Printable View
What is with everyone saying limited combat got dumbed down? They are not going to be printing the same kind of cards.
Yes, limited games with older sets will be dumbed down cause of the changes. Just like some interrupts lost there playability after that change. New sets will have cards that work with the new rules, and will still be interesting.
The revolution is live;Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=13922
That's the point. With news cards being incompatible with the old ones (which has to be the case or the game will be shitty and boring) they are indeed creating a completely new game, that has little to do with MTG.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
Queen Yahwai Told God, "Kabzeel Ain't Superfical, Don't Fuck Around Son, Don't Fuck."Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenOne
I'm happy with a couple of the changes, can live with most of the rest, but...
I don't understand combat any more. I need to re-read the article a couple of times to get it clear in my head, and then will need a notepad to remind me wherever I play Magic. I'm not at all happy about that: I too really rather liked the complexity of combat tricks, and found it perfectly intuitive, given how the stack operated elsewhere in the game.
One of the most frustrating things for me, however, is the bazillion-ton of errata that now needs to be issued. I couldn't really keep it all straight before, but most of the time it didn't matter much, since the cards I use and see the most were largely unaffected. That's not quite the case any more, however. I really hate errata: it makes the game so difficult to follow properly. =/
From the standpoint as both a Judge and a TO, the changes are worse than they are for players. I have received numerous phone calls, text messages, and emails regarding the changes. Having run events since 1997, I have had to adapt several times.
Fifth Edition gave us Mana Sources and "The Batch" which made things much more complicated than they ever needed to be. The funny thing back then was that prior to Fifth, many people called lands "mana sources" as many people do today. With that logic, Mystical Tutor could (incorrectly) fetch lands. These rules sucked and were quickly abandoned.
When the Sixth Edition changes occurred, many players were in an uproar about what was going on and couldn't see the forest through the trees. Had the Fifth Edition rules never happened, the Sixth Edition changes would not have been met with such resistance. People were concerned that there would be a major rules change for every Core set. We were all thankful that Seventh did not change any of the rules.
Wizards did fai in one aspect of the Sixth edition rules: The Urza's Destiny Pre-release. The set was printed for Sixth Edition rules but the Pre-release took place before they came into effect, so judging was a nightmare.
Now that Eleventh Edition is coming out and some rules changes are coming along with it, the work of those of us who hae vowed to help and enforce the rules has increased. It happens.
Although I do not like the naming change of the Core sets, I agree 100% with all of the rules changes, although changing the verbiage is going to take some time to get used to, especially the change from "play" to "cast." Does it nerf some cards? Yes. Does that suck? Yes. Do we now have to change some of our Strategery? Indeed we do.
If it were up to me, the name change of the Core sets would never have taken place. The confusion with Tenth and M10 is obvious. But, I feel that we will all adapt to the changes as if they never happened, just like Sixth Edition. I am sure Wizards will fine tune some things as we go along, both adding some more tweaks and maybe subtracting some of the changes that have been made.
Life goes on and so will Magic.
I persoanlly think the new combat stuff is less intuitive. It's really quite a stupid change.
I hate the fact they they functionally changed a lot of cards.
Other than that most of the changes were irrelivant.
Their attack phase: they assign attackers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaswerfraiejen
Your block phase: you assign blockers. They tell you which blockers are going to be engaged in which order. They assign any damage prevention or other effects to their attackers. You assign any damage prevention or other effects to your blockers. This is the last chance for either attacker or defender to use activated abilities of their creatures before proceeding to combat damage step.
Combat damage phase: all damage is assigned by the creatures identified and amplified and modified and still on the board. Unless a creature has Deathtouch or Banding this is straight forward - you assign all damage to the creature first in the queue against your creature and then after dealing lethal damage to it continue assigning damage down the queue. All creatures are removed at the same time at the end of the combat damage step so even if a creature is dealt lethal damage by the first blocker it faces it can continue to assign additional damage to blockers further down in the queue.
Creatures with Deathtouch do NOT break the rules at all. 1 point of damage from them is lethal and so they can move on and assign damage to the next blocker, etc.
Creatures in a Banding group (any number of blockers of a single target in which all but one creature has Banding) can still be assigned damage as the blocking player sees fit, despite the order or priority that the attacker has set up. Banding is probably still crappy but you never know, Let's see what they print with Banding in the next few sets.
Creatures with Protection from the color of the attacking creature cannot be used to shield other creatures in a double-block situation. The attacker chooses who he is going to address first, which will be the non-Protection creature obviously.
I think it works.
You know, I'm thinking about it more, and I have to say I'm kind of glad they took away "stacking" combat damage. It makes more sense when you compare it to like, Lightning Bolt. That damage (the damage, not the spell) doesn't use the stack, and I absolutely have seen players - and not new ones - confuse that issue. This makes things a bit more clear.
Thats not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
In this case i could use my creature abilitys, block in the assign blockers phase, and then before the combat damage step just bounce/whatever my creature.
So Block with "Wild Mongrell" use his ability and go on to the combat damage step?
Or blocking with Mishra'S Factory and pump to 3/3 with its ability and go on to the combat damage step?
sry its confusing.
If you get bolted and the spell resolves bringing you to 0 life you lose as soon as the spell resolves, right? That was my understanding of how it worked now. Does the stack actually clear down to the base before the damage is assessed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare
No. That's my point. When the spell resolves, the damage resolves with it, without delay. There's no "with lightning bolt damage on the stack, do XYZ." It makes non-combat damage functionally different than combat damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
See, I always thought of it as dealing damage was like casting the spell. Like, playing Lightning Bolt is equivalent to putting damage on the stack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare
I don't see where they have changed the definition of blocking and its effect on the ability to prevent damage to a player at all. So yes, you could assign a blocker in your declare blockers phase and then use an ability including bouncing it and prevent yourself from being damaged by what it was blocking (unless it had Trample).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch@os
The only difference is that the bounced creature cannot do damage to the creature it is blocking. They took away the "shadow punch" from a creature that for whatever reason will still not be on the board in the combat damage step. No abilities or effects can be used in the combat damage step. So there is no way to do damage and then do something to remove your creature from the board to avoid incoming damage.
In fact it uses the stack in a more subtle way. Not the damage itself is put on the stack, but the spell is, so you can still respond to that, which you can't do in combat anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare
My only question is why ? I don't see the mana burn, combat damage using the stack and the wish thing as problems in the game. If it ain't broken, why fix it ? Besides from bringing confusion, I really don't understand the 2010 combat damage ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrzyMoose
Same here...Quote:
Combat damage no longer going on the stack? What the fuck?!
I see it is getting closer to a curtains call for MtG and I. In every other game that I have played when they ruined aspects of the mechanics or rules, I stopped and I cannot fucking see a silver lining for giving combat damage independance of the stack. Just wow.
They should change non-combat damage to use the same sequence as combat damage, with the entire stack replacing the assign blockers phase functionally in the process. This would be consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare
Every stack should have an Assign Damage/Assess Win Loss step that occurs after the stack has fully cleared.
You should win or lose based on the condition of the game at the next point at which somebody would gain priority with no spells on the stack.
What they should have done was make combat damage only resolve if the creature that generated it is still in play. They would have accomplished what they wanted without making it far more complicated and unintuitive.
Seriously, they had a super easy fix to this, and they were like "fuck that, let's se how complicated we can make this shit while at the same time pissing off every magic player".
This still means that 2 instant spells that do 6 damage can trump one instant spell that prevents 4 damage, even if the sum of the spells would not put you at 0 life or below. You can't afford not to respond to the first spell and so the second spell kills you even though the combination of spells would leave you at 1 life if you began with 3 life.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjoness'
This is also why spells like Reverse Damage don't work properly any more unless they are used against non-instant speed damage.
There's a logical inconsistency in setting up a stack system unless you allow it to fully clear before assessing results.
Yes, you can. You just can't respond after the damage has already been dealt, like you could before. You can't wait for Lightning Bolt to resolve, and then sacrifice your Mogg Fanatic. Now you can't allow damage from combat be assigned and then sac it, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjoness'