Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
Because you still have to assign damage to creatures that won't die from damage.
To be fair, we've already had to do this. A green creature with trample won't assign all of its damage to the player when a creature with Pro:Green blocks it, the attacker still has to assign lethal damage (again, not the same thing as "the damage that actually kills it") to the blocking creature.
It's just that, now, we have to "trample" through each blocker, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBA
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.
If you're looking to capitalize on a graveyard trigger or something, you could always order it so that the creature you're intending on targeting with your Firefiend comes last, and assign the combat damage through the rest of them. The attacking player gets to decide the order they have to go through the blockers in.
But your Pyroclasm example stands. And I still agree that we should be able to divvy up damage however we want.
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?
Actually you are allowed to assign damage to any creature you would like with Deathtouch. If you wanted to assign all your damage to creature number two (because killing creature number one, e.g. Murderous Redcap, would kill you), then you would be able to do that because Deathtouch obviously gives selective attacking abilities.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HAVE HEART
If you wanted to assign all your damage to creature number two (because killing creature number one, e.g. Murderous Redcap, would kill you), then you would be able to do that because Deathtouch obviously gives selective attacking abilities.
But with your example, you could just order the Redcap last, and assign all of the damage to the other blockers, even if the creature doesn't have deathtouch. So it's the same either way in that case, because the attacker still gets to select where the damage goes.
What we're losing is things like swinging your Nantuko Monestary into your opponent's two 4/4 Angels, assigning 2 first strike damage to each of them, and then playing Volcanic Fallout to kill both of them before they can deal damage to the Monastery.
And for all of the people saying "but that hardly ever comes up!": So what? If there's a system for assigning combat damage that covers every possible interaction that the one they're going to put into place does, and also allows for other interesting strategic interactions during combat, isn't it strictly superior?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinder
But with your example, you could just order the Redcap last, and assign all of the damage to the other blockers, even if the creature doesn't have deathtouch. So it's the same either way in that case, because the attacker still gets to select where the damage goes.
Just because the correct play is still able to be made does not mean that the incorrect plays should be taken away. If the game was mean to be played in such a bubble, then you and I would not be playing Magic. Instead Jon Finkel would be playing himself (or those crazy Japanese).
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HAVE HEART
Just because the correct play is still able to be made does not mean that the incorrect plays should be taken away.
I'm not sure I understand what your argument is. Even under the new rules, in this situation there is still plenty of room for incorrect plays to be made.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
I think it was sarcasm.
It's completely intuitive that tokens work like any other permanents in the game.
Except that they're completely unlike any other permanent in the game, they were never in your hand, they don't go to your graveyard, they're not part of your deck or sideboard, and they come into play as things you will never control unless you play Brand.
There was absolutely nothing intuitive about the old token ownership rule.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
they don't go to your graveyard
Well, technically they do; they just cease to exist, right?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Ok, fine, technically, yes.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SpatulaOfTheAges
Ok, fine, technically, yes.
Nice bowing out with dignity.
You own the card that creates them. You have far more claim to ownership than the guy controlling them.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
So if you Clone a Spawnwrithe token and attack with it and get a new token, that Spawnwrithe is yours and you can Brand it back if someone casts Control Magic on it?
I'm not entirely sure how that would work under the old rules (which I was a fan of), so maybe that's progress.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Your card created the token so yes, that token belonged to you. The Clone aspect is irrelevant.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinder
What we're losing is things like swinging your Nantuko Monestary into your opponent's two 4/4 Angels, assigning 2 first strike damage to each of them, and then playing Volcanic Fallout to kill both of them before they can deal damage to the Monastery.
Can't you cast Volcanic Fallout during the declare blockers phase?
Right, damage doesn't use the stack any more -- except First Strike still works...right?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mujadaddy
Can't you cast Volcanic Fallout during the declare blockers phase?
Right, damage doesn't use the stack any more -- except First Strike still works...right?
Yeah, but you can't split up damage. You have to assign lethal first to one blocker, then move on down the line. That's the issue here.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jaynel
Yeah, but you can't split up damage. You have to assign lethal first to one blocker, then move on down the line. That's the issue here.
An issue which would be easily solved by just saying "assign damage however you feel like, then it happens without the stack."
Tada!
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jaynel
Yeah, but you can't split up damage. You have to assign lethal first to one blocker, then move on down the line. That's the issue here.
Lethal damage is defined in the article (if not in the comprehensive rules) as "the creature's toughness minus the amount of damage already dealt to it." So, if you attack with one Monastery, they block with two Angels, you Fallout during the declare blockers step; they've each taken two. Monastery will only have to assign two damage to kill the first, then can assign two damage to the second.
I agree that I don't know how the new rules make first/double strike easier to explain though. I also feel like this is just a profoundly unwieldy way of casting spells during combat (as opposed to the old way), and I'm not sure why they made that more retarded in their effort to make damage-dealing between creatures more intuitive.
One also wonders, from a flavor standpoint; if we are sorcerers manipulating the creatures like puppets, how does it not make sense for one to hit the other, then do something before it dies? Play any first person shooter and name an instance where both combatants die simultaneously. In fact, name another game of any genre where two combatants in a melee can die simultaneously. Aren't creatures ostensibly meleeing? Isn't that the flavor excuse for equipment? Why shouldn't Magic be like that?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Jack's made a lot of valid points, and I'd like to say that even from a flavor point of view, I look at token creatures as being a representation of the memory/tie to that spell. This is magic, after all. Call of the Herd, Funeral Pyre, Hunted creatures, etc. flavorfully imply that a magical creature is summoned by the controller of the spell or ability that created it. (In the case of Hunted creatures, the adversary token creature(s) are a tie to the battle between the two.) It makes sense then, even from a flavor and intuitive point of view, that whomever controls the spell or ability that creates a token creature owns the tie to that creature.
So for example, it's fair then that Tel-Jilad Stylus (have you ever read the flavor text?) erases the memory of that fabled battle represented by the token of a Hunted creature. It's fair that Brand would reclaim all tokens and permanents that have an original tie to the brander, because supposedly they're "branded" when they're first created to have a tie to you as a magician/planeswalker.
I just can't find any explanation for how the new rule is intuitive.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
coraz86
One also wonders, from a flavor standpoint; if we are sorcerers manipulating the creatures like puppets, how does it not make sense for one to hit the other, then do something before it dies? Play any first person shooter and name an instance where both combatants die simultaneously. In fact, name another game of any genre where two combatants in a melee can die simultaneously.
My brother and I double KO'ed each other twice in the last two days while playing several Street Fighter variants.
My wife double KO'ed against Xanhast in the last act of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II.
I get that intuitively the "double punch" doesn't really work very well, and Neo and Smith shouldn't send each other flying across the pavement bleh bleh bleh. I also realize that if you parse too much of this shit down to bits and pieces you end up with the startling realization that there aren't actually planeswalkers sitting around dueling each other in a faraway plane using their favorite monsters, tactictians and plant life from the various planes they've discovered and then the WHOLE GAME JUST GOES TO SHIT AAAUGH
In other words, there's enough suspense of disbelief built into the game that I think I can buy it when "mathematically equivalent" creatures enter into mortal combat together, there are no survivors. You sort of have to, I mean otherwise it's not a game.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheInfamousBearAssassin
Nice bowing out with dignity.
You own the card that creates them. You have far more claim to ownership than the guy controlling them.
Except that barring outside influence, the token's entire existence is on that side of the board.
You're confusing understandable with intuitive.
The olds rules were understandable, but not intuitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinder
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.
I'm pretty sure that's what happened under the old rules also.
And yes, it's stupid.
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SpatulaOfTheAges
The olds rules were understandable, but not intuitive.
How are the new rules intuitive though?
Re: Magic 2010 Rules Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jaynel
Yeah, but you can't split up damage. You have to assign lethal first to one blocker, then move on down the line. That's the issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mujadaddy
Can't you cast Volcanic Fallout during the declare blockers phase?
Right, damage doesn't use the stack any more -- except First Strike still works...right?
No problem here, actually. You attack with your Monestary, then Volcanic Fallout after blockers have been declared, then deal lethal damage to both of the 4/4s. It still doesn't work with Pyroclasm, but it works with Volcanic Fallout.
