Eh, whatever, my main problem was the not being able to distribute the damage the way I want amongst blocking creatures. Heck, you could do that pre-6th, why change it now?
Printable View
Eh, whatever, my main problem was the not being able to distribute the damage the way I want amongst blocking creatures. Heck, you could do that pre-6th, why change it now?
well yeah, I'm not apologizing for thinking limited game interactions are removed because they are, I'm just apologizing for thinking it was the wrong card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
So, indeed, redeem still works. But, yeah, I am just going by what is written, not your interpretation, so I am probably still wrong. Hell, they only give an example of damage prevention effects 2 paragraphs later, so obviously it doesn't work like they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article
they are always making janky casual decks on there too. and the only writer that follows tournies is mike flores. i think again: trying to recruit new players this has more to do with xbox and getting new players through that then anything. legacy to them is almost an after-thought thats what kinda "grinds my gears".Quote:
Originally Posted by jthanatos
I don't like the changes. I don't know anyone who likes the changes.
This leads me to conclude that Wizards does not have input from me, the people I know, or even people similar to the people I know. As I am in the group of hardcore Magic players who were basically there from the beginning, this disturbs me.
I am not interesting in playing against a small child who is too lazy or stupid to learn how combat damage works.
Magic is a very easy game to learn the basics. Similar to other Mind Sports like Chess, Poker, Bridge, Go, etc. you can learn the basic rules in a few games and some good strategies in an afternoon, but you'll be far from a good player for many weeks (months? years?).
It wouldn't bother me if Wizards cleaned up some tournament-level interactions to drop the learning curve so that you can be competitive without devoting the hours to memorizing every rule. But Wizards isn't cleaning up those rules. Wizards is cleaning up the rules that you learn the first hour of playing the game that form the foundation of the finesse plays that you perform from the first afternoon for the rest of your Magic life.
I understand the desire to get new players involved in Magic and to avoid alienating them with trick plays that leave them confused and dazzled how you rules Nazi'd them right into the loser's bracket (WHY THE FUCK DID YOU PRINT DEMIGOD OF REVENGE, YOU HYPOCRITES?), but Magic's allure is now the competitive tournament scene. Players can always challenge their skills or look up to famous greats of the game who have mastered the intricacies of play. Most players had humbler beginnings, but I doubt Zvi Moshowitz would have been confused at how a creature can put damage on the stack and then disappear and still have the punch land (or whatever metaphor was used).
I feel like this change is akin to removing Queen-side castling and en passant from Chess.
Is Queen-side castling a little confusing? Yes. I've been asked a few times to confirm that it's a legal move even by people who understood King-side castling (usually by people against whom I began the game missing my Queen anyway, making the Queen side castle extremely efficient). The casting rule in general is a general point of contention among people first learning chess. Your King suddenly dodges a potential danger to safety as a rook slides into play threatening a new attack. ZOMG CHEETZ.
En Passant is even more confusing. And who can spell it?
Does Queen-side casting significantly affect tournament play? Not really. It's obviously used from time to time (as is any move), but it's pretty damn rare, and would only slightly shift the metagame of early game play. En Passant removal would have less impact.
Does the rules actually provide a hangup for anybody for whom anybody gives a fuck? No! Only some guys who just learned that Knights move in an L shape are noob enough not to know how EP or QSC work. It will save you five minutes of getting the rule explained to you and then you're still stuck practicing this dumb game for hundreds and thousands of hours before you're even competent at it.
If you cbf spending 5 minutes learning how to castle, you won't be a good chess player anyway. Same with Magic.
And I hate how Wizards is devoting the lion's share of its changes to speculative players who may or may not learn Magic when the overwhelming majority of tournament players say no!
In other news, I like the simultaneous mulligans. It should save some time. Also, if you're mulling to five, you're pretty fucked by luck anyway. It sucks that you mull to five or four on the play AND your opponent gets extra information for free (like knowing he can crush you with his weak seven, so he just keeps it although normally he'd send it back).
For most decks, mulliganning is less art and more science anyway. There are keepable hands and terrible hands and the line is usually pretty defined (at least in Legacy... I take more mulls in limited with more colors, higher curves, and no brainstorms).
I read this thread first, then went to read the wizards article. Holy shit is this a gem.
"Many players aren't aware of the existence of mana burn as a game concept. Discovering it exists, especially via an opponent manipulating his own life total for gain, can be jarring."
Really? Jarring. Really.
Edit, here is another one.
"The Details: The rules change is as Aaron described it. As for the ramifications, there are three kinds of situations when this rule comes up:
1.When someone is trying to exploit it. (Sorry, Warp Worlders.)"
You guys are calling out and nerfing a 5RRR sorcery. Those players is standard were not exploiting it. They found a way to make a shitty card mildly competitive. Hey you there mr. standard player. Stop exploiting that 5RRR sorcery.
Just when I was about to go pick up Death and Taxes too.
Wizards can go sick a duck on this one. Seriously, everything else was minorly annoying, but the "combat damage doesn't use the stack, it just uses the imaginations of the young and simpleminded" thing just basically blows.
And yes, the tone of the piece completely irritated me.
EDIT: Holy shit, I have a proposal to make. Hear me out:
Duels of the Planeswalkers can use whatever jank-ass rules "make sense" to someone just picking up the game through XBox play (which, let's face it, probably won't even bring that many new players to the game). And they can leave alone the game I know and love, the game that was already working fine already, you know, the most popular TCG on the planet...And, let's face it, the change to the combat rules does not make sense. I will defend how things were working from a perspective of game design or flavor all day. The new shit is just absurd.
It's like, "Oh, we're just making the game more understandable to people who... um... how do I put this... don't like to understand things. Can't you see why that's good for the game? After all, why the fuck would we want to support a game of skill geared towards smart people? That's not going to get the Joe Shmoe dollar in a recession!"
The damage not using the stack is the only really shitty thing that they did to the rules. But after thinking about it, I could really care less. I can't believe it will be as bad as most of the people have made it out to be. It will probably lead to some embarrassing situations to begin with because people will try to use the old rules in a tournament.
I wonder who WotC wants to appel, the dumb 10 year old kid thats buys a pack every two months or the ones that have been playing for years and actually spend money on the game......
To be honest, I like the Mulligan and Token changes, and i think i can live with the new blocking system and the removal of mana burn, but the stack is still needed in most situations, there is no reason to simplify it in the battle phase, people have to learn about it anyways.
Actually, by saying they numb the rules down so a majority of the players can understand them translates into them thinking the majority of magic players are idiots.
"Dear customers,
You're stupid. But that's ok, we'll make it easier for you. Now please spend more money on our products.
Love,
WotC"
Probably this is what some of you are waiting for:
So, if you dislike WOTCs changes concerning the combat phase
check out http://www.pro-dots.com/ to not make your favorite TCG suck in a month.
I'm so depressed :cry:
I dare anyone claiming that simplifying the rules of Magic is appealing to dumb 10 year old kids to MEMORIZE the small set of rules that compose japanese 4-players Mahjongg rules, and then, and only then, learn the classical chinese rules of 4-players Mahjongg. Just to cure them of their lack of understanding about the goodness of taking away the crap of a rules system.
Japanese rules: http://www.delfosse.com/mahjong.html
Japanese Scoring rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes..._scoring_rules
Japanese Yaku: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Mahjong_yaku
Wikipedia Mahjong Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahjong
I specifically chose Japanese Mahjong because it fits the same 'knowing the rules feels like cheating' category someone mentioned before, referring to Magic, and the basics can be learn in a day, too! Plus, you'll learn how to play crappy hentai Mahjong games! :P
I'm still not looking forward to this. What I am looking forward to is that we still have ~ a month to play the way we like! (I guess that's about the only upside, I guess they could have given us less time....). Too bad I couldn't stay home and read all the posts though.
Most changes are meh or understandable, but the combat changes? Fuck them! :mad:
"We take out most of the strategic depth of the game core and make up stupid exceptions to cater a bunch of fucktards."
Way to alienate the player base...
Ok. Can someone explain to me why Legacy players who dislike the new rules can't just call the old rules "Magic Classic" or something, and play by those rules? Who cares what the DCI says, I say we play the game the way we want to play it. The only time it would ever come up as an issue is during a DCI-sanctioned tournament, but those are few and far between for Legacy, no?
So let's all decide to play by the pre-M10 rules regardless of further errata: "Magic Classic".
And in tournaments, never EVER use "Exile" or "Battlefield", and insist on using the pre-M10 terms like "Removed from the Game" and "Into Play" instead. :)
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTG-Fan
If enough people decide to do it, Wizards will be forced to go back to the old rules for Legacy, maybe. Or quit sponsoring Legacy tournaments. Probably the latter, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeggi
But seriously, what proportion of the Legacy games being played are played NOT under the supervision of the DCI but at local shops, small player-run tournaments, MWS, people's houses, etc. In those circumstances, we, as players, can simply decide to use any ruleset we wish. It's *our* game, we decide how to play it. Wizards just supplies the cards, really.
I go to about 2 tournaments each month (there are more, but I only attend about 2). Every one is sanctioned. It's not like the DCI organizes it, the organizer just makes sure there's a certified judge present (they're not very rare) and the rest of the stuff and whatnot comply to the DCI standards.
When I play at the local pub for testing, we test for these tournaments so we apply the official rules. So indirectly, they're also under the supervision of the DCI. In fact, at the local cafe are always a couple of certified judges we can ask questions if we're not sure about the rules.
Players are allowed to play the game under any set of Magic rules, and I still play fifth edition rules with some people. Sanctioned tournaments, however, are forced to use the most recent set of rules, and most people prefer to play sanctioned tournaments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTG-Fan
WotC is just following Blizzard's lead. If you want to sell a lot of a product dumb it down until just about anybody can play it. If that takes away from the value of the game to gamers but adds to the value of the game to the company that produces it, well, there are a lot more consumers than gamers.