Printable View
I have decided that a benifit to the new rules is that they did actually make combat easier on MWS. There are no more awkward "damage on" instances where the person across from you has to figure out how to stack his 3 sack effects to kill my tombstalker.
Because the sky isn't falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonzy
It matters to WotC that the casual players at the kitchen table who may not even have a DCI number will be able to understand the new rules, because if they are able to make the rules regarding combat easier to understand, then maybe those players will be interested in stopping by a pre-release or FNM at some point.... and maybe that'll lead into some other events. Maybe it'll even lead to them saying to their buddy, "Hey, check this out!" Maybe their buddy gets into the game easier because he's not stumped on how that little 1/1 just killed BOTH of his Goblin Pikemen. Then they both are buying new packs and showing up to sanctioned events...
Now what happened there if player 1 went to an FNM or pre-release, got a beatdown because of some complex rule system he didn't know was there, and was humiliated by some player there for not knowing the rules right? Is that player likely to come back and play again? Hell, he might not even buy new packs or cards he might just play at home with what he's got or not even play at all. Do you think after that experience he'd tell his friend?
Subjective, opinionated.... Whatever, this is what they're working on. They are wanting to remove the complexity the stack brought to combat (even though to many of us, the stack made combat fun and strategic) so that they can try to pull those players who sit at the kitchen table into the game and not have them confused and humiliated after catching a rules-lawyered beatdown. Having a positive experience at their first few sanctioned events is a better way of having them spread the word to their friends and bringing new people into the game by word of mouth.
It doesn't matter if we think their reasoning is right, it's done. It's not getting reversed unless everyone stops buying packs. Lets face it, how many of us actually buy packs outside of limited? How many of us deal with cardshark, ebay, motl, and the like? Sure if we quit and stop buying cards, dealers online might buy less but they'll still have people to sell singles to, so our stopping will not hurt Wizards as much as we'd like to think. To them we'd just be the spoiled kid throwing a tantrum because we don't understand why they could do this to us.
Sit back, realize the sky isn't falling and that this really is not the end of MtG, and play your games. You might find they are right, we might be right and laugh at Wizards own stupidity, but for right now there is not anything really that will provoke them to change the rules back... So enjoy the ride.
No no, don't misunderstand me here. I've said here (I think) and other places that I have no doubt the fanboys will continue dumping money into this game no matter how much the game changes. I'm not saying "zomg these changes will kill Magic", because I know they won't, at least not directly. Maybe for some of us individuals like myself, but not likely for the game as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sims
What I'm trying to do is uncover the "real" truth behind these changes and examine whether or not their reasoning is valid for making them, and then, from there, figure out if the things they're doing are really going to solve the problems they're trying to address or if they're going to be overall more harmful to the game's development. You say there's no point in debating it...well, you're entitled to feel that way and nobody's making you participate. I think it's worth talking about, but then again, that's just my opinion. And I suppose my opinion doesn't really matter in the long run anyhow, since I'm liked the old rules and I'm apparently part of an unimportant minority in this game, or so I'm being told.
It matters that they play, less emphasis on the "how." Most players want to play a game the way it is intended to be before coming up with house rules. You need to learn the rules before you break them.Quote:
But why the does it even matter how they play? By your own admission, they're not playing in tournaments, so if they get the rules wrong it doesn't matter to anyone, at all, ever. To the people the rules did matter to, they were already fine, so there was no real need for a change.
Also key: the main beneficieries of the changes are players that don't play the game yet. They haven't got their feet wet. Many new players are going to come into contact with MTG in the next few years and WotC is making an educated bet their changes will encourage some of those players who would otherwise drop out to stick with it.
All businesses need new blood, to offset losses from attrition, rising costs and to grow (hire more people, etc.). You and I are already in the game, and barring some phenomenal change, like removal of the stack, are going to stay in it for as long as it's fun and we have people to play with. As I mentioned above, the M10 changes were not about us. They have us. They're intended for players who may get into the game.Quote:
I don't doubt they researched it, but I'm wondering even why their focus is and always has been on new blood in this game.
Very true.Quote:
And ultimately, there's the simple concept in business that it's much easier to keep your existing customers happy than it is to win new ones...and far less expensive.
There's risk in all opportunities. I'm betting they didn't think they'd alienate their existing customers to such a degree that loss of their existing player base would be greater than the retention of newer players who the M10 changes were made for.Quote:
So I'm wondering why they're even willing to risk alienating large segments of the existing customer base on the remote chance that changing these aspects of the game are going somehow turn the tide for them and win over the huge market share they've been looking for.
I doubt their research is flawless, few things are. There's no guarantee gains will offset loss--like I said, risk and opportunity go hand in hand.Quote:
Ok, assuming that Wizards is right, that their market research data is flawlessly collected and accurate and given that the conclusion "changing rules is the way to win new customers" and accepting the idea that there is some as-yet-unnamed reason why they should care about how well casual players, who don't even attend sanctioned events, know and follow the rules, what is the guarantee that the players you gain will outweigh the players you lose?
We're WotC's customers, not their management. I own zero shares of Hasbro stock. If I did, I would feel more justified to say "What the hell are they doing?" We can criticize their decisions, but the customer rarely knows what's known on the inside.Quote:
What I'm confounded by is what a poor business decision it is to refocus the game in this direction. Ultimately, these changes just don't make sense. To tie this back in to the Ferret's article, all of this goes back to my original point that he can argue over the buzzwords all he wants, but in the end the buzzword arguments are just pretty much irrelevant to the true justifications for these changes and the resulting counter-arguments.
Lastly, I wouldn't call "intuition" a buzz word. Unlike, say, "rightsizing," "integrated efficiencies," "mainstreaming" and "cross-market synergies."
To be clear, I was responding to something you said, but not specifically replying to you, unlike I am in this post, since you're discussing this in an intelligent way. I see a discussion thread like this as more like a lounge where everyone is hanging out and generally talking on the same topic. My comment was pretty clearly "Relax." And was not directed to anyone specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonzy
Two things I noticed yesterday while playing a tournament (the first one in a loooooong time):
It's the final match in a 20 person tournament. Thresh attacks with 4/5 Goyf and Mongoose 3/3, Goblins is on defense with Goblin King, Fanatic and two other 1/1 goblins.
King and fanatic block Mongoose, the other two 2/2 goblins block Goyf. After damage on stack, Fanatic jumps and deals the last point of damage to kill the Goyf.
No more. I'd would be fine with that if it wasn't a goyf, because all goyfs deserve to die a painful death just like they're killing a format where we have EVERY creature available and use only one.
The other thing is that first turn Dark Ritual into Dark Confidant just got much better. Or into Mesmeric, or Sinkhole or Hymn or whatever. Dark Ritual now reads "B: add BB or BBB to your mana pool", like any other ritual.
All other rituals add BB or BBB to my mana pool? Because I want my rite of flame to work that way. :-P
I just played with the new rules and i must say OMG no mana burn, wtf?
I played against merfolk, he could pump his Wake Trasher every round to max, also Daze against Daze is kinda useless, since he just flooded the mana from the untapped and returned island.
head->table
Magic is dying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey
I've played a number of matches with the new rules to see how things would play out and, to my surprise, the lack of mana burn has also proven to be the most common and serious issue in my games. Over and over, my opponents have taken advantage of the lack of damage to make reckless plays that have made it significantly more difficult for me to win.
well manaburn is a keydesign since the beginning and many cards are using it more or less directly. its the most stupid idea to remove that. its like removing the loss of game with an empty library.
what are they thinking, mana flare or vineyard decks were funny casual decks
combat step is now working as intended, pre-6th rules
Here's the why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey
I forget the last time ANYONE took mana burn...
Probably because when the rule existed, most people did their best to follow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
yes, thats the point. i argued with some friends and the all were "ah mana burn is pretty rare..", but in fact its because u follow the rules and watch not to get it. almost every game i played so far there was one situation were manaburnrule happens nothing game breaking ofc exept the one with wake tresher, but still a few more life than ususal.
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey
It's especially frustrating against Enchantress, which is so prevalent on MWS, and against which those extra points of damage/more cautious plays are quite relevant.
How is removing the stack intuitive?
Doesn't it make sense that this guy should die with a bang, even after damage?
http://sales.starcitygames.com/cards...ock_troops.jpg
I'm upset with making Goyf and other non-thinking fatties better. It seems like more decks are going to turn into creature cluster fucks with each turn consisting of a bunch of blockers on each attacker. This luckily won't happen in Legacy since control decks and combo will still be able to handle it, but I unfortunately do enjoy playing the lesser formats.
Yay!!! I cannot wait to "upgrade" my ugly-ass Lorwyn Ponders for these puppies.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...0159&type=card
CARDBOARD PRON!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardo
I want 4.
I need 4. That's so much of an improvement, I'm not sure I can adequately express.Quote:
Originally Posted by majikal
Even the flavor text is awesome.
Indeed. Those are awesome... need to sell my LW foils ASAP.