[M10] General Discussion on Rules Changes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitzbold

Indeed. Those are awesome... need to sell my LW foils ASAP.

---

Agreed.

Anyways, before I came back we had been merely speculating about the rules changes and I was even a skeptic as to them changing manaburn. But this, this is madness... no, this is WOTC b***! /funny

I've been going through a couple scenarios in my head and I almost read all 28 pages of this thread (it gets quite repetitive after a while), but I have decided exactly what about these rules I dislike the most.

Blocker Order. WTH?!?!

Now, rather than saying the attacker can choose who he attacks and since you control him you decide that, Wizards has chosen to do a full 180 and say that the defender can choose when to defend the attacker, but since he's defending he can still poke the attacker with his sword. Yeah, I really think my attacker won't notice your dark confidant hiding behind that fat a** goyf. Just cause you have 2 power doesn't mean you're invisible. Now for the second most bothersome thing.

Guys with frickin deathtouch override the whole blocker order shenanigan.

Ok, maybe you should just call deathtouch "Awareness" from now on. That's all I'm gonna say about it.

Besides those, nothing really bothers me much about these changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowvamp

Blocker Order. WTH?!?!

Now, rather than saying the attacker can choose who he attacks and since you control him you decide that, Wizards has chosen to do a full 180 and say that the defender can choose when to defend the attacker, but since he's defending he can still poke the attacker with his sword. Yeah, I really think my attacker won't notice your dark confidant hiding behind that fat a** goyf. Just cause you have 2 power doesn't mean you're invisible. Now for the second most bothersome thing.

Guys with frickin deathtouch override the whole blocker order shenanigan.

---

Well, lucky for you, that's not how it works. The attacking player declares his attacks. The defending player declares which creatures are blocking which attackers. Then the attacking player decides the order in which he will deal with the creatures (in your example, presumably you want that Dark Confidant dead). Now you have a chance for effects, he has a chance for effects, and then the damage is dealt and resolves. You get to choose in which order the damage is dealt to creatures.

Now, if he has a Giant Growth or something, after you declare the order in which you are going to hit his dudes, you are screwed.

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me. Stupid rules that are supposed to make the game more understandable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowvamp

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me. Stupid rules that are supposed to make the game more understandable...

---

It is just wizards way of doing things: "Will this get me more money? then ok!"
They probably use the same criter with the banning of the cards and so on... =P

Anyways... Can anyone link me the topic to the "New cards on M10 on Legacy Discussion"?
Thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gui_Brasil

It is just wizards way of doing things: "Will this get me more money? then ok!"
They probably use the same criter with the banning of the cards and so on...

---

Um. That's a good thing.

People who complain that Wizards just does whatever will make them the most money are being really naive.

Whatever change Wizards does that will make them more money is, ultimately, a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrzyMoose

Um. That's a good thing.

People who complain that Wizards just does whatever will make them the most money are being really naive.

Whatever change Wizards does that will make them more money is, ultimately, a good thing.

---

Got your point
Indeed, for us, it's a good thing too, so that the game become more popular and we have more places to play... nice stated!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrzyMoose

Whatever change Wizards does that will make them more money is, ultimately, a good thing.

---

For Wizards.

There are a lot of things that they could do to make more money (like making Magic so simple that a 6 year old or saturday night bridge playing granny could play it) that would make the game much less interesting for gamers and people who like the level of complexity involved in the game.

Look at World of Warcraft for a perfect example of how expanding your marketplace dramatically turns the product into something much less than it was originally. Blizzard has made out like a bandit over the last 4 years by continually reducing the skill level and dedication required to play WoW well and all it has cost them is the relatively small group of hardcore players who defined the MMO population prior to their "innovations".

WoW has 5x the features and play area that it had before the first expansion and it is about 1/10 of the game it used to be if you played it at a high level before that point.

Nevertheless, if people don't like it, they will stop playing. And if they stop playing, there is no way to keep the game. So if they need to reduce the complexity of the game so that people like it in order to keep the game being played, that's probably the right way. And skilled and dedicated players are always better than non-skilled anyways.

I don't necessarily think that you're in an either-or situation here though. Magic could stay viable financially for WotC at many different levels. Dumbing it down so that they get the maximum possible customer base is one of those levels, and quite possibly the one they will choose in the end.

There are countervailing forces in play also though, mainly the weak economy. I was talking to a friend who owns a shop the other day and we were marveling at how strong the new base set is. He said something about how whenever the economy is booming Magic expansions are boring and weak and when it is in the pits the cards suddenly get stronger. I thought about it for a bit and I think he's probably right. WotC has to sell cards even if nobody is buying much of anything at the moment. Moxes in the fall? We'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

There are countervailing forces in play also though, mainly the weak economy. I was talking to a friend who owns a shop the other day and we were marveling at how strong the new base set is. He said something about how whenever the economy is booming Magic expansions are boring and weak and when it is in the pits the cards suddenly get stronger. I thought about it for a bit and I think he's probably right. WotC has to sell cards even if nobody is buying much of anything at the moment. Moxes in the fall? We'll see.

---

But wait... Urza Block was one of the most powerful in Magic history and that was um, 1998-1999, the crest of the big economic boom of the late 90s.

It's not that cards get stronger when the economy is weak, is that at those times they cannot afford to release a set nobody buys after a block nobody buys like Alara.

Now tell me if you honestly think that the cards on Alara are stronger than the ones from the two previous blocks.

Well, those changes sure are a doozy.
I can't help but notice that the reaction on this boards is more negative than on other boards. This makes me think a lot of the changes were in fact a good thing ... although obviously not from our point of view.
Still, I think good points can be made that they weren't that good, superior market research or no.

Also, why in the name of fuck does mtg.com always automatically redirect me to the German version of the article?

Before I start my rant, here's a little disclaimer:
Most people here are overreacting. Myself included. Most of the examples given don't take into account that you can now do stuff you weren't able to do before. "But Mogg Fanatic is bad now!" is not an argument. Where we see stuff that cannot be done anymore, there may be stuff we now can do, including different tricks. Of course we can't see them right now, it's not something we've been doing the last couple years.
Eternal will, however, be most affected by the changes because the older cards won't gradually get replaced by the new ones designed with those changes in mind. Like, yeah, it doesn't matter much for Standard that they got their utility creatures nerfed because they'll be getting new ones that don't have to compete with a 10000 card pool. Clearly, Eternal wasn't what Wizards was aiming at - if anything question their logic in the way they're trying to accomplish what they wanted to.


And now for the rant.


Simultaneous mulligans makes sense if you're a TO or Judge. And it gives the player going first an even bigger edge, like they needed it. You do have more time for actual Magic, though.


Lifelink is the way it should always have been. Exalted Angel got a little stronger. Does Stax even still play that?
Still, I'm worried that in ten years, I'll have to print out the oracle wording for my entire deck before going to a tournament, but that's the nature of change. I weep for noobs buying old cards anyway.


By contrast, the new rules for deathtouch are just moronic. I was just reading this with my mouth frozen in the "Whaa ...?" position.
There is one total deathtouch creature right now that has ever seen Constructed play. Two if you count the new Ooze. Most relevant creatures that you may think have deathtouch actually don't. Many actual deathtoucher have a power of 1, making the combat modifier even less useful.
And for this they decided to change it from a single straight-forward triggered ability to a bunch of them, including such concepts as combat modifiers, additional state-based effect, and an innate ability of deathtouchers to kill from beyond the grave provided they don't do it via combat damage? They weren't afraid to nerf hundreds of cards with the combat rules and removed one freaking sentence about mana burn but they're making a freaking Limited mechanic that only noobs care about in Constructed more complex?


No mana burn doesn't really touch me all that much. Pulse of the Field is not a sufficient argument.
What does irk me is the pool emptying at end of steps. "Few players care about the difference between steps and phases?" The what? How is requiring detailed knowledge of the turn structure from the newbies gonna help them?
Never mind LED, how is this better than the old rule in Standard? Instead of emptying the pools when wrapping up a phase (something you're never going to miss), you now have to empty them between declare attackers and declare blockers too?
Fighting complexity my ass.


Combat damage stack. Oh yeah.
I actually don't have that much of a problem with this, or rather the reasoning behind it; nobody I ever talked to found it intuitive that a dead creature can deal combat damage. On the other hand, once I explained it, it always worked.
Call me arrogant, but if you start playing Magic and care about playing correctly, but don't get some basic rules material, screw you.

The "trample for creatures" thing is ... odd. How was it necessary? It's not easier to get than the old system. I mean, it strikes me as just as arbitrary as renaming the in-play zone - except that combat rules have an actual and deep effect on the game.
The reason given is that the no-stack thing would otherwise not have worked well with damage prevention and the like. Maybe a hint that another solution, if one was necessary, should have been more strongly considered (not to mention deathtouch still gets to create trouble for some reason)? Like, implement a rule that says "creatures that are no longer in play don't deal combat damage" and leave the oh-so-complex rest as is.


Another thing I just can't wrap my mind around is the abolishment of gy order. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. Except that it's inapplicable in formats where it matters most. Just bloody ban everything that cares about gy order on the same grounds as ante cards. Nobody except for three enthusiasts and their mommies will care. Dredge players everywhere will rejoice.





It's not the end of Magic, but it'll take some getting used to. I'm quite skeptical and although I don't think Wizards is teh evil, the changes which are not cosmetic seem really arbitrary to me at this point. Even though I'm kinda looking forward to figuring out new tricks.
I don't care for cards that got nerfed. I'm just gonna have to play different ones, tough luck. But I'd much prefer being able to believe all of these changes were necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

It's not that cards get stronger when the economy is weak, is that at those times they cannot afford to release a set nobody buys after a block nobody buys like Alara.

Now tell me if you honestly think that the cards on Alara are stronger than the ones from the two previous blocks.

---

That's my point. WotC needs to sell product. If they put out crappy sets in bad times they lose money. In good times they just print whatever they want and count on people having excess disposable income to absorb it even if it's not high quality.

The 1998/1999 bubble is kind of unusual in many different ways. One obvious point about it is that WotC made some terrible decisions in the middle of the 1990's (Fallen Empires, Homelands, etc) and they were really trying to wow people with the product at that point.

If WotC put out a weak set right now it would sit on shelves (and in retail storage) forever, just like Fallen Empires has.

I like most of the rules changes introduced with M10.

There are very few i dislike:
Block Order - I dont understand the need for it. The old system was fine and would have not needed an exception for deathtouch. I dont like this "You must do leathel damage!" thing.
Battlefield - I think it sounds strange and it is too long. Field would have been ok.
Play Lands - They could have come up with something better. But since i can't think of a good name for it i am fine with "Play" for now. I could see this getting changed in M11.

Beside this i like all the changes. And i think the new "Combat Phase" will create some really interesting "Declare Blocker" steps.

You should be able to till your lands.

I am going to till the fuck out of this Wasteland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

That's my point. WotC needs to sell product. If they put out crappy sets in bad times they lose money. In good times they just print whatever they want and count on people having excess disposable income to absorb it even if it's not high quality.

---

No, your point was that sets get stronger when the economy is weak. My point is that after releasing an entire block of chaff, they have to create a set that doesn't suck (especially when the economy is weak). Your argument is invalid because the entire Alara block was released after the recession and it's one of the weakest ever, specially the first set. Or is it that you only take into account sets that support your theory? Heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

No, your point was that sets get stronger when the economy is weak. My point is that after releasing an entire block of chaff, they have to create a set that doesn't suck (especially when the economy is weak). Your argument is invalid because the entire Alara block was released after the recession and it's one of the weakest ever, specially the first set. Or is it that you only take into account sets that support your theory? Heh.

---

The development process for the Alara block probably started a year before the cards hit the shelves. That would make the decision as to what to do with card strength in late 2007 when the economy was still looking ok, if not the best. The set in development from mid 2008, when the economic realities began to sink in was M2010.

Just because Alara was released in September of 2008 doesn't mean that it was conceived and developed in a poor economy. It clearly wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

It's not that cards get stronger when the economy is weak, is that at those times they cannot afford to release a set nobody buys after a block nobody buys like Alara.

Now tell me if you honestly think that the cards on Alara are stronger than the ones from the two previous blocks.

---

It's all relative. Which blocks have changed Vintage more, Alara, or the two previous ones?

I have not taken a serious look at the rule changes yet, nor have I read this whole thread.

Are there any legacy deck which just get the boot now with the new changes or is there nothing that significant? :really:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m03

It's all relative. Which blocks have changed Vintage more, Alara, or the two previous ones?

---

I'd say Alara, since it gave us a creature that's a 3/3 turn 2 for 1, a creature that makes Tarmogoyf's bigger + blows up Counterbalances, and a planeswalker that lets Landstill say "oops, I win!".

We also got some other fun stuff, like a card that's a brother of Vindicate.


In the other two previous blocks? Umm... a man land? A Super Duress?