 |
Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
nico
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 1001
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Shagrath wrote: |
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. |
I got one question: when do you need more skill: to understand a standard thing and use it, or to adapt to different situation, calculate the effect of different actions in a given situation?
In a lot of situations in the current ruleset concerning combat damage using the stack, usually there is only one right action. Block with sakura tribe elder, stack damage, get land, or block with mog fanatic stack damage to kill the elf, then sac to kill the birds of paradise.
When you are forced to make the decisions before combat damage, you have far more options that are possibly equally right in a vacuum. This means you have to be more careful in evaluating the board, your hand, and make some assumptions.
Youor opponents hand for example may have some influence on his decision to atack with his inferiour creatures, and so on. I think it makes for some very interesting plays instead of the standard reply: block, stack damage, sac.
You see, you may lose your precious stack tricks but they are replaced by combat tricks wich is very appropriate when you are playing a game that has combat as an integral part of it's gameplay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DoomBring3r
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 436
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nico wrote: | . I think it makes for some very interesting plays instead of the standard reply: block, stack damage, sac.
You see, you may lose your precious stack tricks but they are replaced by combat tricks wich is very appropriate when you are playing a game that has combat as an integral part of it's gameplay. |
So your point is, that as it stands, things are going from a fair and reasonable 'standart right play' to a 'standart possible bad play' because you are going to have to make choices (and possible bad ones too) based on the dumb removal of the stack from the combat dmg step and the fear of getting 2 for 1'd.
What i mean is: now people always attack, stack and sac the mogg if it's reasonable.
On a near future people will stop attacking if there's a blocker, and have to always resort to other removal.
Or stop playing Mogg Fanatic, for instance.
*sigh* i feel sorry for aggro players. Wait, weren't they the ones supposed to be getting buffed by these rules? lulz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trotsky1
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
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, I’ve 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 uncommon’s 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 lesson’s 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: 1155
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
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). 
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
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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: 1155
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Amen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kytep
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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... 
Kytep |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagrath
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: Detracting the truth |
|
|
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 aren´t 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
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Detracting the truth |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
DoomBring3r
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 436
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Laplie wrote: |
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?
|
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
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...
Now i understand why some people embrace these changes, god... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trotsky1
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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: 1155
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trotsky1
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Right im done with this thread the children have turned into a petty game of insulting each others play ability, rather than a deabte. My modo rating the only place i play is in excess of 1800 so you know insult my play ability all you like Im not worried im pretty secure about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
