Printable View
I never said it was a good thing or that it made the game better. All I said is that it would make it easier to understand. Do I like the changes? No. Are some people over reacting? Yes. There is no need to quit. Join the online petition and email. That is what I have done but even if it doesn't change I will still play.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Also, the "tricks" I was referring to were the ones actually seen in Legacy since this is a Legacy board.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/giv...amage-a-chance
Online petition.
Not being able to assign combat damage as I wish is the only real sticking point for me (as it seems to be for many people here). Losing the ability to pull trickses with damage on the stack is annoying, but I can see their rationale for the change. While this is bad news for Limited, this is a Legacy board & honestly, how much blocking occurs in Legacy where this will matter in the slightest? The format will adjust, players will adjust & if the game/format draws in the hordes of (theoretically) maturing Yu-Gi-Oh (no longer being printed, thank God) & Pokemon players or Xbox gamers or Twilight readers or whomever...we still have years worth of cards and experience and nerd-rage to beat them with. Come on in boys, let's trade & thank you for donating me your DCI points in the tournament.
when i got to the part about how they managed to make academy and drain better, i almost pissed my pants laughing.
So I finally got a chance to absorb these Legacy interactions, and overall - still not happy.
However, I'm still hung up on this Wish/Exiled thing.
I don't know about anyone on this board, but I haven't met anyone who has been confused by the interaction of "Removed from game" and something like Burning Wish. Now I'm not talking about specifically tournament players, I'm talking about everyone who has played magic for more than a week. And while I wasn't playing during Judgement, I did look up the original FAQ to see how they initially addressed Wishes:
# With a Wish, you can retrieve either a card that has been removed from the game or one of your other MagicŪ cards that didn't start the game in your deck. The Wishes work in a slightly different way depending on whether you're playing in a DCITM-sanctioned tournament or not.
# In DCI-sanctioned play, "a card you own from outside the game" is one of the following things: (a) A card you own that's in the removed-from-the-game zone. It can be in that zone for any reason. (b) A card that's in your sideboard. If you get a card from your sideboard, you must put the Wish into your sideboard instead of just removing it from the game. This makes sure that your sideboard has the correct number of cards in it at all times.
So now, they're going to have literally hundreds of cards that now work the way they 'intended'. Now, I'm not saying that every day when I play Aggro Loam that I wish for something that has been RFG'ed by something else, I'm not saying that this is an interaction that's completely essential to Legacy play (it helps out, but I'm not going to die without it), but isolating this subset of cards (6 Wishes, Ring, Research) seems ridiculous, when it could have been a complete cut and paste nomenclature change and no one would even bat an eye.
Yes. I have heard this rumor myself. Well, before you go about buying a coffin you might want to either play these decks a few times or ask someone who has. Just because you read someone else claim this does not make it true. My 2nd grade teacher taught me that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
I can't speak about U control. But I can speak about D+T, and I am not concerned in the least.
Ghostway Surprise died. That's too bad...
They make some interesting cards pretty pointless, a real pity. I loved Branding Hunted Horror tokens. I thought the whole point of the Hunted cycle was that you could work your way around the downside. Now, not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by rleader
Kudo's!Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamaru
Indeed. How many times do you have to explain to a newcomer that he's not the owner of the token you've put into play for him? This rule change might make sense, but it doesn't really help anybody. I see a downside: not running Brand makes the opposing "steal your stuff" deck a lot better. Pity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldariel
To some extent you're right, but it kills an interesting interaction: you're less inclined to kill the owner of your token, and others are more inclined to kill the owner of your token. Life becomes a lot less complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
But I don't think Legacy loses much with the change of token property.
EDIT: OMG, and I just got over 6th edition rules changes ;)
No, you're right, I apologize. I got lost in their incredibly simple and intuitive breakdown.Quote:
Originally Posted by jthanatos
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9581/simple.png
Of course, from an outside perspective it looks like they went to absurd and obtuse lengths to eliminate only those aspects of "damage on the stack" interactions they disliked and keep the rest, and made combat damage much more confusing in the process.
But they have market research, so what do I know (Hint: Everything)
Certainly I would do this if I was going to a Mahjong tournament. I wouldn't ask them to rewrite the rules because I was too lazy and incompetent to figure out fairly straight-forward and time-respected interactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
That is far and away the most annoying online petition site I have ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jak.
I would. Why should I be bothered to learn new game rules just to play in a tournament once I've already mastered tic-tac-toe.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
How does banding work now?
Why? It's not like anybody knew how it worked before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.C
I will say that despite the loss of damage on the stack tricks, there are some possibly interesting new interactions to be had with the whole blocking order thing. If nothing else, it now gives weenies an interesting advantage against big beaters. Example, I block your 3/3 with 3 1/1s. I then giant growth the first one in line after block order and save them all. It might open up some interesting design space that wasn't there before, such as cards that players reorder the blockers, or cards dependant on blocker position. However, it does seem rather janky to design cards around a fairly uncommon scenario of many gang blocks in a game. I still think the biggest change will be a drop in limited value of bounce spells and a increase in value of pump spells.
or you could have just blocked with 1 1/1 and then giant growth him ending up with the same result with either combat system???Quote:
Originally Posted by jthanatos
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthanatos
It should be noted that you could have done this with just the one 1/1. There are corner cases where this matters I suppose, but these changes do not make giant growth better, or lightning bolt worse, or anything like that. Pump spells are still combat tricks.
Does Death Touch and Trample interact the way I think it does now? Cause I will for sure drop Colossal Might on Acidic Ooze. I really dig that new Ooze, any survival players thinking of including it? Seems on par with Wickedbow Elder.
Ok well imagine that the giant growth was a spell that gave it +0/+3, then it would matter in that scenario. With the new system it allows toughness pumping effects to essentialy be destributed however you want, instead of to one creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
From the Keyword FAQ at Magicthegathering.com:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.C
"Q: What is banding and what does it do?
A: Banding is really two separate abilities. They are commonly referred to as 'mutual assistance' and 'damage sharing.' Both of these abilities apply when a banding creature attacks, but only damage sharing applies when one blocks. Below are descriptions that cover the basics of these two abilities.
Mutual Assistance - Banding allows you to group creatures together when they attack, often called attacking in a band. In an attacking band, all creatures in the band except for one must have banding. Any creature that blocks any member of the band blocks the entire band (even if it couldn't block those creatures normally).
For example, I could attack you with Benalish Hero and Grizzly Bears in a band. If you block either the Hero or the Bears, you block the entire band.
Creatures in a band do not share abilities; if I form an attacking band out of a Benalish Hero and an Leonin Skyhunter, you could block the entire band with one non-flying creature by blocking the Hero.
Basically, this part of the ability allows you to "gang-attack" your opponent with a whole bunch of small creatures in the same way that you can "gang-block" attacking creatures. (To "gang-block" is to block a single attacking creature with multiple creatures, usually so you can kill the attacker.)
Damage Sharing - Normally, the controller of a creature gets to decide how to assign that creature's combat damage. However, banding allows the controller of a banding creature to decide how to assign the combat damage of any creatures blocking or blocked by the bander.
For example, let's say I attack with Benalish Hero (1/1) and a Grizzly Bear (2/2) in a band, and you block the band with a 3/3 creature. Because your 3/3 is blocking my banding creature, I get to choose how your creature deals its combat damage. I could assign all three to the Benalish Hero, and then the Grizzly Bear would survive.
Using this aspect of banding is different from forming a band to attack in that it works no matter how many creatures with banding are present.
For example, let's say you attack with an 8/8 creature. I could block with eight 1/1 creatures. As long as just one of these creatures had banding, I could assign all the combat damage from the 8/8 creature to just one of my 1/1 creatures.
This part of the banding ability works especially well against attacking creatures with trample, as you can decide to assign all combat damage to the creatures blocking the trample creature and not have any assigned to the defending player."
Timing will be different and confusing when Banding or Band With Other is part of the equation. It's fairly simple to suggest that the following order is likely to occur in the declare blockers step:
0. Attacker uses any effects or spells he wants to and passes Priority to defender to do the same.
1. Defender will declare his blockers.
1a. Attacker uses any effects or spells he wants to and passes Priority to defender to do the same.
2. The attacker will indicate which order he is addressing non-Banding blockers in while the defender will declare which blockers in a Banding situation are taking damage and how much.
2a. Attacker uses any effects or spells he wants to and passes Priority to defender to do the same.
2b. Defender indicates which blocking creatures are taking additional combat related damage (additional damage from creatures only that would be done based on spells and effects played after damage was assigned by the defender in Banding situations.)
3. Move on to Combat Damage Phase.
If this is right, and I'm really not 100% sure about it, then what happens basically is that combat damage is assigned as it always was in a Banding situation, by the defender to the eligible creatures of his choice. Non-combat damage, from instants and effects that do not increase a creature's power or otherwise amplify the damage that it does, would be assigned by the attacking player, also as it was under the old Banding rules.
I went ahead and sent off a letter.
Quote:
Dear Aaron Forsythe and Mark L. Gottlieb,
Regarding your article "Magic 2010 Rules Changes":
Dear Wizards;
You know what attracts new players to the game? Older players. I have never known anyone who got in on the game because of your awful "Here I Rule" commercials, or the sad attempts to be hip by throwing "Mage-Punk" around your style guides and giving everyone anime hair or anime boobs or both.
What I have seen time and again is that new and curious players are brought into the fold by other players, and it's their love for the game and all it's strategy, reflected, that hooks new players. They find a group of likeminded people and building up a sense of community, expand their collections and playstyles and strategies.
This is the system from which your revenue flows. Player bringing in player, encouraging each other to develop their gameplay to a greater extent, through both competition and affirmation.
But it depends on certain things. It depends on a rich and multi-layered strategy game being available. It depends on a certain level of continuity between generations and for those dusting off their cards after a few years hiatus. It depends upon Wizards respecting their fanbase and not insulting their intelligence.
Not all change is bad, but change made with no consciousness of the strategic value of the game is bad. Change made only to make the game "easier" for new players, without thought as to how it affects strategic depth, is definitely bad. Especially when those changes are in fact arbitrary, as the Deathtouch exceptionalism seems to confirm.
I'm not- currently- planning on quitting the game. But you should understand that pissing off your existing playerbase has significant risks.
Not all change is bad. I, like most older players, was excited by the initially announced changes to 11th Edition. I didn't mind the rumored loss of mana burn, which had minimal impact on actual game play in any format barring Ravnica block draft.
However- rather than conducting market research only on potential new clients, maybe you should start doing some on the clients you have that are responsible for most of your income. Because neglecting them is probably a bad idea.
On a more constructive note;
If Wizards is desperate to generate more revenue and get more new players, I would suggest the low-hanging fruit; women don't generally play Magic at a competitive level, in my experience, because women (for cultural or chemical reasons, I don't know) place a higher value on social interaction. And competitive duel Magic often involves nothing more than sitting across from each other, grunting and pointing once in a while for fifty minutes, when it doesn't devolve into someone actively trash-talking. This has contributed to a high attrition rate amongst females that do try to get into the game, with the result that far less than 1% of the population of most competitive Magic events is female. This in turn creates an image problem for the game.
If you want to fix this and increase your revenue by attracting the other 50% of the nerd community, I suggest, instead of trying to dumb things down, sanction and encourage more multiplayer formats. Free for all especially, where social interaction and diplomacy become actual, useful skills. This would be something that would be productive for Wizards while pissing off a bare minimum of the existing community.
...what I get out of that is,Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
Banding (If this creature attacks, the game ends in a draw.)
I could totally get behind that. Existing multiplayer is... silly. Free-for-all is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin