Printable View
This whole argument on controller versus owner would be so much simpler if Wizards of the Coast still had Magic played with ante. Then we could play Bronze Tablet and Tempest Efreet and everyone would understand "owner".
...Then again, those only deal with non-tokens so I'm pretty sure we'll be coming back to the same conclusion of everyone just arguing with one another....
Look at it this way(without rules, just what you do):
My enemy plays a Hunted Dragon. I grap into a random pile of cards besides me and put them backside up onto the table.
So the cards that represent the tokens are mine. I own them.
Thats how we do it, so the ruling does make sense. Intuitively people put the cards they gonna use to play themselfes into play, so they made the ruling as they said they would.
After close thinking it does not make sense but they did what they said, they made this ruling like one would do it on first thought.
Im not saying this is better than before, but it pretty much fits into the concept of the new rules.
Yes, but this is the underlying motive for everything they do. On the bright side what is good for their wallet is good for yours too as long as you don't play Standard or Draft and accumulate a horde of useless cards in the process. Selling your Magic cards is always a profitable endeavor in the end, as long as you have concentrated on eternal formats where the baseline cards always improve in value instead of on Standard where only a few money cards are still worth anything a year or two later.Quote:
Originally Posted by mujadaddy
It's ironic that the Eternal players and WotC both make good money as long as Standard stays healthy, and both have a lot to lose if it does not.
This is like putting a giant "Trap- Please step inside plz" sign in front of your pit of spikes. Kind of kills the credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by mujadaddy
Wait, I have a relevant Pro MTGO Comic;
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/364...bleatmagic.gif
And that reminds me of how pissed off I am that Gigapede becomes strictly better than Grave-Shell with this change.
Except for that whole 3GGB: Grave-Shell Scarab gains Vigilance until EoT thing.
I'm gonna have to side with IBA. It's always made perfect sense that the owner of a token is the person who created it, rather than the person who controls it. I say that exactly because of things like Control Magic, which people have played since the dawn of time. With Control Magic there's never a misunderstanding over who owns the creature being enchanted, regardless of whether or not that person controls it at this very second. I don't see why peoples' understandings would differ in the other cases.
My main argument against that change, though, is not which way is more intuitive, but rather, why even worry about something that effects such a small subset of cards? I'd venture to guess, like with these other changes, that if people didn't bother to learn the right rules before, they're probably not going to bother if you change them either. What's worse is in a situation like this, it just creates more confusion amongst the older players who *did* bother to learn the right rules and who now have to re-learn the rules.
IMHO all these changes are pointless and stupid. There was nothing wrong with the game as it was.
There's no fucking way this is the same at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by mujadaddy
Under either set of rules, how you gonna convince anyone who's even an okay player to block for lethal damage after a Pyroclasm unless they're swinging for the win? EsPECially if you're swinging with a first strike creature there's no way this is a similar play at all.
The whole blocking order thing fucks this up too. All it takes is one pump spell on the head of the blocking team to completely dick the Pyroclasm plan up. It doesn't just save one guy, it probably saves them all. So suddenly the guy playing the Clasm is a dumbfuck for daring to attempt card advantage via Pyroclasm + fat men, because I can still block your relatively large man with Pyroclasm damage on him, while my guys are safe because of stupid shit like Giant Growth. This is one of the plays that suffers under the new rules, big time. I mean I know most people probably aren't playing Holy Tommy Gun anymore but that was a cool trick. You know, back in the day. A month ago :(
I have to be honest though, I do like how this system places emphasis on creatures with toughness. It's not just a total wash to play lopsided men with fat asses and no guns anymore, they are exceedingly good on defense now, you just have to be playing enough of them to where the attacker's ability to dick you around with the blocking order doesn't savage your plan.
Unless your first striker has touchness of 2 or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by mujadaddy
Sure, absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by quicksilver
I understand what's being lost with the new rules... A few posts up somebody said something about getting rid of En Passant ... it is kinda like that. "Simpler = better, amirite?" ~WotC shill
I think what's non-intuitive is that tokens even have owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
However, if they didn't have owners, their interaction with bounce spells would be extremely confusing. So to simplify, they decided to treat the controller as the owner.
And again, the difference is that Gilded Drake is in your library and your hand before you play it. You actually own the card (or maybe you're borrowing, but whatever). There is nothing about a token that you own outside of the game, since outside of the game, and indeed, outside of being in play, it doesn't exist. You can bring your own tokens if you like, but I don't have to use them, so it's irrelevant.
Whether or not you think the old rules made sense is completely irrelevant. A great many things make sense that are counter-intuitive. But don't call an apple an orange. The point was that the old rules were counter-intuitive, not that they were "wrong", or especially confusing, or even worth changing particularly.
And you still haven't produced a coherent argument for why the new rule is any more intuitive than the old one.
Because dealing combat damage however you want is confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
What's more intuitive is declaring an order in which damage will be done. Then determining how much damage is done to each creature. To do this one must first determine lethal damage for the creature. Lethal damage is damage that will kill the creature. Although things like protection and damage prevention do not calculate into determining if a creature will be killed, only toughness minus damage done so far. Every noob is clearly going to realize that you have to do 3 extra damage to a giant growthed creature before you can go onto the next creature, but doing that 3 damage is optional if that creature was healing salved. This is very intuitive. It's also clear without even explaining the rules that you are forced to do damage to a creature with protection, even though that damage isn't done. These new rules are extremly simple.
So as I clearly have proved the old rules were very confusing and strange but the new rules are simple, easily understood, and clearly make more sense.
Tokens aren't like paper cards... but, why does that mean that ownership rules work differently? I don't understand how this is intuitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges
Sure, to someone who doesn't know the rules owner= controller. That's fine. I've seen people that didn't know the rules try to put their opponent's cards into their hand.
However, if you've had the difference between owner and controller explain to you, and then the interaction comes up with tokens, how is that unintuitive?
I never played Vial Horror, but maybe someone who has, or any similar deck with Brand or whatever, can tell me if their opponents were over confused over the ownership of tokens.
That's not an argument.
If MWS randoms can be counted, it's happened a few times for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
MWS randoms are also confused if you try to play a spell before they draw a card for the turn, copy a Chain Lightning or point out that Stifle/Pithing Needle can't stop mana abilities, so I don't think that's saying a lot; that's really the whole problem with these changes, the people they're geared for are confused by even the most intuitive rules since people just get some things differently as people are different, and they have little more than their intuition to go off on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguine Voyeur
You make it sound as if most of the people on MWS are braindead morons who can't dress themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldariel
Sure, the competition on MWS isn't exactly Pro Tour quality, but it's not *that* bad most of the time.
The only time people were really confused and argumentative about it was on MWS. In real tournaments, the opponents almost always held their hand up to say "wait" and then read the cards carefully and said "ohh." Otherwise, they just called a judge and said "okay."
Let me just offer a final word on this whole topic. After spending over 3 years on my strategy involving ownership... I can myself admit that it wasn't broken, even in the face of a newer player. I doubt any customer would quit playing this game upon facing someone who played a Hunted Creature on them and then did something with the tokens. Even a new player would have an answer for the creature. The bottom line remains: the new rule is no more intuitive than the old rule, if anything.
Also, I can't think of any reasons it'd help a new player from having a shock experience, or having too many games where playing "wrong" would get them to form bad habits. Anyone who doesn't know of this interaction isn't going to play accidentally wrong: they're not going to play Brand and then accidentally not gain control of their token creatures, they're not going to play Warp World and then accidentally not count the tokens they own.
The only time this rule would ever affect Wizards financially is if new players are building new decks (and buying more cards) to try to exploit this ruling. As someone who will no longer be playing this game, I think it proves that the old ruling is what actually was giving them my business.
That's one case for the old ruling helping them more financially, I'd like to see a case of the old ruling hurting them financially somehow.
I personally like most of these rules. Let's be honest: none of us is actually going to start calling it "the battlefield" so appart fromhaving a few stupid card faces for a year or two that's pretty much irrelevant.
The issue I do have however, is with rule change #5. This issue's been talked to death, so let me just ask a few hypothetical questions about the new rules. If a supporter of the new rules can offer good answers Id be legitimately glad to hear it.
1: Casting damage prevention spells or abilities now occurs before any damage is dealt since "At that time, combat is deterministic enough to give you a good idea of what's coming." Since damage assignment can now take damage prevention affects into account, how do these new rules fix this already weak mechanic?
2: If sacrificing creatures while damage is on the stack is so unintuitive, why has Wizards designed and heavily promoted dozens of cards for this purpose in recent years (pridemage, Call to Heel, Dauntless Escort, that Nantuko Husk variant in Conflux: all of these are cards in the last block alone)?
3: Why does the Kederekt Creeper's potential inability to divide damage in the article's example defeat the purpose of the card any more than another creature?
4: In a similar vein, why can a creature deal more than lethal damage to a creature in line but not less?
5: Is there a situation in which the old combat rules, along with a rule stipulating that a creature must be in play to deal combat damage, would have failed to solve that "intuitive" issue that was trying to be solved? (No corner-cases please, by which I mean one of two cards in the entire game acting weird. I want to know if there is a common or relatively realistic scenario)
6: Has anyone on these forums attempted llimited play under the new rules, and if so, can then report how the new rules affected their games?
7: Why use a non-trampling fattie being chump-blocked by five creatures, one which was given pro-green, as your primary example of combat? It just looks so unneccessarily ugly on the page.
P.S: I don't know if it's been posted here, but Zvi offers an interesting analysis:http://www.top8magic.com/2009/06/rui...vi-mowshowitz/
IBA I have to ask... do you want to be convinced? You seem well asserted that you are correct, so why do you ask people to create an argument that you appear to not to want to agree to?
I want an argument stronger than my counterargument. This isn't exactly advanced calculus.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart