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
OldBear



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a wonderfully complex card game that tests a broader range of skills than any other card game I know, its sad to see it simplyfying itself to appeal to stupid people.
Back to top
EQ_killa



Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the changes that they are making, they make more sense(how can a saced creature still deal combat damage?). The only thing I don't like is how assigning damage works(see nico's post) and the new mulligan rule(doesn't give the player going second an advantage anymore). I think everyone is being overdramatic about these changes, especially with the keyword changes, I don't hear anyone complaining about discard pile being called graveyard or deck being called library. battlefield and exile just add consistency with the zone names and flavor to the game.
Back to top
Alvaro21k



Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a faerie player, I consider the "Stack Damage" portion of combat one of the most important parts in the game, and one that requires a lot of ability and rules knowledge.

They took out a very important strategic aspect of the game.
Back to top
Spyx



Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 1188

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol @ morphling
Back to top
Kytep



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 187

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know how many of you were around for (let alone remember) the 6th Edition rules changes, but talk of the end of Magic, "I'll never play again", "This is the worst thing ever", "They simplified it too much for the dummies", yadda, yadda, abounded. And I think things turned out OK, even though those changes were MUCH bigger than M10's. Here are a few of the things that would be different today if the 6th Edition changes had NOT happened:

1) No more stack: As soon as the last player passes priority, not only does the last effect resolve, but EVERYTHING on (what we know as the stack) resolves, in LIFO order. No more letting the last effect resolve and then adding a new effect before the second-to-last can resolve. This was HUGE and was tough to wrap the mind around at first.

2) Interrupts: Mostly counters, there was a spell type called "Interrupt", and if one was played, the only type of spell which could be played after it was more Interrupts. So, if your opponent countered something, you couldn't respond with another spell, unless it also was an Interrupt. It was kind of like Split Second, but due to # 1, above, it effectively meant that once someone casted an Interrupt, they could effectively force all spells on the "stack" to resolve (you can't play any non-Interrupt, and once the Interrupts start resolving, EVERYTHING must resolve before you can play anything new).

3) Damage Prevention Step: Rather then being applied immediately on resolution, damage was merely "assigned" by spells, et al, which then triggered an entirely separate step where players could play spells, etc. before the damage actually occurred. Like today's laments of no more "damage on the stack", people thought this would favor bad players due to more luck influence as opposed to skill influence.

4) You still live at 0 life: Under pre-6th rules, you could go to zero life during a turn and still not lose, as long as you came back above zero before the phase ended. Prosperous Bloom players wailed about this one.

There were others as well (e.g., artifact abilities "turned off" when the artifact was tapped). Now, imagine that the changes were to go from today to the rules above (i.e., to revert back to the pre-6th Edition rules). I suspect we'd see at least the same level of cries of the end of Magic, yadda, yadda as we're seeing today, probably even more. While we'll have to see what the M10 changes actually bring to the game, I have a feeling that, once we get comfortable with the new rules and they settle into the way we play, many of us won't be able to imagine how we ever played without them.

But I think this is natural - I think most of this is human nature (clinging to what is familiar as "best"; fearing or at least looking down upon change). But don't worry; soon enough, these rules will be the "familiar" ones and therefore "best". Smile

For those who want a take a little trip down Memory Lane (or to just see how eerily comparable the reactions to 6th Ed changes are to the reactions to M10 today), here are some links:

WoTC Letter responding to cries of "the end of Magic": http://www.wizards.com/magic/advanced/6e/6E_Letter.asp

Magic Dojo: http://www.classicdojo.org/

Some Dojo 6th Ed Changes Discussions:
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981126bge.txt
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981125kwi.txt
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981129lbu.txt

Bottom Line: This talk of "end of Magic" yadda yadda is as premature today as it was in 1999. Let's play for a while under the new rules and THEN consider their impacts, rather than just speculating the worst.

Kytep
Back to top
LordLink



Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 79

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
Kev
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 100

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MikeL123 wrote:
I actually agree with all of their rule changes except the combat damage ones. The fact that you cannot split non-lethal combat damage (for example, the Pyroclasm example above) is just stupid. As is the removal of putting damage on the stack.

The whole fun of "damage on the stack" is you can have your opponent commit to something, and then if you have tricks you can use them after the opponent has committed to something. Now, I have to freaking use Healing Salve BEFORE COMBAT DAMAGE IS ASSIGNED. Congrats, dumbasses, you've actually managed to make Healing Salve WORSE.


Healing Salve actually still works. Because they choose the order of lockers in the declare blockers step, you can play the salve on the first or second creature 'in the line' to save it
Back to top
sushiPasta



Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:29 am    Post subject: Seriously... Reply with quote

If i wanna play simpler cardgames i have plenty of other choices for that... Mostly this stuff, besides renaming things, is taking something away from MtG.. Like no manaburn? What the heck does that add for the game? When developement is going backwards like this and not forward, it's worrying. F* American "make it kiddiesimple" dilemma.
And this end of damage stacking is going to be the end of many current players interest for the game. Do they really think that so many players have remained fans of this game for simplicity?! T_T

Yes.. Painting devils on the walls, but there's still something into it.

There's an address for the sake of ye ol' good combat step.

http://www.pro-dots.com/

Propably won't affect it, but at least we're doing our best, right? :>
Back to top
MikeL123



Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kev wrote:
MikeL123 wrote:
I actually agree with all of their rule changes except the combat damage ones. The fact that you cannot split non-lethal combat damage (for example, the Pyroclasm example above) is just stupid. As is the removal of putting damage on the stack.

The whole fun of "damage on the stack" is you can have your opponent commit to something, and then if you have tricks you can use them after the opponent has committed to something. Now, I have to freaking use Healing Salve BEFORE COMBAT DAMAGE IS ASSIGNED. Congrats, dumbasses, you've actually managed to make Healing Salve WORSE.


Healing Salve actually still works. Because they choose the order of lockers in the declare blockers step, you can play the salve on the first or second creature 'in the line' to save it


Ahhh I see. You're right. That's stupid.

Anyways, changes are dumb, but whattayagonnado.
Back to top
Lynolf



Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lordlink: Were is it written that you can't play spells or abilities after first strike damage is dealt? Just because damage doesn't stack now, doesn't mean the first strike mechanic has changed. I can be wrong, tough, but like before, the creature with first strike deals damage, creatures die, etc., then you can play spells and abilities, then comes regular combat damage, as usual.
Back to top
Burton911



Joined: 09 Jun 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess that alot of People will move from MTGO to MWS since they wont be able to fix MTGO to their own new Rules until Version 6 or something like that Very Happy

But i came to another thought when reading the news.
What if the change a fundamential rule so that MWS wouldn't work anymore?
It would kill ML since their is no Programm which could be adapted to the new rules while being is as comfortable as MWS.
Back to top
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was actually on the fence about the combat damage changes until I read a post on MTGS. Getting rid of stacking combat damage requires more strategy for things like mogg fanatic/STE even though the rules are less complex.

Quote:

I've read about six thousand variations on this sentence now:

For me, this lowers the complexity of strategy which is what made the game so interesting in the first place.

And I think people don't understand the difference between "strategy" and "complexity." They are not the same thing.

Let's take a hypothetical. Say it's turn three under the old rules. My opponent has a Blade of the Sixth Pride attacking me and I have a Sakura Tribe-Elder defending. Under the old rules, the play is obvious: block with the Elder, sacrifice him for his ability on the damage stack. I've killed a creature in addition to getting a land from my deck as the Elder is supposed to do.

That's certainly complex in how it interacts with the rules. But is it strategic? Strategy implies the art of decision; the Sakura play is a no-brainer, much like Mogg Fanatic plays (or any other card that sacrifices itself for an effect) were so often no-brainers. For my chump-block I get not one but two good effects.

Now under the new rules, when that Blade of the Sixth Pride attacks me, I have essentially two serious options: I can chump-block with the Elder and do damage back to the Blade, losing my Elder to take out his creature, or I can chump-block and sacrifice before damage is taken, preventing the combat damage to my face and getting my mana acceleration. That choice requires play judgement on my part. That's strategy. The series of rules steps might not be as complex as it previously was, but I would suggest that, arguably, the amount of playskill needed to assess the current situation and determine the best course of action is greater.

Another example: yes, it means that sac abilities and activated abilities lose power. However, it also means that combat cards that affect stats could gain power, because the incentive to keep attackers and blockers around when you can't sacrifice them for effects grows. That's more decisions you have to make when building your decks and sideboards, where previously most stat-pump cards were nearly worthless.

That's strategy.
Back to top
Kytep



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 187

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SugarShark wrote:
everyone liked the 6th edition changes
I don't know where people are that keep saying that.


There weren't nearly the number of forums (nor number of Magic players, I don't believe) back then, so there are fewer sources for Internet comments from 10 years ago. What I've found so far is from the Dojo; please feel free to add other sources (I have not yet found any). In addition to the Dojo, my recollection of verbal commentary from other players at the time was a lot of anger/despair/fear, a lot like what I'm seeing in this forum.

Read these Dojo posts about the 6E changes and see how eerily similar they are to this forum (many couldn't imagine a world with the stack, withouth interrupts, and without a damage prevention step):

http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981126bge.txt
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981125kwi.txt
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981129lbu.txt
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981201sho.txt
http://www.classicdojo.org/b985/bif.981207jho.txt

Yes, there are positive posts as well (my sense is that the split on the Dojo was about 2/3 negative, 1/3 positive), but I never suggested the reaction was *uniformly* bad (it isn't today with M10 either), and my interpretation of your post is that you asked where people are getting the idea that players at the time of 6E changes didn't like them.

But maybe you meant you don't understand where people are getting the idea that people *did* like the changes. There we would agree; while, again, the reaction was not uniformly bad, the quantity and volume of the detractors was MUCH greater than those of the apologists, just like today (actually, probably worse than today, as the changes were MUCH more substantial than are M10's).

Kytep
Back to top
blackcat77



Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just for everyones knowledge the keyword "Exiled" comes from the Alliances card Exile. It was the first of many StP type reprint cards.
Back to top
OldBear



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The difference between these changes the changes at 6th ed, is these changes are a fact wizards is not trying to denie a simplification of the current rules.
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 3 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