Printable View
I completly agree. I hate that. They could have solved their problem simply by saying “when combat damage resolves, if the creature that created that combat damage is no longer attacking, the damage is countered". Solves their problem beutifully without the complexity, the restricing fo how combat damage is done, and the side effects this has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinder
I'm a bit unsure why Deathtouch is given a special exception. Since a single point of Deathtouch is lethal after the blocker step, it SHOULD still follow the order of attackers, just that it only requires a single point for lethal.
http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/da...qncgzja_EN.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by EaD
Sad day for all of us...
^ That card has the worst art (warcraft much?); otoh, the art on the new vampire is nicely old school.
http://i4.ebayimg.com/07/i/001/36/01/a434_1.JPGQuote:
Originally Posted by Pltnmngl
1) Simultaneous Mulligans:
Everything I've read in this thread confirms my belief that virtually all Magic players, even a lot of good ones, don't know how to take mulligans. Whether or not your opponent mulligans should have zero bearing on whether or not you do. The purpose of a mulligan is to give yourself the strongest hand possible. If an average six card hand is stronger than your seven, you take the mulligan; it doesn't matter if your opponent is holding seven cards or zero. For all this fear of mulling into oblivion, it doesn't happen enough to worry about.
Believe in the Law of Large Numbers.
I'm very happy that Wizards did this because it saves round time with zero strategy loss.
2) Terminology changes:
I'm fine with these. I don't understand the argument that terms like battlefield and exile turn Magic into Yu-Gi-Oh. They could call Morph "Defense Mode" and I wouldn't care because the actual game has lost nothing. I realize that some people care about flavor, but I don't. I care about strategy and gameplay.
The fact that you can't Wish for RFG cards anymore removes nothing from the game. If I were Wizards, I'd errata Wishes to read "outside the game or Exile zone," but that's splitting hairs. I've never been in a game where I or my opponent Wished for a card from the RFG zone when they didn't already have a copy in their sideboard. This isn't worth getting bent out of shape over.
3) Mana Pools and Mana Burn:
Really?!
Wizards is absolutely right on this one. Isn't it enough that you took away a Belcher players chances of winning when you cast Orim's Chant in response to their Seething Song? Do you really need the free Lava Axe to go along with it? Chalice Aggro doesn't take quite as much self-inflicted damage anymore, so what? Honestly, this isn't going to make any unplayable cards suddenly playable, nor will it make playable cards unplayable. And even if I'm wrong about that, so many of you want Wizards to do something to shake up Legacy. They do, and you bitch. Stop reacting and start thinking.
I have ANT built, and losing the LED trick hurts the deck. This is about more than a tier-1.5 Legacy deck losing one of its tricks. It's not like the deck sucks now.
Oh, God, Pulse of the Fields is stronger now! That card is already everywhere and is going to be a defining factor in the Legacy metagame. :rolleyes:
4) Token ownership:
Look me in the eye and tell me that Legacy losing a tier-two deck is more important to the game of Magic than all the bullshit that currently goes on in multi-player with people conceding the game at the optimal moment to screw over their opponents.
If I were Isamaru, I'd be upset that my pet deck was destroyed. But this is for the greater good.
5) Combat damage no longer uses the stack:
Okay, the big one. From the standpoint of being an avid aggro player, this sucks. But it's not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. We're losing two main things: the ability to split combat damage in ways to take advantage of Pyroclasm and other Sorcery speed damage (something that almost never happens), and the ability to have our cake and eat it too---err, get damage and a sacrifice effect out of a creature.
I'm more puzzled than anything about this. This rule change hurts creature based aggro strategies, which Wizards has been trying for years to improve. If they want to help out new players, they should let them get maximum mileage out of their creatures. It's not like noobs are bringing Solidarity to tournaments. When I first learned about stacking damage, I was thrilled, not miffed.
It's not like damage plus sacrifice effect creatures are tearing up Legacy anyway. Are you upset that your Qasali Pridemage now deals zero instead of two damage when it chumps a 4/5 Tarmogoyf before sacrificing itself to destroy Counterbalance?
And to those of you who think Mogg Fanatic is a terrible creature now, you're wrong.
Why does this rule change ruin Limited again?
6) Deathtouch:
We're mad because they made an exception to a new rule in order to keep functionality as it was under the old rules? Who runs Deathtouch in Legacy anyway?
Anybody else think it was ridiculous that sometimes you had to regenerate twice against Deathtouch creatures?
7) Lifelink:
Personally, I'm glad that Wizards made life gain, one of the weakest strategies in Magic, stronger. Lifelink creatures can now save you from dying. There's no more double Lifelink, but that has come up like once or twice in ten years for me.
After reading the article, I responded to their article via email. They gave me the option so I took it. Here is what I wrote:
I think we deserve to give our vote. They do it with all the piddly little shit like "you make the card" or "what's your favorite color so we can make sets heavy in that color" etc. etc., so I thought we should all call for a vote. Some wording changes would be fine, hell, I'm even okay with the Wishes being shut down a little bit, but when someone starts telling me that I'm not to mana burn myself so I can get a pulse (white/red obv.) of whatever back, I think that's crappy.Quote:
Aaron Forsythe and Mark L. Gottlieb,
Regarding your article "Magic 2010 Rules Changes":
Mana burn is something I've embraced since 6th grade (back when I thought Llanowar Elves let you search your library for a Forest and put it into play). I'm now 22 and for the life of me I cannot understand why you would want it gone. I was upset when I first heard about it, but as I grew in the game I found it was useful. Why should we not be allowed to use our resources to best suit us? Why should we not be able to end games when we are tired of being locked down by an opponent? If you try catering to the newer players, I assure you that some of the older ones will be lost. I'm not saying I will quit, and I'm not sure you would mind if I did. What I'm saying is that you are taking from the heritage of the game. I just went to a garage sale the other day and found an old Mirage Tournament pack. It had a rulebook in it and it stated that "mana burn" was being reinstated. I thought it very ironic that I found that rulebook when I did. People who play without mana-burn at home will now get to play in tournaments the same way. However, you are making those of us who like mana burn within the game play at home rather than in tournaments. A lack of foresight has been seen before, I think we all remember Urza's Block, and even before that when Interrupts were turned into Instants. People got mad. People quit. There have been dark days in magic, and I'm sending you the message that this is bound to be one of them.
Anyway, back to mana burn. You say it won't have an effect on 99% of games played. I play storm combo in legacy. LED (Lion's Eye Diamond) is a staple. I often play Land, petal, LED, LED, say go, end of opponent's turn Mystical Tutor into Ad Nauseam, pop my LED's, draw Ad Nauseam and play it. You have taken that from me. I feel as a combo player that I am one of the few risk-takers left in this game. I have to go up against Trinisphere, Chalice of the Void, CounterTop, Force of Will, Daze, Spell Snare, Meddling Mage, Gaddock Teeg, True Believer, Stifle, Aethersworn Cannonist, etc. and I feel that in doing so I take a big risk in discarding my hand (hey, at least now I wouldn't burn for one off of 2x LED's...Even if you left mana burn in the game) to play a card that drops me over 10 points of life on average that doesn't promise me the win. I think you have really taken something from me and I'm disappointed in that. You could make an addendum that would allow mana abilities to be played in response to drawing a card for your turn, that way we could allow our card draw to "go on the stack", and respond to it by popping LED's, discard our hand, add the mana to our mana pool and then play the spell. I'm sure you have either thought of this and don't care if you piss a few combo players off (I dropped 400 dollars for a set of Japanese ones), but as a combo player I care, and I think Storm is an extremely flavorful portion of magic. I actually believe it to be way more flavorful than any creature-based list. It takes a very high level of skill to win with and an intricate depth of knowledge about the stack to maneuver it to a top-8. Please reconsider how some of these interactions work. It would seem more important to keep the people who play playing than to get new ones while shoving the older players to the side just because you think they will deal with it. This is a bad time for any company to drastically change something that doesn't need fixing. The economy, etc. It could indeed start looking like 1993 for the folks at WotC again. Rebuilding a customer base could prove difficult in a lousy economy.
I'm upset, obvious I know. I do believe I have made some valid points and I go to websites (The Source, MtG Salvation, MOTL) and I have to say that I'm hearing the same things over and over again, and the fact that you are changing things that feel fundamental to most seasoned players is not being received well at all. You say these are rigorously tested changes, but I think you've made a few mistakes in the past (Arcbound Ravager and Disciple of the Vault and Skullclamp all come to mind, as does the Storm mechanic, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Flash, there are more obviously, but I'll spare you the metaphoric public beating and end by asking. Nay, begging. Please leave the fundamentals alone. Either that or at least eratta Swords to Plowshares to only be able to target your opponent's creatures. According to new rules it would clearly be wrong to use your own spell to off one of your own creatures to gain life to stay alive. Resources should clearly not be able to do that.
Thank you for your time, I love the game of magic and that is why I wrote this atrociously long message WHILE at work. I worry that someday, someone will obliviously ruin the game I grew up playing because of something as silly as a little bit more money. New players = more players = more new money. Easy. Maybe instead of doing something like this you should just bring back Arena. Or make something like arena, but for new players to learn the fundementals of the game in a controlled environment with a judge. I would like to see other venues of change before you go pissing on everyone else's black kettle (a TOOL reference). This is our game too, and I think you should put it to a vote. I am going to copy this letter that I've wrote and post it on all the boards I go to so people in the magic community can see what I've brought up. I'm calling for a vote. You do it all the time on your website for players making a card in a set, etc., I see no reason why something this big should be left to only you guys to decide. We are the ones who have to put up with your decisions, and as such should be a part of the decision-making process.
Thank you for cooperating with the magic community, we will all be anxious to see the tally.
--Mike
Pce,
--DC
So instead of the wording they use to get around the new combat rules for Deathtouch they should have used your wording to get around the new combat rules for Deathtouch? Either way you need a special section in the rules for Deathtouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
You mean "when combat damage resolves, if the creature that created that combat damage is no longer on the battlefield the damage is countered" , correct? Otherwise Blocking creatures deal no combat damage.Quote:
I completly agree. I hate that. They could have solved their problem simply by saying “when combat damage resolves, if the creature that created that combat damage is no longer attacking, the damage is countered". Solves their problem beutifully without the complexity, the restricing fo how combat damage is done, and the side effects this has.
I guess I should mean attacking or blocking. If you remove a creature from combat it should still not do comabt damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewokslayer
So since Wizards responds to the players views and concerns, when do you think Wizards will revert back to the rules of today? I remember Wizards ending the States tourneys and the huge uproar of that decision(which was reinstated later that year). Changing some terms for the sake of whoring yourself to the kiddies is something most of us can understand(bring back Bury for pete's sake!), but changing something so fundamental to the game as the stack and ruling it as trivial as mana burn is absurd. So the stack is now only relevant when blue is involved in a game. That makes so much sense from a "design" standpoint lol.
Let's be honest here and agree that casual players don't even do combat tricks. This is clearly aimed at ruffling the feathers of all competitive magic; Limited and Constructed. Combat is now mimicking Wow, congrats Wizards.
This rules update isn't the death of Magic as it has surely stood the test of time, but maybe they are indeed cracking to economic pressures and meeting quarterly goals can only be attained by getting any little kid's mommy to buy him another booster pack.
...and I liked Nantuko shade :(
Bounce gets a million times worse because you can't save your guy in combat while killing of theirs. Pump gets worse because it's telegraphed (see Putrid Leech for a good recent example). Sacrifice effects lose some oomph, depending the effect and who was doing it.Quote:
Why does this rule change ruin Limited again?
Basically you dumb down limited a bunch, since combat is pretty much the #1 point in which skill comes into play in that format. It doesn't necessarily ruin Limited, but it takes it closer to 10E drafting skills than most people would like.
I'm actually angrier for Starke of Rath losing it's ability of doing 2-1 than for Mogg Fanatic being unable to kill 2 creatures at once. Starke of Rath was secret tech, but now he is useless, except in my collection of the Weatherlight Crew vs Predator Crew duel deck.
My responses to these changes.
1. Sim Mulligans. (Very Good Idea)
Thank god. No more stupid bullshit taking up ten minutes of an already too short round. Landstill moves closer to actual playability.
2. Terminology and Exile (Good Idea)
Whatever. I could care less about the renaming of stuff, but I agree using the word "Play" less is probably better for confusion. I'm stoked about Wish not negating Exile now. No more Burning Wishing that Loam back a second time, Aggro Loam. No more Living Wish getting around STP. No more Cunning and Burning Wish getting around Extirpate. Moan.
3. Mana Burn (Okay Idea)
It should have never been there in the first place, if you ask me, though changing it changes several cards in functionality. 5/3 Returns with Cathodion and Su-Chi. Beware. Or don't. Whichever.
4. Token Ownership (Bad Idea)
I gave you the tokens. Therefore I own the tokens. This one is stupid. Hardly matters, but stupid.
5. Combat Damage, The Stack, Damage Assignment (Good Idea)
I actually like the correcting of this. Call me the minority, but as a professional game designer, I can appreciate the point of this. And while I have to change a couple of my decks as a result, I think the change will help.
There's never been a logical reason why combat damage should use the stack. I don't know if I like the new damage assignment to multiple blockers rule or not, but given how infrequently gangblocking happens, It won't matter much. I'll have to practice these scenarios to make sure I don't screw them up, though.
6/7. Deathtouch and Lifelink going static. (Wha..?)
Raise your hand if you've ever stifled a Lifelink trigger, ever.
(Waiting...)
S'what I thought. Whatever. I'm all about anything that makes people play Stifle less.
I have! It won me a game once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacosnape
But, yeah, corner case.
Will now get
"Fanatic Mogg" R
"When Fanatic Mogg is put into a graveyard from the battlefied you may have it deal one damage to target creature or player."
1/1
??
Nope, it's rather:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zlatzman
Mogg Fanatic R
Creature - Goblin
Sacrifice ~ : ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player. Play as a sorcery only.
1/1
"Raise your hand if you ever burnt out an opponent with a lifelink trigger on the stack" would probably be the more appropriate question I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacosnape
We aren't going to get it. Even if it turns out the game starts to suck hard and a lot of players are going to quit (which I doubt), they aren't going to change it back for at least a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Cynic87
Keep in mind all the product has probably been printed by now and I don't expect them to do a total withdrawal of all that product just to have new rulings in it.
Don't misunderstand, I have some of the changes (combat mostly) as much as some of the most outspoken people here, but It's going to take at least a year (M2011) before they'll change it back, which I doubt they'll will because at that time we're all used to it and stopped complaining about it.
At this point, I'm more pissed off about Undead Slayer...They pretty much just buffed and nerfed them in the same announcement.
You can still use it to fog a dude, so it's at least a little better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjoness'