New (M10) Rule Changes Poll

[pi4meterftw]

I'm not sure what the logic behind that is. If the World Chess Federation decided to remove Castling tomorrow, I'm pretty sure the reaction from chess players around the world wouldn't be, "Well let's wait and see how it plays out".

They removed something that added strategic depth to the game for no gain, not even clarity or simplicity.

I'm not sure what the logic behind this is. Are you claiming that players ought not to wait it out, or that players will probably not wait it out in reality? If the latter, I agree, but it is not relevant to whether or not we should be quiet and wait. If the former, then obviously not. Of course people should wait it out. It's just whether our patience allows us to or not. Even from a practical standpoint, what benefit is there agonizing now before we wait it out and try the new system? I, for one, don't care. I just played some 20 games under the old rules, and at every combat phase, I checked to see if the new rules would matter. The number of times the new rules mattered was:

0

Also, IBA, goyf's power is slightly reduced by the new rules because double blocking becomes more profitable. For example, let's say I have a 1/3 and a 3/3, and you a 3/4 goyf. (A common situation. The 1/3 is our fathom seer, the 3/3 a serra avenger.) Now you can take my crappy fathom seer. Or perhaps, the even more common 4/5 goyf. I trust that I don't even have to give examples of blocking with a 2/2 and a 3/3, since 2/2s and 3/3s clearly are played in the format. More peripherally, what if you have a high toughness creature?

I don't make an argument about whether the new rules are intuitive or not. I can see how tap abilities seem to correspond to throwing a grenade, but the more common situation is the sac situation, and if a creature has to sacrifice to ping the other guy, it doesn't seem like the action in question is throwing a grenade, since that is not an action of self-sacrifice. It seems more like the action (say for fanatic) is self-detonation, in which case, how is it fighting exactly? I see both sides, but I also think it's irrelevant. If wizards happens to get more newbs to come, great. (their intended audience, don't forget, so it's actually a nonsequitur to comment that we don't benefit from this change, though I disagree with this claim anyway.) All that affects the old players is how the game works out, and if you actually sit down and play 20 games, unless you play D&T, slivers, Ad Nauseam, or goyf (Slightly) you won't notice a difference. Also, I would hardly claim that Ad Nauseam is now crippled, nor that slivers is unplayable. (Some builds don't even play hibernation sliver.) Death and taxes I would consider significantly harmed, but I always thought nogoyf was a natural evolution of it anyhow. Can someone please state testing/well-thought out reasons why he believes a significant number of decks will be significantly impacted? (Say, 10 decks in the top 3 tiers that drop even 1 tier.)

[Tosh]

The number of times the new rules mattered was:

0

As with many rules changes, it affects some decks more than one and you can't judge whether the changes affected the game in either (or no) direction at all with only a limited amount of testing. They could remove creatures attacking at all and then I play 20 games with TES and it will hardly change it at all.

Whether or not it affects you, the changes DO affect some people which will indirectly affect you. Almost 4/10 times with TES I was using the LED + Mystical Tutor trick in order to win and because that's gone, TES (and most other combo decks) will be even slower and therefore strengthens the control that Counterbalance decks have on this format.

The new combat rules would have come up on several occasions (if we were playing with them, which we weren't. We still took note, however) while playing EDH yesterday and today.

To finish up with the other changes, I think that the flavor changes (except the "battlefield" seems more clunky than "play") weren't too bad and the mana burn thing isn't too bad either. I wouldn't be sad at all if they implemented just these rules.

(side note: I really don't care about how creatures would "physically" do effects while damage was on the stack (TBH, who really thinks that they're sorcerers casting spells at enemies... if they stuck strong to this concept, a lot of cards would make absolutely no sense), I'm just sad that they're dumbing down the game and remove a big piece of strategy)

[Forbiddian]

This is the fundamental argument. The only reason people are up in arms over this is because they happened to be spoiled for all this time with the wackiness of combat damage that does use the stack. It never should have been the way it is.

Nice Red Herring. Try my hypothetical:

What if they suddenly switched Power and Toughness on everything (so that Toughness was reported first). This would have no effect on new players who would simply learn the new way. The only reason why we'd be "up in arms" about the change is because we expect power to come first. So we have no real reason to complain, right?

I mean, if the ONLY thing on our side is like ten years of Magic tradition....

[pi4meterftw]

Nice Red Herring. Try my hypothetical:

What if they suddenly switched Power and Toughness on everything (so that Toughness was reported first). This would have no effect on new players who would simply learn the new way. The only reason why we'd be "up in arms" about the change is because we expect power to come first. So we have no real reason to complain, right?

I mean, if the ONLY thing on our side is like ten years of Magic tradition....

Even if you don't think that argument was good, the difference is that it was actually at one point (And for all time before that point, which is a significant chunk of magic's existance.) the way it is about to become.

In other words, even those who think the past holds significance don't have grounds for debate.

[Michael Keller]

I am trying to understand what the logic behind the analogy of using chess with Castling is compared to the new rule configurations M10 will present.

There are approximately sixteen pieces each player is capable of controlling in a chess game. There are thousands upon thousands of different Magic cards. The complexities of Magic are far greater than that of chess. Yes; the fundamental principle of each game may be similar in theory, but there are countless mechanics in Magic. There are three in chess: Castling, En passant, and Promotion. Castling has also been an implemented maneuver in chess for the last five centuries (first by Ruy Lopez, a priest in the 16th century). I seriously doubt the absence of "mana burn" and "damage on the stack" will be that catastrophic to the game compared to the absence of a 500 year-old mechanic.

I'm sure Wilhelm Steinitz would be rolling in his grave if he heard that analogy.

[pi4meterftw]

As with many rules changes, it affects some decks more than one and you can't judge whether the changes affected the game in either (or no) direction at all with only a limited amount of testing. They could remove creatures attacking at all and then I play 20 games with TES and it will hardly change it at all.

Whether or not it affects you, the changes DO affect some people which will indirectly affect you. Almost 4/10 times with TES I was using the LED + Mystical Tutor trick in order to win and because that's gone, TES (and most other combo decks) will be even slower and therefore strengthens the control that Counterbalance decks have on this format.

The new combat rules would have come up on several occasions (if we were playing with them, which we weren't. We still took note, however) while playing EDH yesterday and today.

To finish up with the other changes, I think that the flavor changes (except the "battlefield" seems more clunky than "play") weren't too bad and the mana burn thing isn't too bad either. I wouldn't be sad at all if they implemented just these rules.


(side note: I really don't care about how creatures would "physically" do effects while damage was on the stack (TBH, who really thinks that they're sorcerers casting spells at enemies... if they stuck strong to this concept, a lot of cards would make absolutely no sense), I'm just sad that they're dumbing down the game and remove a big piece of strategy)

I agree that nothing can be affirmed with finitely many trials. (although as you shall see below, in a certain sense, they can be "acceptable" or a good model after finitely many trials, which is what, sensibly speaking, we need.) In fact, you need to accept as an axiom that statistics is a good model for the way things work in our world. In that case, it seems alright to play 20 games and to start making some fairly general claims. Sure, it may be that you can spit out a real number > 0 for a desired measure of accuracy, and the number of games I have played may not squeeze the error bar below the desired accuracy, but that is fine with me. Because of my axiom, I do not aim to be able to reduce my error beyond 10^-6502040230. (For those of you interested, the rate of decay in similar things to this is 1/sqrt(N), and the above is, indeed, an allusion to the definition of limit. I refuse to say such things as playing infinitely many games, an idea that makes no sense, but if that is what you must think, then go for it.)

Furthermore, you seem to think that even though I am now able (by the above) to use my results for at least my deck, and my opponent's deck, that I have no ability to generalize my claim. You cite as an example that there exist changes for which TES is unaffected. However, I agree that I would react the same way to your TES example, and claim that with no pause, I also believe that my results can be generalized to other decks. Logically speaking, you can't just suggest an example and hope for it to do something. More specifically, you can't ask me a specific question ("Wouldn't you think it would be messed up for a TES player to draw the conclusion.") and take my answer and apply it to any other situation, because the other situation is simply different. I will even spell out where the difference is here: I was playing a deck that does not completely ignore the combat phase unlike TES. In fact, my deck is not totally unaffected directly by the combat changes. Specifically, fathom seer can no longer eat ringleaders, frogmites, warchief, etc. and live to tell the tale.

[pi4meterftw]

I am trying to understand what the logic behind the analogy of using chess with Castling is compared to the new rule configurations M10 will present.

There are approximately sixteen pieces each player is capable of controlling in a chess game. There are thousands upon thousands of different Magic cards. The complexities of Magic are far greater than that of chess. Yes; the fundamental principle of each game may be similar in theory, but there are countless mechanics in Magic. There are three in chess: Castling, En passant, and Promotion. Castling has also been an implemented maneuver in chess for the last five centuries (first by Ruy Lopez, a priest in the 16th century). I seriously doubt the absence of "mana burn" and "damage on the stack" will be that catastrophic to the game compared to the absence of a 500 year-old mechanic.

I'm sure Wilhelm Steinitz would be rolling in his grave if he heard that analogy.

Pay no attention to the analogies. They hold no logical significance. In fact, as you point out, they are even quite far off.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Without the change you would have to explain them why no dmg uses the stack EXCEPT combat damage

Redundancy. All non-combat damage is dealt by spells and abilities that all use the stack and can be responded to. Having a Lightning Bolt resolve to only put the damage on the stack and then to have that damage later resolve would be pointless as it is totally redundant and serves no purpose. There is no similar redundancy about combat damage using the stack.

[Nihil Credo]

Also, IBA, goyf's power is slightly reduced by the new rules because double blocking becomes more profitable. For example, let's say I have a 1/3 and a 3/3, and you a 3/4 goyf. (A common situation. The 1/3 is our fathom seer, the 3/3 a serra avenger.) Now you can take my crappy fathom seer. Or perhaps, the even more common 4/5 goyf. I trust that I don't even have to give examples of blocking with a 2/2 and a 3/3, since 2/2s and 3/3s clearly are played in the format. More peripherally, what if you have a high toughness creature?

If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on.

If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on.

If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on.

Also, Fathom Seer hates the new M10 rules.

[Nihil Credo]

dpftw


Steve Sadin has attached a few M10 combat quizzes at the end of his latest article. Take a look at them, it's an interesting example at the kind of tactics that are possible with the new system - essentially mini-max evaluations with a dash of game of chicken.

[paK0]

Redundancy. All non-combat damage is dealt by spells and abilities that all use the stack and can be responded to. Having a Lightning Bolt resolve to only put the damage on the stack and then to have that damage later resolve would be pointless as it is totally redundant and serves no purpose. There is no similar redundancy about combat damage using the stack.

Still it was an exception, now everything is in line, like WotC wants it to be.

Its not better if you look from the tactical side, but it definately makes sense.

[Maveric78f]

Steve Sadin has attached a few M10 combat quizzes at the end of his latest article. Take a look at them, it's an interesting example at the kind of tactics that are possible with the new system - essentially mini-max evaluations with a dash of game of chicken.

I'm probably missing it all, mainly because I don't know the limited format (even if the examples might show all the boosting spells). But I'll give it a try.

#1 No instant to play but a very good aggro plan. Mosstodon and Natcatl Outlander seem to indicate that the 2/2 attribute versus the 3/3 one is very relevant, so that I assign the 3/3 first and the 2/2 second, disregarding the risk that my opponent plays Sigil Blessing. But I'm really not sure...

#2 I know I can answer any boost spell with Resounding Thunder, so that I take absolutely no risk in assigning the 3/3 first.

#3 I can play a single boost spell (only 1 forest). Me boost spells either target or are too small to guarantee that a single blocker would kill the Thoctar. So, I'd block with both creatures. Then, if the elf is the first blocker, I would play Gleam of resistance because it's the most expensive and situational boost spell. If minotaur is the first blocker I would try to save it with Sigil Blessing (in order not to lose both creatures on an opposing Sigil Blessing or Might of Alara).

#4 Well I'm mostly fucked up. I've bluffed like a champ until now since I made my opponent think that I have 4 plains in hand. I block with all and hope that my opponent will assign first on the minotaur and that he does not have any boost.

[pi4meterftw]

Also, Fathom Seer hates the new M10 rules.

Agreed. Then why are people saying the attacking player lost tactical advantage?

EDIT: nevermind i see it. The attacking player has to assign the ordering earlier than before. Wow really guys? That's not even close to as major of a change as I thought it was going to be. This is not a significant shift of tactical advantage to the defending player. Can someone please give a significant situation where the attacking player now comes out significantly worse off than before?

[Happy Gilmore]

I'm probably missing it all, mainly because I don't know the limited format (even if the examples might show all the boosting spells). But I'll give it a try.

#1 No instant to play but a very good aggro plan. Mosstodon and Natcatl Outlander seem to indicate that the 2/2 attribute versus the 3/3 one is very relevant, so that I assign the 3/3 first and the 2/2 second, disregarding the risk that my opponent plays Sigil Blessing. But I'm really not sure...

#2 I know I can answer any boost spell with Resounding Thunder, so that I take absolutely no risk in assigning the 3/3 first.

#3 I can play a single boost spell (only 1 forest). Me boost spells either target or are too small to guarantee that a single blocker would kill the Thoctar. So, I'd block with both creatures. Then, if the elf is the first blocker, I would play Gleam of resistance because it's the most expensive and situational boost spell. If minotaur is the first blocker I would try to save it with Sigil Blessing (in order not to lose both creatures on an opposing Sigil Blessing or Might of Alara).

#4 Well I'm mostly fucked up. I've bluffed like a champ until now since I made my opponent think that I have 4 plains in hand. I block with all and hope that my opponent will assign first on the minotaur and that he does not have any boost.

With #1 you put the elf first regardless if they have pump or not. If they don't, you get a 2 for 1, if they do, you still get a 2 for one, if you put the 3/3 first you get 1 for 1 which is poor.

#2, I agree with you

#3, If he has the thunder or any other removal spell he is going to get a 3 for 1 which is so poor. Its a bad situation no matter what. What you do is block only with the 3/3 and cast might of Alara on the 3/3, this way at least your still blocking but don't get completely destroyed by a removal spell.

[Team-Hero]

R.I.P. Ghost Council

I hope they print some new mechanics with these new combat rules. I think control players benefit more from this change than aggro players... but only time will tell.

[TheCramp]

Wasn't Ghost Dad dead once he rotated out of type 2? Whats with all this nostalgia for cards we don't play in legacy?

You know what, I am going to keep playing Mogg Fantastic in zoo and send the little bastard into the red zone under M10 rules same as ever. I'll do this just to piss off curmudgeons who proclaimed the little guys death, and they can go grief grief in the losers bracket. He 187's bob, birds, wins goyf wars, pumps goyf the turn they are both attacking, plays boogie man to nantuku shade, same as ever. He still can't swing into Factory or goyf. They can't kill Mogg, hes fantastic.

[Michael Keller]

You know what, I am going to keep playing Mogg Fantastic in zoo and send the little bastard into the red zone under M10 rules same as ever. I'll do this just to piss off curmudgeons who proclaimed the little guys death, and they can go grief grief in the losers bracket. He 187's bob, birds, wins goyf wars, pumps goyf the turn they are both attacking, plays boogie man to nantuku shade, same as ever. He still can't swing into Factory or goyf. They can't kill Mogg, hes fantastic.

Not anymore.

[pi4meterftw]

Not anymore.

IYO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!1111111ELEVENELEVEN

[Dark_Cynic87]

These new rules turn Stone-Tongue Basilisk into a suicidal bastard at best.

I know you guys won't care about that card, but the ruling on Deathtouch turns it's fundemental purpose into a joke. It was a green WoG, and now it's poo, even in casual games and Tabletop Magic.

Pce,

--DC

[AngryTroll]

These new rules turn Stone-Tongue Basilisk into a suicidal bastard at best.

I know you guys won't care about that card, but the ruling on Deathtouch turns it's fundemental purpose into a joke. It was a green WoG, and now it's poo, even in casual games and Tabletop Magic.

Pce,

--DC

Edit: I see. This does neuter it...he doesn't actually have Deathtouch. If he did have Deathtouch, he would be functionally identical to the pre-M10 Rules. However, he doesn't have Deathtouch, so he has to deal lethal combat damage to a creature before he can assign more damage to the next one.

Alright, now I actually want to email Wizards. That is a functional change to the card that isn't neccesary; he should probably be errata'd to say Deathtouch, even though that is slightly different than what he does now. It wasn't collateral damage, like Mogg Fanatic and Pridemage, but an unintended casualty.