Credo]

Our friend Nick cast Exhume. I put Weatherseed Treefolk into play.
Wait, if everyone uses a shared graveyard, how did you determine who gets to return which creature? Turn order?

[rleader]

There was a shit-ton more outcry regarding the Mirrodin card frame change than this, too.

I still don't understand the frame change explanation: I didn't play when the change happened (and thus had no angst), but from all the backlog of wizard's archives I've read (and I've probably read 95% of mothership articles), I STILL can't figure out what clarity or functional utility we were missing out on back in the day.

OK, colored artifacts are easier to do now (and hybrid cards look cool, although the blend would have worked with old cards, too, just as the artifacts could have been given colored text boxes on the old frame), but aside from that, I still can't see what's more legible about the new format, especially given Wizard's excitement about their "innovation" at the time when colored artifacts were years away (and not something players cared much about anyway).

[ParkerLewis]

Ditto to the changes to combat damage. They've been trying since Alpha to get the rules to work to accomdoate damage prevention like it's supposed to work. The existing rules worked pretty well for that, and if they hated Mogg Fanatic and crew working the way they did they could have, as Nihil notes, changed the rules to say that dead creatures can't deal combat damage, which is actually pretty intuitive. Instead they created a bunch of complicated new rules that they immediately have to contradict to preserve the mechanics they want.

This one paragraph actually has something to stand on its own, so there is something to discuss.

The first point is that you do recognize that the "Mogg fanatic trick" is counterintuitive (that is, as long as you've not been told for years that it's possible) and there. So I'm understanding that you're criticizing the execution of their solution to the problem, not the intent, and thus I'm going to assume from now on we agree on the usefulness of restoring this functionality (if not at the cost of doing so). Otherwise, please object quickly or there's no point.

The problem with the solution you mentioned, ie "just changing the rules to say dead creatures can't do damage" is that it's simply messy. You're actually just introducing a hack to a system (the stack) to forcefully make it work the way you want (continue linking the effect with the source) when this way is actually the opposite of what the stack has been designed to do.

This is exactly defeating the purpose of using the stack in the first place. At this point, the cleaner (and arguably only reasonable) way is to simply get rid of the stack for combat damage. Please also note that this change, by itself, is mechanically similar (if not identical, depending on the implementation that would have been adopted for "removing the damage from the stack", but that's not the point) to the change you mentioned, so once again by itself it's quite irreproachable.

Thus the only part of the change that does appear to be debatable is how they switched damage dealing mechanisms to make damage prevention work, which main and seemingly only consequence is that you can't separate the damage to finish both (or more) blockers later with a pyroclasm or the like.

Well... I agree you can't really argue it's better than before, I mean, the possibility was there without flavorfully weird or counter intuitive. Still, I guess you could argue that a creature wouldn't really be able to divide its damage exactly as ordered to between different opponents (also, imagine explaining it to your critter : "hey Tarmo, be careful kay ? Don't just rush killing those boosted Cursecatcher and Slivergill Adept. Just make sure you divide your damage 2 on the first and 3 on the second hmmkay ? I'm the one going to finish them off afterwards"). Joke aside, it doesn't really feel weirder than before.

So the question is, how much does it matter to lose this opportunity ? Well, how often does it actually matter ? If you try to recall, you'll realize that the answer is "probably not that often at all". It certainly does happen, sure. But certainly not every match, not even every other match, and probably not more than one out of every four or five matches. While combat damage not using the stack is something that will improve the natural feel of the game basically every time.


It demonstrates a really unhealthy mentality towards the structure of the game. This is just fucking with things to fuck with them.

Actually, it demonstrates very healthy mentality towards the structure of the game, and a true long term vision for Magic...

...and their jobs. I think everyone complaining (not specifically directed at you) should start by remembering they're putting their full-time job on the line there, so that at least the facepalm-worthy comments like "they don't give a shit, waaa waa waa, wtf are those morons thinking, it's obvious they're wrong, and this is actually a random poster on an internet forum telling you so" might at least vanish.


This is a real Quote from the DOJO I thought it was funny as hell considering.


A bunch of people bitching about 6th edition rules changes and starting a petition to save magic from the change (http://theclassicdojo.com/b985/)


adding creature combat to the stack killed Magic back in 6th edition...:laugh:

And thanks a lot for reminding people of it. Hopefully perspective might be gained here and there (yeah, let's dream about that).

[Nihil Credo]

The problem with the solution you mentioned, ie "just changing the rules to say dead creatures can't do damage" is that it's simply messy. You're actually just introducing a hack to a system (the stack) to forcefully make it work the way you want (continue linking the effect with the source) when this way is actually the opposite of what the stack has been designed to do.

This is exactly defeating the purpose of using the stack in the first place.

That's correct, and I've been thinking quite a bit about the issue in the last few days, as I became more and more convinced that a system like the one I suggested could be better than both M10 and 6E.

Here's the way I currently see it:

There is absolutely no good reason why the 6E combat system had to store combat damage on the stack.

In every other situation in the game the stack can only contain one of two types of objects: spells and activated or triggered abilities. These objects all have some characteristics: an owner, a controller, some number of colours. Most importantly, they can be interacted with in several ways.

Combat damage has none of these properties: it's an oddball item that was put there as a hack to separate declaring and dealing damage. This separation is clearly vital to modern Magic, in order to give an interval during which any sort of trick can be used, regardless of what future designers come up with (as opposed to 5E rules, which short-sightedly made a special exception only for damage prevention).

But you can separate declaring and dealing damage without using the stack. You just need to make them into two special actions, just like declaring attackers and blockers.

So, here's the combat phase structure I propose:
Beginning of Combat. Each player gets priority.
Declare Attackers. The attacking player declares his attackers; then each player gets priority.
Declare Blockers. The defending player announces his blockers; then each player gets priority.
Declare Damage. Each player announces what amount of damage his fighting creatures will deal, and to what; then each player gets priority.
Damage Resolution. Each fighting creature deals the announced amounts of damage; then each player gets priority.
End of Combat. Each player gets priority (actually superfluous now, just like in M10, but needed for some older triggers).And here's what I consider my key observation:

The 6E system was forced to allow absent creatures to deal damage because it put combat damage on the stack, thus making it an object independent from its source.

It had to adopt the counter-intuitive rule that combat damage worked like an activated ability solely to remain consistent with the way spells and abilities work.

Once you adopt a Declare/Deal damage system independent from the stack, an example of which I have given above, it becomes obvious that only creatures still fighting will deal damage.

That is in fact identical to how, under the 6E system, only creatures still fighting get to put their damage on the stack in the Combat Damage step. If you declare a blocker, and it gets killed/bounced during the Declare Blockers step, it won't put damage on the stack (6E) / assign damage (NC). Under "NC rules", this is paralleled in how if you declare a certain damage from your creature, and it gets killed/bounced during the Declare Damage step, it won't deal its damage.

The game is perfectly capable of retaining a piece of information from one step to another, without using the stack: it already does so with the list of creatures that are attacking or blocking. I merely propose to do the same thing with the amount of damage they are going to deal.

And once you have resolved the issue of absent creatures dealing damage, you no longer need any of the changes in M10, with all the other problems they bring (Deathtouch insanity, Pyroclasm nerfing, etc.)

So, what do you say we put forth this system as a candidate for M11?

[ParkerLewis]

So, here's the combat phase structure I propose:
Beginning of Combat. Each player gets priority.
Declare Attackers. The attacking player declares his attackers; then each player gets priority.
Declare Blockers. The defending player announces his blockers; then each player gets priority.
Declare Damage. Each player announces what amount of damage his fighting creatures will deal, and to what; then each player gets priority.
Damage Resolution. Each fighting creature deals the announced amounts of damage; then each player gets priority.
End of Combat. Each player gets priority (actually superfluous now, just like in M10, but needed for some older triggers).

(snip)

Once you adopt a Declare/Deal damage system independent from the stack, an example of which I have given above, it becomes obvious that only creatures still fighting will deal damage.

(snip)

So, what do you say we put forth this system as a candidate for M11?

To be honest, it looks like it could work at first glance. On the other hand and still being honest, it's very hard to know whether it actually would. I mean, for example, did you really get why "Tribal" had to be another type and couldn't just be a supertype ? Apparently it was a rules issue with some instants and sorceries sharing the some subtypes with creatures, but do you really see the problem, and how sharing creatures subtypes with a different type actually solved the issue (I personally don't. Even though for example I've never went as far as memorizing the layers orders, I know my regular share of the rules).

Maybe you did get the Tribal as a new thing though (and thus could explain to me ;) ), in which case you're probably all right, but in case you don't, I'd recommend being very cautious before declaring a system will be valid (it applies to all of us, of course).

Just to show you questions can quickly ensue from this system, though : what if, in the Declare Damage step, after Damage is declared, the defending player bounces the Unholy Strength enchanting one of his opponent's attacking creatures ?

Will the damage dealt equal all of the originally declared damage, or only what power is left on the initial creature ?

If you choose the first option, it seems in contradiction with the policy of "if it isn't there, it doesn't deal its damage" that applies on the creatures.

If you choose the second, then it's even more messy. If more than one blocker was involved, how is the new, reduced amount of damage redistributed ?

It looks like either way, you're doomed. And this is just a quick first question, certainly rules megagurus could find other, nastier issues. I'm afraid it looks like whatever you try, as long as you allow any sort of time window between damage "initialization" and damage "execution", you'll end up in weird ugly land - which is surprisingly easy to understand, when you think about it. This is actually the one and only core of the issue. I'm now more than quite convinced that you won't be able to find an acceptable system (barring maybe huge hacks and ifs and buts and exceptions, and even then I'm not sure) as long as such a time-window is involved.

[Nihil Credo]

I had the first option in mind. Declaring damage is meant to "lock damage in", the same way putting combat damage on the stack used to. (This is also why I don't think my system would allow strange holes: it's basically the 6E system with a paint job.)

While I agree that it looks ugly that a creature can lose a buff after assigning damage and still deal the 'improved' amount, I think it's less ugly than either 6E's 'dead men fighting' or M10's 'let's hose combat tricks'. It would also come up less often in actual game-play (practically only when applying a "-X/+X" effect, or removing a "+X/-X").

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This one paragraph actually has something to stand on its own, so there is something to discuss.

The first point is that you do recognize that the "Mogg fanatic trick" is counterintuitive (that is, as long as you've not been told for years that it's possible) and there. So I'm understanding that you're criticizing the execution of their solution to the problem, not the intent, and thus I'm going to assume from now on we agree on the usefulness of restoring this functionality (if not at the cost of doing so). Otherwise, please object quickly or there's no point.

I'm getting really, really tired really, really quickly of the terms "intuitive" and "counterintuitive", which seem to only mean, "How I think it should work" and "How people I disagree with think it should work".

So if everyone could just put a moratorium on those words that'd be great.

As far as how Mogg Fanatic should work;

There were two options that kept the game streamlined. One was leaving things the way they were, the other is adding the option that combat damage fizzles if the creature is dead. This would hardly be the first rules exception. It would also be a lot cleaner in execution and function than what they did.

If you actually think the giant goatfuck they made out of the combat phase is less messy than that change, I don't know what to tell you except that no one I know of, short of Mark Gottlieb, would agree with you.

Nothing else you said actually made any sense to me so I'm going to let anyone else that wants to address it.

[ParkerLewis]

I had the first option in mind. Declaring damage is meant to "lock damage in", the same way putting combat damage on the stack used to. (This is also why I don't think my system would allow strange holes: it's basically the 6E system with a paint job.)

While I agree that it looks ugly that a creature can lose a buff after assigning damage and still deal the 'improved' amount, I think it's less ugly than either 6E's 'dead men fighting' or M10's 'let's hose combat tricks'. It would also come up less often in actual game-play (practically only when applying a "-X/+X" effect, or removing a "+X/-X").


But those are completely different kinds of "ugly".

The first two ones are ugly from a flavor and intuitive point of view - if something can change the "assigned" combat damage, you'll have trouble justifying/explaining to new players why something else wouldn't (and for the reason that there is no particular reason), otherwise you won't fulfill the initial goal of the rules change.

On the other hand, if i'm not mistaken, you're saying the last one is "ugly" from a depth point of view : it's ugly to lose the possibilities of action that the new system prevents you from doing (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).

The question then returns : as rewarding as they could sometimes feel, were these possibilites actually that common (saying combat tricks are hosed is greatly exaggerated, the only ones that are neutered involve multiple blockers AND not being able to kill all blockers AND having a spell to finish them off AND having to distribute the damage in a way that you wouldn't kill any of the blockers wihtout additional trick. Seriously, that's rare. Very rare. I've been playing magic for maybe thirteen years, and I'm pretty sure it happened to me maybe ten, and no more than twenty times) ?

(One of) my point here is, while it's hard to debate against the first kind of ugly well, being ugly (dead critters dealing damage is ugly, no matter how you look at it), I think the second kind of ugly is far from easy to categorize this way.


Nothing else you said actually made any sense to me so I'm going to let anyone else that wants to address it.

Well, fine by me. I'm all for constructive discussion.

[mercenarybdu]

I finally signed the darn thing. Thankfully it might work.

[Fonzy]

There's no point to signing petitions.

If you really feel that strongly, stop buying cards. Stop visiting MTG.com.

They'll get the picture.

Oh and can we please stop acting like this is at all comparable to the 6E changes? Because it's really not.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I'm getting really, really tired really, really quickly of the terms "intuitive" and "counterintuitive", which seem to only mean, "How I think it should work" and "How people I disagree with think it should work".

So if everyone could just put a moratorium on those words that'd be great.

I totally agree. The word intuitive has become a cliche with no real meaning.


Oh and can we please stop acting like this is at all comparable to the 6E changes? Because it's really not.

This is definitely true. The 6th edition rules changes happened after the Urza's block apocalypse when tournament attendance was at an all time low and the company desperately needed to attract more players to the game. The situation we have now is quite the opposite with record breaking and much higher than anticipated tournament attendance all signs show that magic is as healthy as it ever was and making changes to attract more players isn't really necessary at the moment.

That said, people are comparing this to the 6th edition rules changes because that is the only event in the history of the game that's even remotely comparable to what they are doing now. History looks back on the 6th edition rules changes quite favorably but just because they got it right back in the day does not mean that they are getting it right this time. Only time will tell if these changes were truly for the betterment of the game or not.

P.S. I have signed both of the petitions floating around not because I believe that they will help but because it provides a record of my disagreement with these changes.

[pi4meterftw]

P.S. I have signed both of the petitions floating around not because I believe that they will help but because it provides a record of my disagreement with these changes.

Wow, really, a record of your disagreement with these changes? Sweet! That way, whoever surfs the internet will know that Arctic_Slicer disagrees with the changes enforced by WOTC.

Let's be realistic. WOTC, and most surfing the web, would not be bothered by such things. Here, being magic players, we usually care what others among us have to say. That being said, I disagree with the claims you and others have made anyhow. As Bardo said, we are not the intended audience of this change. Also, this change nerfed D&T and slivers, which I am happy about. I don't actually see anybody discussing specific deck's functionality changes, just ideologies. But here are some I can see:

No more D&T
No more hibernation sliver (slivers)
No more mogg fanatic tricks (everybody actually caught this one) (goblins
Tarmogoyf gets worse (Because double blocking gets better.) (every deck with green) (Actually this is pretty great flavor here. Now you can send in a tough guy to take the hits while a powerful guy comes in from behind and stabs the goyf. Goyf isn't blue, it's not smart enough to turn around and eat the powerful guy.)
For similar reasons, Lorescale Coatl's power is slightly reduced.
Combo, control are unaffected. Stompy decks are largely unaffected, and tribal decks, decks with goyf are affected in the ways listed above. Do any of these changes actually appear negative to anybody? Also equipment gets better.

Nogoyf got a decent buff merely by being relatively unaffected. (Fathom seers don't do as many trixies anymore, equipment improves also.) But as the times shift, one should expect powerful archetypes to change. In fact, in the future there will probably eventually be a time when nogoyf isn't even a good deck anymore, and its creators (Forbiddian and I) aren't going to be arguing that the rules should be such that our deck would be back in business. Some decks simply deserve to be die, and I'm not terribly sorry to see D&T go, and see slivers, goyf, and coatl eat a nerf.

[Goblin Snowman]

Actually, the removal of Mystical ---> Upkeep LED into win is fairly significant for some combo decks.

I would be fine with most of these changes. My only issue is the ugly situation that arises when double blocking occurs. As it has already been said, it doesn't make sense, at least to me and people I know, that lethal damage = Toughness - damage dealt this turn, but doesn't take into account damage prevention, or how Deathtouch and Trample interact (or just Deathtouch in general), or how protection from a color still needs to have lethal damage dealt in a double block...there are so many issues that arise from that change alone that one would have to read about or be told about before understanding (which, and maybe this is just me, is the opposite of what they were aiming for).

Really, does anyone think that the situations that arise now from that rules change are any less complicated than simply dividing the damage as you choose? New players will STILL need to be told how this works.

[Piceli89]

I was wondering one thing: it is possible that , when the new rules will come in vigor definitely, the Wishes will be reworded like "take an exiled sorcery/Instant/Whateveritis from the game and put it into your hand" (since a new "Exiled zone" will be created)? If yes, they'd suck at instant speed, and certain decks would be really badly harmed.

[Benie Bederios]

I was wondering one thing: it is possible that , when the new rules will come in vigor definitely, the Wishes will be reworded like "take an exiled sorcery/Instant/Whateveritis from the game and put it into your hand" (since a new "Exiled zone" will be created)? If yes, they'd suck at instant speed, and certain decks would be really badly harmed.

From the announcment thread.


However, the acknowledgment that this zone is, in fact, fully within the game does bring about functional changes to the six Wishes, Ring of Ma'rûf, and the Research half of Research // Development. These cards let you get cards from "outside the game," which has been ruled to include your card collection (in casual games), your sideboard (in tournament games), and the removed-from-the-game zone. That's no longer the case. Exiled cards are not outside the game (and you could argue that they never really were), so these cards will no longer be able to access cards in that zone. Their primary functionality—getting cards from your collection or sideboard—remains unchanged, of course.

Reading is tech

Benie

[Piceli89]

From the announcment thread.



Reading is tech

Benie

props at you, slops at me :frown:

[Atwa]

Tarmogoyf gets worse (Because double blocking gets better.) (every deck with green) (Actually this is pretty great flavor here. Now you can send in a tough guy to take the hits while a powerful guy comes in from behind and stabs the goyf. Goyf isn't blue, it's not smart enough to turn around and eat the powerful guy.)

Tarmogoyf was already the best creature available to us in a pool with Troll Ascetic, Ravenous Balloth, Wild Mongrel and lot's of other creatures which activated (mostly sac) abilities were the prime reason to get played.

If you lower the power of number 2-10 on the list, the number 1 doesn't get weaker. In comparisment the number 1 gets even better.

Until now I could get away (sometimes) with some utility creatures over Goyf, now those are weakened down, I'll simply have to play Goyf.