Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

M10 (Magic 2010) Rule changes.


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Magic
Author Message
whoempah_666



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorbes wrote:


Does this mean we get to smoke weed and get drunk during sanctioned events now or what? Only need like 10 active braincells to comprehend these rules.


you mean you don't allready?
come on, I know how we dutch people play :p

to be honest, some of those changes are actually pretty good imo, but i still oppose then all, the dmg on stack most of all
I still can't believe that there making keywords for practically everything but they still haven't brought 'BURY' back, a word that just did what you'd expect it to do
You're creature is dead and buried, nothing you can do about it ...

I didn't play in 1999 but a before i started playing in 2001 i had allready played Shandalaar, which didn't use the stack yet, and when i joined a club and the stack was explained to me I thought it actually made alot more sense then the 2 crits just mindlessly wacking at eachother
Back to top
Socks3



Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 98

PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I played with bury some. No-one I played with was sure if that meant destroy, sac, or shuffle into your library.

If Ball Lightning is good now, try playing against it when it shuffled back into the deck!

Either way, my point is that certain things don't always make sense to new players that you think should. Certainly the stack, once explained, is a simple enough concept. But if you're trying to learn the game from the online videos, it could be a lot harder.

I also don't think catering to new and/or casual players is a bad thing. New and casual players are the players who crack the majority of packs, and buy [s]theme decks9/s] intro packs. Think about it - when you buy a single. how much of that money goes to Wizards? I mean, yeah, the dealer had to open the pack for the card, or someone did, but as more singles get sold around, Wizards makes less money. The first time the Reviellark is sold on the market, Wizards only made $4. THe second time, it's basically $2. But casual players keep buying boosters, and that goes to have the dealer order more, which makes Wizards stay in business and keep printing cards.

Yes, I know my numbers are off. I'm not a major in economy. And I know a lot of packs are sold to draft. But a drafter will still only buy 3 packs at a time. There's a lot of casual players out there who would buy more, even buying boxes at a time. I know I do.
Back to top
Avata



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 407

PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LordLink wrote:
I'm going to keep repeating myself because people keep making the same dumb accusations.

Damage on Stack DOES NOT EQUAL SKILL.

Damage on the stack is a retarded means of letting players sit it safe and do their shit without worrying about what their opponent can do. In magic you should ALWAYS be able to interact with your opponents tricks.

Take this apparent "Death of Ghitu Encampment".

Previously:

"First strike damage on stack, Incinerate your guy."

Now:

"After blockers, Incinerate your guy, now first strike damage kills him".

THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING RESULT.

The sole difference is that your opponent can now go:

"before moving on to damage, I terror your Ghitu Encampment, now your Incinerate is wasted!"

This ADDS a level of complexity to the game because you always need to be aware of what your opponent can do and judging risks/rewards. There is no longer a safe means of mindlessly dropping your spells on the table just because you're leet and know the rules.


This should probably just be posted everywhere.

The changes involving making combat damage not use the stack force players to make decisions. STE blocks Savannah Lions. Under the old rules, an illiterate seven year old who was taught the game by a retarded monkey knows what to do - block, damage on stack, sacrifice.

Now, they have to assess the situation and make a choice (which is more valuable, killing the lion or getting the land?), a choice they are, if they're a new/bad player, are far, far more likely to mess up than an experienced player.

So, the new rules:

1) Make combat damage more intuitive
2) Forces players to interact with each other and each others tricks rather than using "aha, I know the rules better than you!" moments
3) Introduces more decision making, which actually (subtly) increases the gap between good and bad players (which is a good thing).

It also opens up design space in that currently, any creature that sacs itself for an effect has to be weakened. Due to the new rules, for example, cards like this:

1R, 2/1, sac to deal 2 damage to target creature or player
1U, 2/1, sac to return a creature to its owners hand
2B, 2/2, sac to make target player discard two cards
1GG, 3/2, sac to return target card in your graveyard to your hand

etc. are printable, and highlight the new decision making necessary. Under the old rules, "damage on the stack" made it impossible to push the power level of sacrifice abilities on creatures.
Back to top
Shagrath



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EQ_killa wrote:
Trotsky1 wrote:
Understanding the stack is part of the skill that bafflingly many people do not understand. Should these people be punished for not fully understanding this pretty simple concept I say yes wizards say no, we want dumb people to be able to win at magic to.

The decisions that you present are not all that much harder to a competent player they still almost always have an obvious answer no more lands in hand block and sac before damage. All the lands you need and some cards to fill out your curve trade.

All this is doing is taking a way the opportunity to punish inexperienced or people to stupid to understand the stack, its not a complicated matter, call me snobbish but I prefer it if the average magic player has an IQ a bit higher than your average dogs (can understand the stack.) It takes allot of time to learn because its worth learning the reward is alot of fun and challenging games, these changes to the rules detract from the challenge. They put weaker players on a more level footing and I want to make maximum advantage of every edge I can get when it comes to card games, it is indisputable to me that to the competitive player this is a bad thing, that edge you once had over lesser players well part of it is gone.

Wizards want to make magic appeal to everyone and to do that they have a decided to make a game thatís one of its greatest assets is its many facets and complexity and dumb it down. The reason for this is they are trying to appeal to a wider market, I would much prefer it if they advertised magic as a game for the intellectual elite the strategy of chess the mathís of poker. It may not be true that it testís strategy to the depths of chess or mathís to the depthsí of poker but it does encompass both skills not many card games can boost that.

I feel wizards are being to greedy they are trying to make the game appeal to people that the game is just not meant for and its time we the magic community say hey you know the reason we like this game it is because it is challenging, it is complicated, it takes time to learn and thatís the way we want it to stay.


I'm not sure what your worried about, this doesn't give "stupid" people an advantage, it actually makes combat harder. before, you would always sac your creature while damage was on the stack to get a 2 for 1 advantage. Now you have a decision, do you want to trade the creatures or use the sac ability. The people that don't understand the stack now probably don't play competitively anyways and aren't gonna be pros all of a sudden after these new rule changes.


This is retarded, it will not make the combat harder. Its a stupid idea to not have a window for effects after damage goes to stack. This is a retrocess to the pre-6th edition rules,so its a retrocess in the whole game.
This is why there is , for example, chess and checkers, magic and pokemon/yu-gi-oh. If u dont have capacity to play a skilled game, go play pokemon, checkers, dice, etc.
Back to top
OldBear



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This decision as I stated in a previous post and as all people arguing for the rules changes I would like to point out have failed to provide a counter argument to is still fairly simple the majority of the time. No more lands in hand sac elder, all the lands you need and a good curve trade its not hard and you gain no advantage by having a proficient understanding of the rules. Anyone who is capable of a competent understanding of the stack will make the correct decision here 99% of the time, its pretty easy.

It strikes me that it is being changed because people who have not invested the time to learn the rules proficiently are unhappy with the current situation. Its just caters for people who say oh I do not understand that I give up. We all learned it its not that hard it has been successful for years. Rule competence is a skill, a technical skill that can be done 100% of the time correctly, yet still many people do not and I for one want to keep my advantage over these people.

In a lot of situations the choice is still obvious due to procedure, its your turn you attack your opponent blocks looking to trade his 4/4 for your 4/4 online the decision is almost always right to play your pump spell whilst you still have the chance to trade your 1 2 mana spell for your opponents fatty. However before a player with a full understanding of the rules, who is technically skilled could avoid placing himself in a 2 for 1 situation by waiting until combat damage is on the stack now he cannot. You have to take a risk of being 2 for 1 oned which it is almost always right to take due to the tempo advantage, certainly is you can play another spell in the same go. Online there is no way of reading an opponent as such so it clearly detracts from the online game and the majority of the time the risk out weighs the cost. Stop saying that understanding the rules proficiently is not a skill because it is, Iíve won countless and lost RIGHTLY I do not mind admitting a few games because of it.

Stop defending wizards for making decisions that detract from the game as a skill intensive sport in order to appeal to a wider audience. I am all for helping out new players I regularly give away commons uncommonís sometimes rares to new players after playing a game with a new player I have intentionally set out to help out on modo but he has to do his part of the bargain to learn how to play take his lessonís of fire and improve not complain and look for us to simplify the game to suit him. Lets evolve not devolve!
Back to top
Jacois



Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Give me a fucking break Trotsky. If you're a better player, you'll win more often, hands down. The problem is that the only people you pwn with the stack trick is going to be noobs to the FNM scene. That's just terrible for business AND terrible for that poor kid who was the best of his casual group. Now he feels stupid. Like seriously, anything that can help the noobs just starting tournament magic is a fucking good thing. You're an **** to say otherwise.

As for the more tournament oriented crew (people who know the rules inside and out) this should be no more than a new challenge, where those players who can't adapt quickly enough (pretend pros) get left by the wayside by the actual pros (like me). Wink

Of course this really only wrecks Mogg Fanatic in T2 (which will probably rotate with the rules change) and Sakura Tribe Elder in extended (a seldom used card, seriously, look it up). Other than those players who have "man love" feelings for Mr. Fantastic and the Old Turtle (snake, yeah yeah, it looks like a Turtle) this change isn't going to noticeably shake up anything.

On a side note, for the past 2 weeks I have been playtesting GW Elfball, and I've mana burned approximately once/match at a cost of between 1-4 life. (I'm sure some of those situations were caused by inexperience with the deck, but whatever) Fuck mana burn. I can't wait for M10.
Back to top
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trotsky1 wrote:
This decision as I stated in a previous post and as all people arguing for the rules changes I would like to point out have failed to provide a counter argument to is still fairly simple the majority of the time. No more lands in hand sac elder, all the lands you need and a good curve trade its not hard and you gain no advantage by having a proficient understanding of the rules.


There will always be easy decisions but the rule changes opens the door for much harder ones:

Situation 1
You're mana screwed.
Your opponent attacks with Dark Confidant.
You block with Sakura Tribe Elder.

Do you:
(A) Sac STE to get a land since you're mana screwed?
(B) Kill Confidant to slow your opponent's card advantage and give you time to topdeck lands?

The choice depends on your deck, what your opponent is playing, and your strategy.

Situation 2
You have 4 life and are playing burn.
Your opponent has 6.
Your opponent attacks with a 1/1.
You block with Mogg Fanatic.

Do you:
(A) Sac mogg to do 1 damage to your opponent and try to race his 1/1?
(B) Kill the 1/1 so you don't have a clock against you?

Does your decision change if you're at 6 life instead of 4? Does your decision change if your opponent is at 10 life? Does your decision change depending on your opponent's deck? Does your decision change depending on how many lands your opponent has? Does your decision change based on.....

The fact that game state, deck matchups, etc affect your decision is GOOD. Good players will make the "right" choice more often than not; Bad players will make the "wrong" choice more often than not.

Under the old "combat stacking" rules....everyone made the right choice regardless of skill.

In summary, adding more player decisions and tradeoffs = good for the game and good for good players.
Back to top
Jacois



Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amen
Back to top
Kytep



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 187

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laplie wrote:
In summary, adding more player decisions and tradeoffs = good for the game and good for good players.


I agree. I think the rules changes will make skill an even greater differentiator than before, in addition to making the game more intuitive and easier to learn. It seems the only loss in this otherwise "win-win" situation is the false sense of superiority some players had when they understood how damage-on-the-stack worked and their opponents did not. (I find it kind of funny that, on the one hand, these detractors say that damage-on-the-stack is *so very simple* and you'd have to be *stupid* to not figure it out, yet on the other hand this is supposed to be the basis of superiority...???)

So, I think the new combat rules are going to help separate the pretenders - who use damage-on-the-stack as a substitute for skill - from the more skilled players, who will consistently make better decisions as the decisions become tougher and less obvious.

I'm getting a sense of who is in the former category based on their howls of dismay... Smile

Kytep
Back to top
Shagrath



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:35 am    Post subject: Detracting the truth Reply with quote

Some ppl here like to believe that this is good to the game, because it will give players more decisions to make....this is a lie,period.
Some ppl say that magic will be more intuitive from now on...... i've got a question... is intuition better than knowledge?
All of us learned from errors and error is essential for a person to develop as a player. When we had less experience in this game,we all lost games because of "after dmg-goes-to-stack effects".
Did we quit playing magic? No. Because we arenīt quitters. It's like in school, when, for example, u have difficulties at math and you fail to pass it in the 1st test. Will you quit math for good? Or do you like challenges and although you have difficulties you will try to pass next test?
It's better to change the whole concept of effects in combat phase or to develop a campaign to help new players to understand the concept of stack?
I think that WOTC wants to go to the easiest way, because in their minds, its better to change rules than to do some effort foccusing in explaining the hardest concepts of magic to new players.
Back to top
Kytep



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 187

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:48 am    Post subject: Re: Detracting the truth Reply with quote

Shagrath wrote:
Some ppl here like to believe that this is good to the game, because it will give players more decisions to make....this is a lie,period.


A few posts up, Laplie provided a good example of how the new rules can do exactly this - make combat decisions more difficult (sac STE for land OR kill the Confidant, vs. get both under the old rules - clearly, choosing between the two is a more difficult decision than choosing to do both).

Can you provide a counter-example of how the old (OK, current) rules make for more (difficult) decisions than will the new rules? Or is "this is a lie, period" all we're supposed to go on?

Thanks,
Kytep
Back to top
OldBear



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Intutive may work out in real life im sure finkel and williams are pleased however it adds nothing to the online game I play. I do not know where this supperioty thing has come from I certainly never used the word, its just an edge I wish to keep. Its not an ufair edge anyone can learn the rules they are not complicated.

As you have never played me speculating about my play skill is childish unprofesional and irrelevant to the debate, I will not resort to the same sort of underhand tactics.

I still feel the majorty of the time the decision's you will be faced with are quite simple and will have an obvious answer. Sometime's on a rare occasion yes they will put you between a rock and a hard place.

However i still find my understanding of the stack gives me an advantage vs a surprising number of players and I like that advantage I'm not such a brilliant player that edge's like this are entirely irrelevant to my game. I believe situations where I am able to use my techincal knowledge of the game (technical skill) will outnumber the amount of times the new rules would give me an advantage based on the new skills it will test. Hence I am opposed to the change for this reason and the fact, I do not feel the rules need simplyfying millions have sucessfully learned them, I do not cater for quiters.
Back to top
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DoomBring3r wrote:

You see, this is the kind of situations where us players who grasp a few basic concepts scratch our heads at such horrible plays...

WHY would a player send Confidant into an untapped Sakura, specially when the guy was MANA SCREW. It's OBVIOUS the dude will sac the Sakura anyway, so just wait a turn and keep the card advantage. o.O


If the defender is going to sac Sakura anyway, then the attacker keeps his Dark Confidant and attacking didn't hurt him. Maybe the attacker wanted to bait his opponent into trading since he had another Confidant backup in hand? Maybe the attacker wanted to get rid of Confidant since he realized he was going to kill himself? Maybe the attacker wanted to force his opponent to sac Sakura now so he can Stone Rain the land on his second main phase?

There are many reasons why the attacker would attack. I didn't give the full game situation. My point was that searching for a land isn't always an obvious play. In this case you have to weigh the value of the land vs the value of getting rid of your opponent's Dark Confidant.

DoomBring3r wrote:

Well if you're playing burn, just let the 1/1 thru, assuming your opp doesn't have burn himself, you can get lucky and just need to draw 1 burn spell or something...


If you let the 1/1 through, you put yourself very close to being dead which you may or may not be comfortable with [depending on your life total AND what deck your opponent is playing. Which reiterates what I've been saying all along:

The fact that YOUR OPPONENT'S DECK and YOUR LIFE TOTAL makes an impact on your decision is an IMPROVEMENT to the way things were before... which was always "I don't have to choose, I get both"
Back to top
Jacois



Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trotsky1 wrote:


However i still find my understanding of the stack gives me an advantage vs a surprising number of players and I like that advantage I'm not such a brilliant player that edge's like this are entirely irrelevant to my game. I believe situations where I am able to use my techincal knowledge of the game (technical skill) will outnumber the amount of times the new rules would give me an advantage based on the new skills it will test. Hence I am opposed to the change for this reason and the fact, I do not feel the rules need simplyfying millions have sucessfully learned them, I do not cater for quiters.


I think Wotc should make a rule where if you tap the top of your deck 3 times before you draw your initial 7, you start the game with 21 life. That way I'll have my new "technical edge" against new players. I'm not very good at magic, so my reading "skills" will help me win a game or two over the course of a year.
Back to top
Alphadonk



Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/li/43
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy