[M10] General Discussion on Rules Changes

No ones care about Deathtouch. Deathtouch is the example of how silly assigning combat damage is going to be. Why do I have to assign combat damage sequentially? Why can I not assign it however I like? Was this unintuitive before? Was it unflavorful?

No, it was none of those things. This rules, far more than any other, just seems so arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

I know this seems like it makes sense to you, but allow me to change some fine details.



Death Touch breaks rules. The details of it are clearly printed in the reminder text. So does Flying...and Trample...and Lifelink, and everything else. I happen to think that it is random luck that Gottlieb is involved in a team that got it right, but it's going to be ok. Really. Take your chill pills or smoke something or whatever.

---

Flying implies that the creature flies. Death Touch does not imply that the mechanisms governing creatures blocking each other and dealing damage play out any differently. If they wanted such an ability, they should give it a name that reflects such a distinction, such as "Selective Striking" or "Non-blocker-stack-ordering-itude".

I think you're struggling to pretend you're stupider than you actually are.

Quote:

---

The old token ownership rule required lengthy explanation to every player I ever introduced it to.

---

Either you're lying, or you've dealt with exceptionally stupid people. The distinction between ownership and control only needs to be explained once. Beyond that, I've never seen any confusion.

I think, as a matter of fact, that you're simply lying. But that's only a supposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

Now that I think about it: they sensibly changed name to the "in-play" zone to avoid confusion and improve readability. But then why didn't they change "counter [target spell]" to something else as well (foremost candidate: "cancel")?

---

Or they could have made it +1/+1 tokens (or markers) on cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

Well, seeing as how the token cards are mere representations of the tokens - and not the tokens themselves, I am confident that reasonable people can manage some Skittles or beads or something to avoid the entire theft problem. I mean, unless you are dying to pick a fight. But I can't imagine anyone like that. Oh wait...

The old token ownership rule required lengthy explanation to every player I ever introduced it to. I imagine that is true for the rest of you as well. How precisely is that intuitive?

---

For the first time, Finn, let me personally say... you're a simpleton.

Just to touch on one of the many horrible points you make... anything more complicated than the norm requires lengthy explanation in Magic.

Even with the new rules of token ownership, anything involving them will require lengthy explanation - if not even more explanation than before because of the fact that now there's a time division between truths. So, using their horrible example, if "Azorius Aethermage is out," you'll have to walk through a lengthy explanation either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crz87

I must be a noob, but before the changes and after the changes, does DAMAGE use the stack? I know that COMBAT DAMAGE used the stack before the change and with this new change, it doesn't. I was just wondering if DAMAGE used the stack pre and post change.

---

Damage did not and still doesn't use the stack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

Now that I think about it: they sensibly changed name to the "in-play" zone to avoid confusion and improve readability. But then why didn't they change "counter [target spell]" to something else as well (foremost candidate: "cancel")?

---

This is a good question. This certainly came up more than anything relating to the out of play zone (Don't get me wrong though, exile and cast are the two changes I like best). I'm almost surprised that they didn't change it to "cancel", although that may have caused issues (Wait, Guile only triggers when I play a certain card?). Still, since Draining Whelk in particular, I've heard this issue a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Either you're lying, or you've dealt with exceptionally stupid people. The distinction between ownership and control only needs to be explained once. Beyond that, I've never seen any confusion.

I think, as a matter of fact, that you're simply lying. But that's only a supposition.

---

I'm gonna have to agree. I explained to a new player last night who was using Forbidden Orchard as to the owner of the token as it is now and who owns the token as of July 11. She was not confused at all by either case, but she does think the rule changing who owns tokens makes less sense (and dare I say LESS INTUITIVE)...but what do we know? Forsythe and Gottlieb did the focus groups to figure out what's intuitive.

New rules:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s. I assign blocking order. You play Giant Growth on the first guy. My guy has to assign all damage to it. He eats shit and doesn't take out any dorks.

New rules featuring deathtouch:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s. I assign blocking order. You play Giant Growth on the first guy. I cast Lace with Moonglove, which now reads "Play Magic under the old rules. Draw a card."

Lace with Moonglove > format.

Srsly though, this is fixing what's not busted. Let's remove en passant from chess while we're at it, since little kids aren't going to understand it cuz the pieces don't actually cross paths. Fack.

Why would I block with 3 1/1s if I'm going to Giant Growth one anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

New rules:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s. I assign blocking order. You play Giant Growth on the first guy. My guy has to assign all damage to it. He eats shit and doesn't take out any dorks.

New rules featuring deathtouch:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s. I assign blocking order. You play Giant Growth on the first guy. I cast Lace with Moonglove, which now reads "Play Magic under the old rules. Draw a card."

Lace with Moonglove > format.

Srsly though, this is fixing what's not busted. Let's remove en passant from chess while we're at it, since little kids aren't going to understand it cuz the pieces don't actually cross paths. Fack.

---

Why would you bother with the other two if you are going to Giant Growth one anyways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBA

Flying implies that the creature flies. Death Touch does not imply that the mechanisms governing creatures blocking each other and dealing damage play out any differently. If they wanted such an ability, they should give it a name that reflects such a distinction, such as "Selective Striking" or "Non-blocker-stack-ordering-itude".

---

You are making all this din over the name "Deathtouch" even though this is something that has not actually changed. Well done.

Quote:

---

I think you're struggling to pretend you're stupider than you actually are.

---

And in your typical fashion, a thinly veiled flame as a parting shot to this point.

Quote:

---

...The distinction between ownership and control only needs to be explained once. Beyond that, I've never seen any confusion.

---

This seems reasonable. But I can't be the only person who has ever had people shake their heads after trying to explain this.

Quote:

---

I think, as a matter of fact, that you're simply lying. But that's only a supposition.

---

And another. I can't imagine why you have been banned from so many websites so many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misplayer

Why would I block with 3 1/1s if I'm going to Giant Growth one anyway?

---

Don't make me clap my hands at you O_O

Either way the whole thing is being done for the sake of simplicity and "noob intuition" which is just horrible. Since when did intuition need to define gameplay? Lots of games are unintuitive. There's nothing reasonable about banging your head against a floating mass of bricks until coins fly out, yet, somehow, people still grok Mario Bros.

EDIT: I will submit that I could have come up with a more adept scenario, like involving distributing nonlethal damage among creatures and then casting Infest/Pyroclasm to wreck their board. That play doesn't exist anymore. Most of this stuff applies less to Legacy and more to like, Limited and Standard, but there's plenty of times when Legacy decks want to ask if damage is on the stack, Affinity is a good example of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

New rules:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s. I assign blocking order. You play Giant Growth on the first guy. My guy has to assign all damage to it. He eats shit and doesn't take out any dorks.

New rules featuring deathtouch:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s. I assign blocking order. You play Giant Growth on the first guy. I cast Lace with Moonglove, which now reads "Play Magic under the old rules. Draw a card."

Lace with Moonglove > format.

---

To be fair, if he's going to play Giant Growth anyway, why is he blocking with all 3 dudes in the first place? Although if he can save the other two dudes like that under the new rules, I suppose there's no reason not to, so he can still kill your dude even if the Growth gets countered.

edit - Sarnath'd by Drago (edit2 - And Misplayer!), but for what it's worth it turns out there is a reason to block with all 3 under the new rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinder

To be fair, if he's going to play Giant Growth anyway, why is he blocking with all 3 dudes in the first place? Although if he can save the other two dudes like that under the new rules, I suppose there's no reason not to, so he can still kill your dude even if the Growth gets countered.

---

Fine...
New rules:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s and have Endoskeleton in play. I assign blocking order. You Endoskeleton the first guy's toughness. My guy has to assign all damage to it. He eats shit and doesn't take out any dorks.

How about that?

Yeah, it's actually better than it used to be to block with a ton of guys, since the whole pecking order thing has come into play now. You risk a lot less in triple blocking in my example, since if any creature changes its P/T before damage it requires special attention.

It also means that I can, like, pump one of the guys further down the 'chain' to incite weirdness where there was none before.

Or like, as an attacker I can force a line of blockers to be just so, so that the defender has to think harder about which creature deserves to be pumped.

EDIT: Endoskeleton FTW. That's a great example of how weird the new rules are. Honor Guard, your day has come at last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinder

...but for what it's worth it turns out there is a reason to block with all 3 under the new rules.

---

Right...even if you are planning on pumping, you can block with the extra chumps, just in case they pump...that way you can still kill the man if he does pump, and if he doesn't, your additional guys are in no danger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

Fine...
New rules:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s and have Endoskeleton in play. I assign blocking order. You Endoskeleton the first guy's toughness. My guy has to assign all damage to it. He eats shit and doesn't take out any dorks.

How about that?

---

Exactly.

Also, keep in mind that under these new rules, pumping and damage prevention work differently during combat.

If he swings with a 3/3 and you block with 3 1/1s and use Healing Salve on the first one, he still only has to assign 1 damage to the first blocker and can still kill the second and third blocker, even though the first blocker stays alive.

Which is super intuitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

Fine...
New rules:

I swing with a 3/3. You block with 3 1/1s and have Endoskeleton in play. I assign blocking order. You Endoskeleton the first guy's toughness. My guy has to assign all damage to it. He eats shit and doesn't take out any dorks.

How about that?

---

Blow the the Endoskeleton first?

Or, since you said 3/3, I assmue it's a Mongoose from Tempo-Thresh, no? Then play a Tarmogofy and run them over. :wink:

I'm starting to think that the best compromise between sensibleness and functionality would have been achieved by simply ruling that creatures don't deal their combat damage if they're not in play.

That was the really counter-intuitive part about 6th edition rules. If you stop absent creatures from dealing damage (as you would expect), the "put combat damage on the stack" part no longer seems strange since it just means "assign how many points my guys are going to deal to your guys".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isamaru

For the first time, Finn, let me personally say... you're a simpleton.

Just to touch on one of the many horrible points you make... anything more complicated than the norm requires lengthy explanation in Magic.

Even with the new rules of token ownership, anything involving them will require lengthy explanation - if not even more explanation than before because of the fact that now there's a time division between truths. So, using their horrible example, if "Azorius Aethermage is out," you'll have to walk through a lengthy explanation either way.

---

You are calling me stupid? You disagree. That's fine. But if you want to call me stupid perhaps you could come up with something - anything at all to support your claim.

EDIT: BTW, lemme 'splain the new rules. "controller=owner"
Done.
How is that going to require a lengthy explanation?

You know what's really counterintuitive?

Banging your head against a pile of bricks until a leaf comes out, and that leaf turns you into a yiff that can fly and kill people with its tail.

I'm not certain that intuitive and gameplay are mutually exclusive. Can't we just wait for players to accept that (a) playing by the rules isn't cheating (b) yeah, you can do stuff with damage on the stack (c) learning how to do it makes you a better player? Why does knowing the rules have to be cheating dejure?