[M10] General Discussion on Rules Changes

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Your argument is that if it wasn't impossible to explain, then it must have been intuitive.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I aggre with TheInfamousBearAssassin that the new token ownership rule is definitely less intuitive thanks to certain interactions that cause permanents to change controllers. I just found issue with the following scenario:

Under the new token ownership rules what happens to my dragon token that my opponent took control of with Sower of Temptation after Sower of Temptation leaves play? Do I get it back as I normally would or do the new ownership rules mean that it is his notwithstanding that fact that Sower of Temptation is no longer in play? With the old rules of creator being owner it was pretty obvious I would get my dragon token back but under the new rules I'm not quite so sure. Sower of Temptation doesn't use the word "owner" on it so it's probably works "as normal" but it's definitely not as clear as it was before.

[Jason]

Pretty sure he and others have been saying we're going to have to explain the rule anyway if the scenario comes up, so intuition doesn't really come into play...at least that's how I've seen this argument boil down

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Your argument is that if it wasn't impossible to explain, then it must have been intuitive.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but...

Earlier you agreed that in the case of a shared deck, where one player cast Exhume, one player put a Weatherseed Treefolk into play from a shared graveyard, and one player took control of that Weatherseed Treefolk, that when it died the "owner" for purposes of the game was the person that controlled the effect that put it into play (i.e., the caster of Exhume).

How is this situation markedly different from that of a token put into play under another player's control by a Hunted creature, or Forbidden Orchard?

[quicksilver]

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/

Good article, well thought out (more thought out then these rules changes). I pretty much agree with everything he says.

[Happy Gilmore]

Good article, well thought out (more thought out then these rules changes). I pretty much agree with everything he says.

100% spot on, the combat rules are a fucking disaster. If they want to promote more people to play magic I'm fairly sure they did the opposite in this case.

[Fonzy]

You know, the whole "intuitive vs unintuitive" argument is bullshit anyhow, because it's largely subjective. Case in point - IBA, myself, others, found the old token ownership/controller rules intuitive. Many others find the new rule intuitive. Ultimately, you're never going to resolve the issue because it relies in individual perception.

[DragoFireheart]

I want an argument stronger than my counterargument. This isn't exactly advanced calculus.

But you can't argue opinions. You would prefer the current rules for tokens as opposed to the new ones, yes?

There isn't a strong argument in favor of either regardless of what you think.

[Nihil Credo]

I noticed something interesting regarding token ownership. Compare these two wordings:

{G}: Phelddagrif gains trample until end of turn. Target opponent puts a 1/1 green Hippo creature token into play.

Whenever you tap Forbidden Orchard for mana, put a 1/1 colorless Spirit creature token into play under target opponent's control

Read Phelddagrif: don't you get the sense that the token "belongs" to the target opponent? Read Forbidden Orchard: don't you get the sense that the token "belongs" to the Orchard's owner?

Whichever way the tokens get ruled to work, I believe the wording on this kind of cards should be made uniform, and friendly to the ownership rule.

[TheCramp]

For what it's worth, those of you that are crying "Havoc!" think about this. Historically, I have never so much as ever heard of a petition having an effect, ever. (this is not true, but close.) Mario Savio didn't bust out a clip board and a mimeograph to kick start the free speech moment. I've never heard of Fred Hampton's great letter writing campaign of 67. Now shame on me for comparing this situation to civil rights activities, but i promise you this, if people stopped buying the product for even a short time, they would buckle.

Not that I would participate in a boycott if one were initiated.

But this conversation has lapped and lapped, and if people are really (as in actually) upset about this then they should organize something functional. If for no other reason than I would like to open a thread in order to geek out about the previews when they come out. If the rules change overshadows my ability to muse about new cards, I will get legit annoyed.

[Fonzy]

I won't be buying any more cards or visiting the Magic website.

[dirtyapes]

The worst change that they made was taking away the ability for combat damage to be divided up by the attacking players. Other than that, they haven't changed the rules to the point where it feels like playing a different game.
The token ownership changes both make sense and they don't. You are supplying the tokens to use but most of the cards read like you would think that the opponent is being given the tokens. If you give something away, you usually don't own it anymore. But this is a rule that I could careless if it is changed or not because I don't think it has ever affected me in the past 8 years.

[Skeggi]

Whichever way the tokens get ruled to work, I believe the wording on this kind of cards should be made uniform, and friendly to the ownership rule.

There's ofcourse a distinct difference between Alliance-wording and Kamigawa-wording. They simply used different templates. According to the rules at the time they were printed, Forbidden Orchard's one was alot clearer. Which is logical because it was printed years later. Now though, Phelddagrif seems better, although it may be unintentionally.

[Dark_Cynic87]

I hate the new rules. I can't play by them, I tried last night, and it's just too stupid for me to indulge in. I liked the sneakiness that won me games, and with that gone it's too much like masturbation without the pay-off or the porn. Chant in response to 3 rituals in the storm mirror was awesome. Now it's pretty much crap. LED into Ad Nauseam during your upkeep is gone, which was one of my favorite plays. I could have lived with just the name changes, but my buddy can't as he plays Solidarity (JUST bought pimped stuff for it too) and the Wish RFG//Exile thing, while manageable, makes it a lot less fun to play.

So this post is to say...

I'm quitting magic. So are lots of people in my area. I don't want a dumbed down version of this game, if I wanted that I would be playing type 2 or Limited. I like the old rules, and I'll play the game again when they bring 6th ed. rules back (if that were to ever happen). I hope this gets them a lot of new players, because they've lost about 20 in my area alone, and I'm in freakin' Kansas. Population: Near 0.

I'm keeping 3 decks for a couple of reasons. The new Cascade list I just put together, possibly my storm list since it's about 1/2 pimped out, and some form of painter//meta-hater. Probably a grand total of 300 or so cards, and the rest are going on ebay. Me and my buddy will probably play once in a while with old rules, but as far as tournaments go, I'm out as of the day Magic 2010 rules go into effect.

Anyone who is interested should check dc_alterations on ebay. I've got some altered stuff that will be up there within the week, a few playable foils and a few duals, fetches, and other highly playable legacy staples (Goblins and more) that will be there as well.

Fair well and for one of the last times...

Pce,

--DC

[paK0]

Seems pretty extrem quitting, but do as you wish.

I played some games with the new rules over MWS the past few days and its not THAt bad for me.

Its not as cool, but Magic itself is still fun to play and I am actually pretty happy thats the LED stuff is not possible anymore.

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

I think its also key to remember that we don't have any cards written for the new rules specifically yet. I fail to believe that there won't be a replacement of some sort for such favorites as the Mogg and Nantuko Husk.

R Mogg Exuberant
If Mogg Exuberant dies in combat, you may deal one damage to target creature or player.
1/1

[GreenOne]

R Mogg Exuberant
If Mogg Exuberant dies in combat, you may deal one damage to target creature or player.
1/1

Wow. How am I supposed to kill a Confidant with this?

[paK0]

Wow. How am I supposed to kill a Confidant with this?

Wait till big bro Tarmogoyf comes over.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but...

Earlier you agreed that in the case of a shared deck, where one player cast Exhume, one player put a Weatherseed Treefolk into play from a shared graveyard, and one player took control of that Weatherseed Treefolk, that when it died the "owner" for purposes of the game was the person that controlled the effect that put it into play (i.e., the caster of Exhume).

How is this situation markedly different from that of a token put into play under another player's control by a Hunted creature, or Forbidden Orchard?

For the last fucking time, because the token would never have been in Nick's hand.

[Van Phanel]

Wow. How am I supposed to kill a Confidant with this?

Attack with it. They will surely block with their Confidant fearing the sheer awesomeness of the Mogg