Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rufus
This is probably messy under the old rules as well...
Attacker has:
Skyshroud Behemoth 10/10
Force of Nature 8/8 Trample
Defender has:
Two-Headed Giant of Foriys 4/4
Two-Headed Dragon 4/4 Flyer
Benalish Hero 1/1 Banding
Attacker swings with both creatures.
Defender blocks Force of Nature with all 3 creatures (attacker orders Hero,Giant,Dragon)
Defender blocks Behemoth with Giant & Dragon (attacker orders Giant, Dragon)
How much trample damage can the attacker get through?
This question becomes extra complicated when we put the attackers on one train leaving Boston at 3:45pm at 40mph, and the blockers on a train from New York to Boston leaving at 2:30 pm and traveling at 60mph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TsumiBand
Why should it be able to protect the other blockers? Fuck man, you threw a bunch of Squirrels in front of a Krosan Tusker, the fuck did you reckon would happen?
If I were a Krosan Tusker, and I'm not, but if I were, and I got blocked by a shit ton of Squirrels, why the fuck would I waste my time beating up the one wearing Slagwurm Armor while the rest climb all up on my shit? Fuck that, I'd stomp six of those fuckers back into the asshole of the earth until the rest finally tear me down.
I was making the assumption that an increase in toughness implied an increase in power, and therefore the Tusker would have to deal with the big squirrel first because it posed more of a threat. But when you put it that way, it does sound patently ridiculous.
edit - Although in that case, the Tusker would probably just choose to deal with the armored Squirrel last (you know, because the attacking player gets to decide the order of the blockers), so in order for your example to work there would have to be a Loenin Shikari in the back throwing the Slagwurn Armor onto squirrels at breakneck speeds.
Intuititve or not, though, I still want the freedom to assign damage however the fuck I want.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Funny that you mention that, Nihil because one of my top ten annoyances for playing against fucktards is the whole "that says 'counter target spell', this is a creature/artifact/enchantment, it's not a spell". If those motherfuckers were really bending over backwards to make the game easier to pick up by people, who probably spend most of their day scribbling in colouring books and doing junior jumbles, why the hell haven't they specified something for the text of counterspells like:
"Counter target creature, non-creature, enchantment or artifact spell".
I guess that gives us all something to look forward to while slapping shit onto the battlefield, tossing shit into the exile zone and enjoying simplistic/boring combat. I'm just waiting for some sort of announcement about a sub game called: "Magic: The Gathering Game Classic", where they supposedly bring back all the complexity to the game, like permission decks, combat tricks etc etc and when I arrive at where the pre-release is being held and as I come through the doors, they slam shut and there are no tables, chairs or cards...just Gottlieb, wearing a giant M10 box with eyeholes hiding somewhere, ready to pop out of the darkness to fucking rape me.(give yourself some points if you get the reference)
On a less nightmarish note...
I always new the whole token ownership principle by this logic: the token was produced by something that belongs to me, so it is mine...regardless of who controls it, it is functionally symbolic of a card, thus it is fucking mine. I never had to ask a judge or read up for that ruling. I figured it out. ZOMGBBQWTFORLYCNTBBRBLMAOCIAOLMK!
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rufus
This is probably messy under the old rules as well...
Attacker has:
Skyshroud Behemoth 10/10
Force of Nature 8/8 Trample
Defender has:
Two-Headed Giant of Foriys 4/4
Two-Headed Dragon 4/4 Flyer
Benalish Hero 1/1 Banding
Attacker swings with both creatures.
Defender blocks Force of Nature with all 3 creatures (attacker orders Hero,Giant,Dragon)
Defender blocks Behemoth with Giant & Dragon (attacker orders Giant, Dragon)
How much trample damage can the attacker get through?
I'm pretty sure it's 0 unless the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinder
This question becomes extra complicated when we put the attackers on one train leaving Boston at 3:45pm at 40mph, and the blockers on a train from New York to Boston leaving at 2:30 pm and traveling at 60mph.
Then your only response is to play Shahrazad, Fork it and then hope for your opponent to concede
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jason
...I'm pretty sure it's 0...
Exept if the Behemoth's damage is assigned first, then both of the Two-headed creatures can already be at 4 damage so any damage assigned to them would trample through...
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
My only problem with that article, by the way:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean McKeown
...have you ever tried to teach someone how to play Magic, and then been able to explain why it is that creatures can hit each other, then go do die for some sacrificial purpose or disappear back to your hand, and then still kill the other creature? It’s hard as hell to explain,...
No it is not! Does everyone in the world besides me just suck at explaining things? It may be counterintuitive, and the new player might be put off by the interaction, but for God's sake it's not hard to explain (or grasp!). I've never had to explain that interaction to a player more than once. Never.
edit - Oh, and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
I can remember games where I pulled off an awesome maneuver, dealing first-strike damage split evenly between two blockers and then playing a trick to kill them both before either one gets to hit me, letting me keep my creature by maximizing how I used my instant-speed trick
And this is a bad thing because.....? It says right there that it's awesome, which it is. So why get rid of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
The decision was made that once out of a thousand times for your cool trick that uses corner cases
How, exactly, does "dividing damage among multiple blockers however I want to" constitute a "corner case"?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rufus
Exept if the Behemoth's damage is assigned first, then both of the Two-headed creatures can already be at 4 damage so any damage assigned to them would trample through...
All combat damage goes off at the same time, so the Behemoth will deal 4 and 6 to the the Two-headed giants. Since the defending player has a banding creature blocking with the Two-headed giants, it can put all 8 of Force of Nature's damage on any creature (I'd suggest one that will already be heading to the graveyard)
And as per "310.2d A blocking creature will assign combat damage, divided as its controller chooses, to the attacking creatures it’s blocking. If it isn’t currently blocking any creatures (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it will assign no combat damage." this would also mean the blocking player could put 8 damage on the Force of Nature
EDIT: I'm not sure that's right anymore. As said, the Behemoth can deal the 4 and 6 to the Two-headed giants from the following rule:
"502.9e When there are several attacking creatures, it’s legal to assign damage from those without trample so as to maximize the damage of those with trample.
Example: A 2/2 creature with an ability that enables it to block multiple attackers blocks two attackers: a 1/1 with no special abilities a 3/3 with trample. The attacking player could assign 1 damage from the first attacker and 1 damage from the second to the blocking creature, and 2 damage to the defending player from the creature with trample"
And per rule "502.9b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. If all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already on the creature and damage from other creatures that will be assigned at the same time (see rule 502.9e). The controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case can’t assign any damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking."
So the controller controls the trample so the defending player assigning all 8 to one creature wouldn't mean anything because the attacking player should be able to just reassign it to the player.
I'm not sure anymore... /sadness
EDIT AGAIN:
HA! No trample damage would go through because the defending player can put all 8 damage on one Two-headed giant, but because not ALL creatures have been dealt lethal damage, no trample can go through!
502.9b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. If all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
quicksilver
The new ownership way is less intuitive. If you played any other card and it came into play under your oponents control you still own it. So what is intuitive about if it's a card and comes into play under an opponents control you still own it, but if it's a token they own it. The new way definitly makes less sense.
I'll be honest, I find that the idea of OWNING a card in terms of gameplay is an unintuitive idea in itself. I wouldn't mind if everything was determined by who has control. In an ideal world, according to myself at least:
Owning a card/token/whatever: Your physical property. This in no way affects gameplay.
Controlling a card/token/whatever: You have complete control over said card or token in the current game. This is the only thing that affects gameplay.
This is intuitive, gentlemen.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Finn
You are making all this din over the name "Deathtouch" even though this is something that has not actually changed. Well done.
I may have been wrong when I said you were pretending.
The "din" is not over the name deathtouch. The din is over the hypocrisy of keeping old combat rules in a few select situations where you like the outcome, switching it in the rest and saying the new mish-mashed system is "intuitive". Your stupid, inane defense was to compare it to flying, where flying is quite clearly an evasion ability. Death touch is not quite clearly an ability that changes the way you can distribute damage amongst blockers. In fact, that's completely unintuitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nihil Credo
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".
This is brillaint. You deserve to be paid more than Wizards entire Rules Management Team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Finn
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?
Owner=Creator.
ZOMG! That was so hard too!
Except now you have to explain that ownership rules work different for tokens than for cards for some arbitrary reason.
Honestly, does anyone else feel like Mark Gottlieb is just going through and fucking with all the rules that caused him to lose a game when he was first getting into Magic? That's my only explanation for the sheer arbitrariness of the rules changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheDarkshineKnight
I'll be honest, I find that the idea of OWNING a card in terms of gameplay is an unintuitive idea in itself. I wouldn't mind if everything was determined by who has control. In an ideal world, according to myself at least:
Owning a card/token/whatever: Your physical property. This in no way affects gameplay.
Controlling a card/token/whatever: You have complete control over said card or token in the current game. This is the only thing that affects gameplay.
This is intuitive, gentlemen.
The distinction affects game play because if you put your opponent's cards into your graveyard or your hand or your library for any reason, it becomes really easy to steal them by "forgetting" to return them after the match. Or maybe actually genuinely forgetting. Theft already plagues the Magic community enough as it is.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
Honestly, does anyone else feel like Mark Gottlieb is just going through and fucking with all the rules that caused him to lose a game when he was first getting into Magic? That's my only explanation for the sheer arbitrariness of the rules changes.
Y'know, this kind of logic works for questionable B/R list choices too...
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
Except now you have to explain that ownership rules work different for tokens than for cards for some arbitrary reason.
Again though, why is having to explain rules to people (especially things that are relatively simple) something that people find so abhorrent, on either side of this argument? Learning how to play a game is part of the game.
Not to go too far down the slippery slope, but everything is going to require at least some explaining no matter what, unless we just get rid of the rules text on cards altogether and say "he gets to deal damage first because his arms are longer, you see? Totally intuitive."
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Because there's no answer. Under the current rules, tokens work different from cards only because they do. There's no intuitive or logical reason for this; it's a useless and arbitrary distinction. It's not even flavorful like something such as Mana Burn.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
Because there's no answer. Under the current rules, tokens work different from cards only because they do.
That's not an answer? Sure, it's not a great answer, or even a good answer, but it is an answer.
And really, "because tokens aren't actual cards" is probably an acceptable answer to why they behave differently. Your own example of accidental theft should be more than enough of an explanation as to why actual cards work differently from tokens, no? In which case the answer is probably more accurately "because they have to."
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
The distinction affects game play because if you put your opponent's cards into your graveyard or your hand or your library for any reason, it becomes really easy to steal them by "forgetting" to return them after the match. Or maybe actually genuinely forgetting. Theft already plagues the Magic community enough as it is.
I'm hearing a call for ante! If you do a Rogue-DCI, Bear, can we have it based in Vegas so we can do ante again? Oh, and Sharazad. Gotta have it.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Token ownership rules have changed more times than the mulligan rule. It's a seasonal thing.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBA
Your stupid, inane defense was to compare it to flying, where flying is quite clearly an evasion ability. Death touch is not quite clearly an ability that changes the way you can distribute damage amongst blockers. In fact, that's completely unintuitive.
Right.
So you are upset about the indiscriptive name. And no matter how many insults you lob at me you will still just be whining about a name that does not suit your idea of proper.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Finn
And no matter how many insults you lob at me you will still just be whining about a name that does not suit your idea of proper.
I think it's probably more accurate to say that it doesn't suit Jack's idea of "intuitive". And that Jack's argument is that, since the entire object of this rules change was to make things more intuitive, Wizards of the Coast has failed in the only goal they had set out to accomplish.
But that could just be rampant speculation based on reading his posts.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinder
But that could just be rampant speculation based on reading his posts.
Shit's dangerous, son.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
Your stupid, inane defense was to compare it to flying, where flying is quite clearly an evasion ability. Death touch is not quite clearly an ability that changes the way you can distribute damage amongst blockers. In fact, that's completely unintuitive.
I need to deal enough damage to a creature to kill it before moving onto the next creature right?
But since I have deathtouch, 1 damage will kill them.
So I can deal 1 damage to creature 1, then 1 to creature 2, and so on.
What's so unintuitive about that?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phoenix33
I need to deal enough damage to a creature to kill it before moving onto the next creature right?
But since I have deathtouch, 1 damage will kill them.
So I can deal 1 damage to creature 1, then 1 to creature 2, and so on.
What's so unintuitive about that?
Well, "enough damage to a creature to kill it" is not the same thing as "lethal damage", according to the rules.
What happens when a creature has trample and deathtouch? 1 damage is enough to kill each of its blockers, so it only has to assign 1 damage to each of the blockers, and the rest tramples over to the player, right?
Nope. You still have to assign lethal damage to each blocker (i.e., damage equal to the creature's toughness minus any damage already on it) in order to assign damage to the next one, and you have to assign lethal damage to every blocker before you can start assigning the rest to a player, even though you only need one damage to actually kill each blocker.
So yeah, unintuitive.
edit - Trample/Deathtouch wasn't brought up in the article, so for those of you wondering where I got this, it's from the resulting discussion thread on the Wizards forums.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phoenix33
I need to deal enough damage to a creature to kill it before moving onto the next creature right?
But since I have deathtouch, 1 damage will kill them.
So I can deal 1 damage to creature 1, then 1 to creature 2, and so on.
What's so unintuitive about that?
Because you still have to assign damage to creatures that won't die from damage. And if they'll die for some other reason, like the Pyroclasm in your hand or a Graveyard-trigger ability on your creature like Bogardan Firefiend? Nope, still doesn't matter.
