Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

  1. #21

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JeroenC View Post
    It's pretty simple really. You just do what is on the card: if it has the old wording, it'll be triggered. If it has lifelink, ignore any and all reminder text and it has static lifelink.
    One exception: Loxodon Warhammer. I think it has "new" lifelink, so everyone with Mirrodin editions have the wrong wording.
    That doesn't seem all that simple. I'd rather they just errata all instances of lifelink, old and new, to just be lifelink. Having two versions, one triggered and one static, serves no purpose.

  2. #22
    Team Lucksack - Founder
    Media314r8's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2007
    Location

    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts

    522

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    I recently played both my cube, and my commons cube in 6-8 man drafts while using the new rules. The normal cube rarely has much interactivity in combat, and the new rules were highly irrelevant, aside from cards like river boa, who would have put damage on the stack against some generic X/2 blocker and then died to my lightning bolt in response to a regeneration shield, but instead died to my bolt in response to 'PREgeneration', and my X/2 blocker lived (my opponent only had G open to regen once). Having to preemptively regenerate a creature is VERY counter-intuitive, and will likely upset a great many casual players. and further nerf non-troll regenerators.

    In the commons cube, we had many more dude vs non-chump-to-stay-alive dude interactions, including some group blocks. (my 3/3 ambassador oak and his 1/1 elf friend blocking his 5/5 Crabapple Cohort, with me shocking his other attacking 2/1 deathtouch elf, then him ordering blocks 3/3, then 1/1, and me giant growth'ing my 3/3 to kill both of his guys and keep both of mine) In this case, I think that blocking is dirty cheats, as having an opportunity to attempt to remove attackers before you block, and then to cast pump spells after they lock in a order to your blockers makes blocking stronger than previously. This situation did not arise to often, but in most cases, the defending player came out ahead, save for in the cases where the double blocking defender had no tricks and the attacker had a removal spell, which is a two-for-one just as it would have been under the old rules.

    The biggest change I noticed is the weakened power of combat tricks other than instant speed removal and pumps, which became stronger. Cards like momentary blink still performed well in conjunction with one of my friend's kavu climber, but it served as a way to eek out more card advantage, and grant pseudo-vigilance, rather than be a total blowout with damage on the stack. Cards like whitemane lion lost much of their power, and may get cut, as they now really require a good amount of decent CiP abilities, and serve mainly as a way to 'dodge' removal spells on your other guys.

    Rav bounce lands improved greatly, with the notable uses being CMC 1 instants and spells like ponder, brainstorm, and shock not causing mana burn, as well as regen and other single-colored mana activated abilities being playable off a bounceland source without cause for worry over manaburn. This change I am actually less fond of, as the ability to float mana from upkeep to draw was relevant against a brainstormed-to-top of deck instant which had a cost only provided by a single source, which then was twiddled by their opponent's pestermite. My largest concern over this change is that is allows for sloppy resource management, from common occurrences such as paying incorrectly and then needing to use a bounceland later, to activating tolarian academy in EDH for a bunch of mana that doesn't need to be spent, to the Ferret's experiences in casual multiplayer.

    The sky isn't falling, but regenerators, many combat tricks, and other activated abilities on dudes that plan on fighting got worse, big vanilla beaters and removal/pump spells got better, and tapping lands with a paw-swipe is encouraged. I personally am concerned that blue and black will be slightly nerfed in M10 limited, as bounce/non-removal combat tricks and sac effects were heavily relied on in 10th ed to make up for the green common pumps, the white angelic page-effects, and the red common burn. I suppose I should trust R&D to have forseen this, and perhaps given black more 'pay life/cards for better guys/effects' and blue more good counterspells like exclude and negate to make up for their loss of combat trickery.

    It's not the same magic, but it's still Magic, so don't be so quick to sell all of your cards on ebay and resign yourself to Yu-Gi-Oh! However, if you do, please PM me with what you're selling, as I am convinced that this is not the end of Magic as we know it, but just an ugly bend in the road.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Phasing is absurdly complicated. Did you know that if a token phases out with Equipment attached to it, the Equipment phases out, the token will cease to exist and the Equipment will never phase back in?

    Well, now you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Media314r8 View Post
    "Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

  3. #23

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan View Post
    That doesn't seem all that simple. I'd rather they just errata all instances of lifelink, old and new, to just be lifelink. Having two versions, one triggered and one static, serves no purpose.
    I beg to differ. The point is, if a card has never been printed with the keyword "Lifelink", why change its functionality for no reason other than "something similar already exists" ?

    It's like saying "Troll Ascetic and his few pals are confusing because their ability s too similar to Shroud. Troll Ascetic & co should be errata'd as just having shroud".

    The cards you are referring to don't have Lifelink, neither in their printed form nor in their Oracle form (well, as whatever date the changes will apply). It's that simple.

    About the cards that have had two versions (one with the whole thing spelled out loud, and one with lifelink), ... there's only ONE (Loxodon Warhammer) in all of Magic, which although casual-friendly, is played practically nowhere else.

    All in all, it doesn't feel like it would justify changing cards functionality just for this. At least, that's the conclusion Wizards reached.

  4. #24
    Serious Rider
    Pinder's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2005
    Posts

    4,962

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    My first real experience with the M10 ruleset was after I bought the Duels of the Planeswalkers. All of the decks are pretty scrubtastic, so it plays out a lot like limited, with double/multiple blocks included.

    And I gotta say, there were maybe a few times out of beating the entire game where I really wished a could stack combat damage to gain an advantage, and even then not being able to do so didn't always mean I lost. I can only imagine that in Legacy specifically, combat now will be virtually indistinguishable from the way it was. Corner cases will pop up (and we have a lot more tricks available to us than the inbred 6- or 7-deck meta in the game), but overall the experience is pretty much the same.

    Mulligans in-game are completely instantaneous, so it's not really a great demonstration of the time-saving qualities of simultaneous mulligans, but but at any rate I didn't notice any difference in my decisions to mulligan, without knowing whether or not they were going to first.
    Team Info-Ninjas: Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
    My Videos: Chiron Beta Prime, Flickr, Re: Your Brains
    Quote Originally Posted by Slay
    Man Kills Seven at popular gaming tournament, buries in backyard. "I was only trying to get thresh," he says.
    -Slay

  5. #25

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ParkerLewis View Post
    I beg to differ. The point is, if a card has never been printed with the keyword "Lifelink", why change its functionality for no reason other than "something similar already exists" ?
    While I agree with what you are saying completely, it doesn't seem like WotC really cares about respecting the printed versions of cards anymore (see: Lorwyn mass creature type errata. Seriously, how are you supposed to know Aquamoeba is an elemental?)

    Anyways, I don't think it's relevant in a legacy context. I have not seen a lifelinked creature in ages, the only possibly relevant card I can think of is Exalted Angel, which will be remaining triggered.

  6. #26

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Otter View Post
    While I agree with what you are saying completely, it doesn't seem like WotC really cares about respecting the printed versions of cards anymore (see: Lorwyn mass creature type errata. Seriously, how are you supposed to know Aquamoeba is an elemental?)

    Anyways, I don't think it's relevant in a legacy context. I have not seen a lifelinked creature in ages, the only possibly relevant card I can think of is Exalted Angel, which will be remaining triggered.
    Rhox War Monk is played in quite a few decks. It just seems like cards with identical function should (logically) have the same effect in all cases. It's never going to be really relevant, but I still think not changing these cards (and Stinkweed Imp) is a poor choice.
    [3. LocalDefense]: English is under attack!

  7. #27

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    * Can’t burn yourself to get additional uses out of the Pulse of the Field/Forge. Honestly though, who plays Pulse of the Forge in Legacy? Also any deck playing Pulse of the Fields (mostly U/W/x control) is unlikely to suffer intentional damage against any deck where you’d want the Pulse, post-board
    It's the player who's playing against Pulse of the Fields that takes the mana burn to avoid Pulse of the Fields from returning to the opponents hand.

    Nice detailed post though. I don't think the new rules are all that bad but what was wrong with the combat step in the first place? It was great as it was and didn't need a fix.

  8. #28
    snooPING AS usual, I see.
    Mordel's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    CANADUH
    Posts

    476

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    A few days ago a buddy and I shuffled up our decks on MWS and I played with my weird GBr loam deck and he played with D & T and it was weird at first. At first we were typing shit about the battlefield and exile...correcting mws's automatic messages and such, but we dropped it pretty quick. Blocking felt pretty fucking advantageous to me with my goyfs and he seemed to be forgetting that he could stack combat damage right after he declared attackers and lost a grunt stupidly that way(I assume...unless he was stoned or something).

    Obviously, the functional change of wish never came up for me in the games. No manaburn ever came up either, though no mana burn could be situationally nice for dutch stax(which is a deck I will play more and more in the future probably). To be honest, many of the changes remove the rare situations when their implementation could be of benefit to someone, but the issue that I hold with that is those rare strategic benefits and moments of guile are why I like the game and why I have abandoned "newer" formats.

    Simultaneous mulls seem like a good plan to me. My play testing buddies and I play competitive, but friendly games, so we rarely if ever implemented the entire waiting for your opponent to mull down to five before mulling for a greedy hand. I honestly don't see the twenty seconds that this may save in a game to be a huge factor and think it is more of a way to make the game seem more friendly and forgiving to fledgling competitive players. I always liked being able to take a calculated risk and still have an advantage when I would take a greed mull when my opponent had gone to five and was on the play when I had a serviceable, but not great hand in a shitty match.

    Again though: I don't think these rules changes will be of tremendous earth-shattering consequence, but I still do not like how they are contributing to simplifying the game further and it is spilling into a realm of eternal formats, which I had begun to pay attention to because of said simplifications in set design and such.

    I read through the Zvi article and I was reminded again why when I was a little pro tour hopeful kid, the combo king, Zvi was my MtG hero of sorts: the level of complexity added by combat damage's autonomy from the presence of the way basically every other process in the game game occurs is actually more complex in a sense. I had never thought about it that way. The simultaneous nature of lifelink(and it not being able to stack any longer) and deathtouch add to this notion for me, personally. If I was a new player, the new combat rules, though allow for more straightforward interactions and less room for being made to feel like an idiot because of a "tricky play", seem more complicated. I think the only thing going for many of these changes, once again, is a more friendly-feeling game at a semi-competitive level.

    Edit: In the future though, even if I do attend a bigger sanctioned even, I will never say "battlefield" or refer to something as "exiled" and if my opponent does, I will probably quietly snicker because if I wanted flavor, I would play an RPG. I play MtG for strategy, not dorky flavor that tries to make me feel like some sort planeswalker/God in a world where "I rule(!!!)".
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihil Credo View Post
    With Crucible, you have a deck full of high-quality cocaine powder ready to be snorted from 20-year-old Kylie Minogue's ass. Play fucking four.
    -It could be about four of anything and I would agree.

  9. #29

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    if I wanted flavor, I would play an RPG. I play MtG for strategy
    If you wanted strategy, you'd play Go.

    Nobody would play MtG without the flavor. It just would be completely impalatable and, most of all, simply unplayable due to the absurd level of complexity.

    If you don't believe me, I dare you to play even one game with proxies where you've changed all the game keywords to "Keyword AAA"/"Keyword AAB" etc, all Zone names to "Zone 1"/"Zone 2"/"Zone 3" etc, all stats (mana cost, cmc, power, toughness, type, etc) to "Stat 01"/"Stat 02", all card names to "Name 00001" etc, and all Phases/Steps to "Phase 01 Step A"/etc, all game actions (tap, play, cast, activate, draw, sacrifice, ...) to "Action 01"/etc.

    Actually, you wouldn't even be able to make it past three turns without giving up or simply crapping on the rules all over the place.

  10. #30
    Not a Member
    Shugyosha's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2006
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    275

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ParkerLewis View Post
    If you wanted strategy, you'd play Go.

    Nobody would play MtG without the flavor. It just would be completely impalatable and, most of all, simply unplayable due to the absurd level of complexity.

    If you don't believe me, I dare you to play even one game with proxies where you've changed all the game keywords to "Keyword AAA"/"Keyword AAB" etc, all Zone names to "Zone 1"/"Zone 2"/"Zone 3" etc, all stats (mana cost, cmc, power, toughness, type, etc) to "Stat 01"/"Stat 02", all card names to "Name 00001" etc, and all Phases/Steps to "Phase 01 Step A"/etc, all game actions (tap, play, cast, activate, draw, sacrifice, ...) to "Action 01"/etc.

    Actually, you wouldn't even be able to make it past three turns without giving up or simply crapping on the rules all over the place.
    AAA and AAB are harder to memorize than words like First Strike and Flying that already give you a basic mental picture of the rules behind them. If things like Keywords and phases are easy to memorize for me I don't care that much about flavor. It might be a reason to get into the game but not the reason to play it competitvely. Remove from the game or exile I couldn't care less during a game of magic as both concepts are easy to memorize.
    TS Crew

  11. #31
    I clench my fists and yell "anime" towards an uncaring, absent God
    Nihil Credo's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    59°50'59.11" N, 17°34'55.69" E
    Posts

    4,702

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    Also, with a frequent keyword like "battlefield" popping up while teaching someone to play, I see things getting a bit more uphill for trying to get non-gamers to play the game(the old targetted demographic with past marketing campaigns by WotC/Hasbro) because on the battlefield makes me feel almost emberassed just thinking about it. There were more than a few people that I got into the game where I told them to ignore the silly fantasy game feel of the cards and pay attention to how great the strategy and interaction between players was and so forth.
    Oh, come on. Magic has always oozed with "young adult fantasy" (AAlongi®). 'Battlefield' fits right into that: it affects the seriousness of the game exactly as much as 'graveyard'... and infinitely less than, say, Reversal of Fortune or those tired Goblin jokes.

    That said, let's hear more actual game experience in this thread.
    YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.

  12. #32

    Re: [M10] Game Experience with Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    Perhaps I "mispoke" in the aprt about playing for flavor. I meant to say "oozing with flavor" or something along those lines. I consider myself pretty good at being objective most of the time and changing the names of two zones of play wouldn't change the fantastical feel that the game has, which I don't really care about a lot.

    The keywords may have "flavor", but they are also fairly practical in that their names explain what the effect does to an extent.
    I agree, and that was my main point. The thing is, I'm not sure you can reasonably distinguish the "cool factor" from the "useful factor" (as in the effect is directly implied by the name) of flavor.
    I mean, it's "cool" because you recognize the spell's name in its effect (it feels like you're actually doing what that spell evokes according to its name).
    That's also precisely what makes it simple to process : your synapses are already precabled to get the card as a whole and integrate it.

    I see what you want to mean when you're saying "i don't care about flavor, as long as you forget about the complexity issue that would arise without it". I'm just under the impression the two aspects are too intertwined to take separately.

    No big deal anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    It all comes down to if something isn't broken, don't fix it. A lot of people say the changes don't bother them and they don't really bother me, however ignoring them and continuing to use the old terms regardless seems to be a trend that I have been noticing. When I think back to things that confused me as a little newbie in revised, the similarity between the in play zone and playing of cards is not something that stands out. Interrupt timing, banding, regeneration and first strike(I know, I know) are what stand out to me. With putting things into play, "into" is the functional word that made the difference painfully fucking obvious.
    Well, everyone had their own difficulties. You had yours with first strike but didn't with the word "play". This is your specific case. Still, most probably there will be certain items that will come up more often than others among new players. The multiple uses of the word "play" probably was one of them (it's not like Wizards doesn't have actual data from this, even only from the Customer Service center that some people still DO call, or maybe simply judge feedback from low level tournaments, you get the idea), so they clarified things up.

    You in particular wouldn't have been helped, but the alleged point is that a majority of new players would (and will).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    Besides, if they wanted to try to flavor things up, why are lands still being put into play? Why not "create" them or something similarly terrible to "battlefield".
    No idea, actually. Hmm, in fact, I can guess why "create" wouldn't do the trick. You, as a wizard, are not supposed to create the lands. You're just using them, and IIRC the metaphor is that you're opening "portals" to those faraway places to take mana from (or something).

    But your question stands, and I don't really know. Maybe they didn't find any satisfying word ?

    On the opposite, battlefield is a perfect description for what the "in play" zone actually is. There's really no way you could call it "terrible" from a flavor perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    Also, "exile" works for creatures, but what about spells and less tangible things? "Exile cunning wish after playing it" how the fuck to I exile something that is not tangible? Why don't us humans just exile jealousy and hunger? Probably something silly like the word's existant meaning, which specifically applies to individuals. Exiling stuff from my graveyard? They're going to take the spells I have cast and the lands that have been destroyed and move them into some sort of no man's land country? What the fuck? How does that work?
    Well, here the problem is not about "exile". The problem is about non-creature spells, because "graveyard" would already be something strange to "put used sorceries/instants" to.

    I guess the point here is to just make the best of what you can. "Graveyard" is evocative. Even if it might not be a perfect fit in all cases, it's still evocative. Same thing for Exile, and that's the important aspect (that is, as long as you don't have any better term at hand).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    Also, with a frequent keyword like "battlefield" popping up while teaching someone to play, I see things getting a bit more uphill for trying to get non-gamers to play the game(the old targetted demographic with past marketing campaigns by WotC/Hasbro) because on the battlefield makes me feel almost emberassed just thinking about it.
    This honestly looks like a simple question of habits. There really shouldn't be any reason to be embarassed about battlefield if youre not about graveyard, library or dragons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    There were more than a few people that I got into the game where I told them to ignore the silly fantasy game feel of the cards and pay attention to how great the strategy and interaction between players was and so forth.
    That might work for them, and that can be a good approach if you want to try to negate the "geek" vibe. Still, same as above, if there is the need to resort to this, ie ignoring basically all terms in the game - "creature", "sorcery", "artifact", creature types like "dragon", "elf", etc - then really ignoring one additional term isn't an issue.

    Additionnally... you might very well argue that this is not the public those changes are aimed for. Honestly, you'll find incomparably more people who have gotten into the game because they wanted to play with those "dragons" and mana and all the awesome stuff than people who got in the game IN SPITE of that... Does that even exist, and more importantly, does the game even need or want these players ? I can't help but highly doubting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    The feel/flavor of cards and the game was fine the way it was, but if they want to change keywords, that's great. The big issue is that they are catering to the wrong crowd with this move in that the geeks that they are trying to appeal to with "battlefield" would probably pick the game up fairly easily regardless of the names of two zones of play. I have met some degenerate MtG nerds that would play the saddest and most dorky concept/theme decks and none of them looked at MtG as fantasy game in the sense of you get lost in the flavor of the game, they all seemed to look at it as a fun strategy game with cool cards.
    (emphasis mine)

    How is that a problem... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    There is a fundamental flaw in squabbling about the keywords for me though in that the changes made by them will be very, very small. Tiny. To me, this begs the question that if something is being touted as trivial as these two words, why really bother to change them at all?
    You've spent a consequent number of lines describing how you think it would have a negative impacton numerous aspects (including player acquisition), and now you're saying there's no consequence at all, so why change anything.

    There's something wrong here : )

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    I think that it all comes down to preferences and one's subjective experience(s) with the game in regards to how you feel about the flavor being kicked up a notch, but to assert that the flavor of MtG is required on the part of every player for their past or continued enjoyment is quite narrow-minded.
    Then I will reiterate. I maintain flavor is required for enjoyment, if only to make the game playable by a human brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordel View Post
    My big thing with the two keywords is the thought process and reasoning behind implementing them, not their newfound existence. I'll be aware of their impact on the rules, but I will not be adopting them in how I speak when playing the game for a very long time, if ever.
    Well, nobody forces you to, as long as everything's clear between you and your opponent. The two "old" words will probably live a very long life after July 11th. Just like lots of old players (including me) have still been saying "activate" even up til now.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)