[M10] General Discussion on Rules Changes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isamaru

How are the new rules intuitive though?

---

Think of this as someone not all ready familiar with the rules.

Your opponent put this token into play under your control. The token was never under their control, in their hand, in their library, nor will it ever reside in their graveyard past the checking of triggered abilities.

Why in hell would you assume they own it?

I, like most new players, assumed owner meant controller until the difference was explained to me.

Once you understand the distinction, however, the natural assumption, it seems to me, would be that the owner is the one who controls the spell or ability that creates the token. Because the fact that we're using a token is only a limitation of the cardboard aspect of the game; from a magical viewpoint, Call of the Herd and Watchwolf both summon a 3/3. From a flavor viewpoint, the wizard who summons both monsters "owns" them, even if someone else seizes control.

This seems perfectly logical to me, and intuitive once you understand the distinction between owner and controller anyway. The new rules create a contradicting instance where the owner isn't the wizard who used their magical might to create the beast. That seem completely unintuitive.

Bullshit.

The distinction between owner and controller, as regards tokens, only ever enters into the equation when outside narrow cards come into it. Having such a distinction for something that doesn't actually exist outside of the game is extremely counter-intuitive.

Quote:

---

The new rules create a contradicting instance where the owner isn't the wizard who used their magical might to create the beast

---

Oh shut the fuck up.

You used your magic to create a dude who gives me dudes.

But technically they're not my dudes, they're your dudes. So you didn't really give me dudes. Or you did, but not if you play some random ass card out of a set from 3 presidential terms ago.

That's intuitive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges

Bullshit.

Or you did, but not if you play some random ass card out of a set from 3 presidential terms ago.

---

To be fair, Call of the Herd was timeshifted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

To be fair, Call of the Herd was timeshifted.

---

Spat was referring to Brand, not CotH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges

Bullshit.

The distinction between owner and controller, as regards tokens, only ever enters into the equation when outside narrow cards come into it. Having such a distinction for something that doesn't actually exist outside of the game is extremely counter-intuitive.

---

It's not a distinction.

It's exactly how it works for every card in the game, or approximately as close as can be managed.

Call of the Herd is not a Sorcery. It is a creature with Flashback. It is only a sorcery on paper because that is as close as the game mechanics can come to approximating a creature with flashback.

What is a distinction is saying, "Here, in this case, owner is the same as controller". That is the complete opposite of how it works in the rest of the game. It's about as logical as saying combat damage works one way for Deathtouch and one way for everything else, which is to say, not at all.

Quote:

---

But technically they're not my dudes, they're your dudes. So you didn't really give me dudes. Or you did, but not if you play some random ass card out of a set from 3 presidential terms ago.

That's intuitive?

---

If we didn't need the rules for owner and controller to be distinct, then you would be right. Then it would be intuitive that owner is controller.

As it is, we do need the rules to be distinct. The in game explanation is the magical attachment between a wizard and their spells. It's unintuitive to create this rule and then flip it in certain instances where this condition is met.

So in a way, yes the change is intuitive... if you're dealing with people that don't understand ownership rules. Once you introduce those, it becomes counterproductive and destructive to the symmetry and logic of the game.

This completely nerfs every single creature with an activated ability. Are they fing stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happy Gilmore

This completely nerfs every single creature with an activated ability. Are they fing stupid?

---

Not really. Some are unaffected like Mother of Runes or Kiki-Jiki, and some, like Knight of the Reilquary are improved.

How does that improve Knight of the Reliquary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

How does that improve Knight of the Reliquary?

---

I too would like to know. >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

What is a distinction is saying, "Here, in this case, owner is the same as controller". That is the complete opposite of how it works in the rest of the game. It's about as logical as saying combat damage works one way for Deathtouch and one way for everything else, which is to say, not at all.

---

Well, I think it is intuitive, since Tokens are not in the Library. They just come into play once in a while, and the controller is the person that puts them into play, not the one that puts the source into play. Seems right to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

Some are unaffected like Mother of Runes.

---

So, we both have a threshed Werebear and a Goyf, but i also got a MoR

I attack with the Werebear (4/4) and a Goyf (4/5), keeping MoR untapped to use its ability.

You block with your Goyf my Werebear, and block with your Werebear my Goyf.

OLD RULES:
Before damage on stack: you cast Giant Growth on your werebear. I decide which one of my creatures survives, thanks to MoR.
After damage on stack: you cast giant growth on your werebear to make it survive, I protect my werebear with MoR, noone dies.

NEW RULES:
We don't play abilities, both werebears die.
Or I use MoR ability to make my Werebear survive. You then play Giant Growth on your Werebear. My goyf Dies and your 2 critters still survive.

The "damage on stack" loss has nerfed some of MoR, Gempalm Incinerator, Siege Gang, etc abilities too.

It's all been said basically, so just my 2 cts. I just hope I got all the new rules right so I don't look the fool. :smile:

I can actually live with the changes even though I as many others dislike change.

But some complaints I do not get. I don't really see what's so different in assigning damage to multiple blockers. By the old rules you basically did the same by choosing which blocker would get damage. You always choose one creature first and then a second and so on. Most of the time we would choose the one creature we would really like to get rid off anyway.

The big difference is (as you all know) that you have to assign damage to the first blocker equal to its toughness, then what's left to the second (and so on).

I think this is where they went wrong. They should still let us divide the damage between creatures any way we want. It's not that hard to grasp by new players, and it would stil give us opportunities like playing Pyroclasm in the second main fase and kill off the rest of the blockers.

This would also solve the exception to the new rule about the way we are suppose to assign damage dealt by deathtouch creatures. It's easier that way for new players than to have to learn the exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

How does that improve Knight of the Reliquary?

---

Sorry, I was wrong. I thought that he could self-pump after being declared as a blocker before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paK0

Well, I think it is intuitive, since Tokens are not in the Library. They just come into play once in a while, and the controller is the person that puts them into play, not the one that puts the source into play. Seems right to me.

---

The controller of the effect that puts them into play is the person that puts them into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

The controller of the effect that puts them into play is the person that puts them into play.

---

Correct, but I still think the new way makes sense to me. Hunted Dragon puts tokens into play under their control. To me it seems counterintuitive that I would own them, even though I never once controlled them. I see it more as "Here is my dragon. You get these tokens. You own them." You know how difficult it is to explain to a new person "No, I put them into play, so I own them, even though you have always been the controller"?

Most of the time i play noone of us got tokens anyways. So the person who gets them into play on their side uses some cards outside of the game (not Exile XD) they own, regardles of who actually played the spell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paK0

Most of the time i play noone of us got tokens anyways. So the person who gets them into play on their side uses some cards outside of the game (not Exile XD) they own, regardles of who actually played the spell.

---

Okay, so it seems like you're a newer player / the type of player that Wizards was trying to aid with these changes. So they're correct in that now they've matched what an average new player would think... but it's still not at all intuitive upon examination:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isamaru

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.

---

So still, even if now the average new player's assumptions are correct, does that mean the game is more enjoyable?

I had my day ruined many times when learning all the rules. I didn't suddenly stop playing the game (or buying cards) - instead, I played more (and bought more cards) because I liked that challenge of learning all the intricacies of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrow213

Correct, but I still think the new way makes sense to me. Hunted Dragon puts tokens into play under their control. To me it seems counterintuitive that I would own them, even though I never once controlled them. I see it more as "Here is my dragon. You get these tokens. You own them." You know how difficult it is to explain to a new person "No, I put them into play, so I own them, even though you have always been the controller"?

---

A modern day Gilded Drake might say "As" it comes into play, but still I would not consider this confusing.

I understand, again, that the distinction between owner and controller is confusing to new players. However, nothing seems more confusing about applying this distinction evenly between tokens and cards, and everything seems more confusing about creating a distinction. The owner is the person who who created the permanent, who has it as part of their library. A spirit token may be in the opponent's 'battlefield', but if my Forbidden Orchard produced it, isn't that creature magically resonant to me, as the wizard responsible for it's creation?

The new ruling is not only less intuitive, but it cuts off an interesting if narrow avenue of play. The concept of gifts between wizards coming back to bite you in the ass is pretty flavorful, honestly. I don't know why it should work differently for Crib Swap than for Gilded Drake.

Although, on a side note, I wish we could stop treating new players like retards.

When I first got into Texas Hold 'Em, I lost $3 on a small Frog tournament when I went all-in on a straight of Q-K-A-1-2. It made sense to me at the time that you could wheel an Ace. But to be honest, the other ruling is also intuitive from a certain point of view. Even though I have personally scrubbed out because of this misunderstanding, I would be pissed (as would everyone, I imagine) if they tried to change this rule because the other ruling was more "intuitive".

The 6th Edition overhaul was necessary to create a streamlined game. It was obviously a success based on the amount of competitive Magic played in the last ten years. Attempting to overhaul the entire system because you figured, fuck, it's been ten years, we should overhaul the entire system, is both arrogant and stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngryTroll

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.

---

It doesn't work as well with Pyroclasm, but if you cast the sorcery before the combat step, you can get the same result. If you're attacking with a first strike creature, you want to Pyroclasm beforehand anyway.

The net effect appears to be a 'simplification' of what can be done in the combat step. Is 'simpler' better? Only for WoTC's bank account, methinks.