I'm a newer player but I want to make an analogy. So, im a pretty seasoned player of the video game League of Legends. I've been around since basically the beginning and it was the main game I played at the time. Throughout the years the game has went through many drastic changes, and its become a staple of the game that changes happen frequently and drastically. At the end of each season, they overhaul a certain aspect of the game, and everything changes, from what characters are good to the entire meta game.
I was thinking about the history of the game, and was thinking about if it was similar to Magic. League isnt the game I once played, years ago, and it sometimes makes me sad. The game that I originally played is gone, and this new thing now exists.
Because I wasnt around in magic during the early days, I was wondering if the same empty feeling occurs with the experience players
Short answer is yes, there are a lot of things I miss about the older incarnations of Magic from rules to design philosophies, but as a whole I still enjoy the game and hope that one day the pendulum swings back. As for League, well it's not that much different, but I only played since the end of Season 2.
So we get the enemy colored painlands and not the allied color ones? Well that's reverse of the norm, but I thought Wizards was planning to do full 10 land cycles from now on.
Enemy pains could indicate allied Fetches in the next set, to offset the colour imbalance. It would also make sense since it would allow Modern to have access to all 10 Fetches as opposed to only 5.
Or you could read the article, and now that's not true.
Weirdly enough, the longer I play, the more readily I accept significant changes to the game. I think that's because as time passes I continue to build up my understanding of the game and all its strengths and weaknesses. It helps me to see what's good about the changes and why they're being implemented.
I was very skeptical of the 6th Edition Rules Update. I had been playing several years at that point and had come a long way in learning the existing rules system, and I didn't know how to feel about the new one. Experience has shown me it's about a million times better than the original rules.
I thought the 8th Edition / Modern card frame looked pretty weird at first, but it wasn't long before I realized how much easier it was to read cards from across a table (especially White cards).
I wasn't comfortable with some of the changes in the M10 Rules Update, but I came to understand how they opened up strategy options (combat damage) and cleaned up some things that really didn't matter (mana burn).
I was perfectly OK with the M15 card frame. If you take a look at Planeswalker cards printed in previous sets, they've basically been using it all along.
At this point I'm pretty sure it would have to take a really wild set of changes to put me off of the game.
I thought the 8th Edition / Modern card frame looked pretty weird at first, but it wasn't long before I realized how much easier it was to read cards from across a table (especially White cards).
I'm still not a fan of this one, the new card frames just look bad to me compared to the old stylized ones that had a theme for every colour. You have no idea how happy I was when they started making judge promos in the old frame or the old frames in Time Spiral that allowed for foiled versions of some cards.
As for the newest frame, I think a lot of people assumed I'd hate it because of how vocal I can be about disliking the 8th Ed frame, but honestly I didn't care, simply because changing from one from I don't like to another doesn't really matter to me. Though the M15 one does look a little better in my opinion.
So we get the enemy colored painlands and not the allied color ones? Well that's reverse of the norm, but I thought Wizards was planning to do full 10 land cycles from now on.
Enemy pains could indicate allied Fetches in the next set, to offset the colour imbalance. It would also make sense since it would allow Modern to have access to all 10 Fetches as opposed to only 5.
Or you could read the article, and now that's not true.
One of the great things about Magic is that if you want to play the old game, you can. Just use old cards and don't use the new ones. You can even play with the old rules if you want.
I've noticed that when changes occur regarding the rules, I tend to readily accept them, but when changes occur regarding the flavor or appearance, I tend to reject them.
Most of the major rules revisions have made the game progressively better and cleaner in my opinion. I don't get nostalgic about interrupts, mana burn, artifacts being turned off when tapped, or damage on the stack. (And I didn't really get nostalgic about damage NOT using the stack back when they added that feature. Damage on the stack just felt like cheating at the time.)
The things I DO get nostalgic about are the old frames and old style of art work. I quit for awhile around Tempest because the cards started getting too homogenous in their style and depiction of the same characters. This continued for years, but I guess it was a common enough complaint that they started diversifying the subject matter more. I'd still like to see a greater range of classical styles, though.
The biggest change magic ever made was the 6th edition rules changes.
I was all for the changes... except for that weird damage on the stack thing.
A decade later, they reversed that decision then people complain about that as well.
pre-6th ed rules were like a labyrinth. Jesus. Anyone who thinks it was better is insane.
Most other changes in my view are cosmetic, minor, temporary, or flavor of the month. The only other change that I disapprove of was the original legends rule. I liked the original far more than the current incarnation. Sure, it's less frustrating, but it's also less flavorful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I've noticed that when changes occur regarding the rules, I tend to readily accept them, but when changes occur regarding the flavor or appearance, I tend to reject them.
Most of the major rules revisions have made the game progressively better and cleaner in my opinion. I don't get nostalgic about interrupts, mana burn, artifacts being turned off when tapped, or damage on the stack. (And I didn't really get nostalgic about damage NOT using the stack back when they added that feature. Damage on the stack just felt like cheating at the time.)
The things I DO get nostalgic about are the old frames and old style of art work. I quit for awhile around Tempest because the cards started getting too homogenous in their style and depiction of the same characters. This continued for years, but I guess it was a common enough complaint that they started diversifying the subject matter more. I'd still like to see a greater range of classical styles, though.
I'm kind of in this poster's camp. I've been around since 4th edition/ice age, though I stopped playing for a decade or so and came back with Avacyn Restored. I think literally every rule change has been an improvement, although I'll admit I miss the old winter orb/icy manipulator combo.
In terms of the change in focus (more powerful creatures, less powerful spells) I think it was a good decision, but I think it's gone a bit too far... Basically, I think creatures are at the right power level at this point, but feel that the diversity of modern would improve if the power level of spells were slightly higher, ESPECIALLY in green and white. I also feel modern could use some cards that enable some more non-traditional strategies like prison, LD, ect. Don't get me wrong, I don't think these things should be tier 1, but they should be playable like in legacy, where you can show up with totally off-the-wall decks like pox, stax, enchantress, or lands and win a few matches even if you're never going to take down a pro-tour with them.
In terms of formats, I love how there is something for everyone these days. I wish they could support legacy more (insert grumbling about the reserved list here) but creating modern was an elegant solution to much of that problem... honestly, it's a format that would be worth playing even if they ditched the RL and printed a billion new duals. Official support of EDH is awesome, and there has been an enormous improvement in the general quality of both limited and standard.
In terms of information availability I'm split... On one hand it's really nice to be able to go get a dozen tier 1 netdeck lists in 5 minutes, on the other hand it makes it nearly impossible to do well with a truly unique idea even locally unless you REALLY dedicate yourself to it AND you're very, very clever. Overall though, I like having the net and I like my opponents having the same information I do.
In terms of asthetics, I admit I am nostalgic for the past. The "modern" frame is ok, but I like the old ones more. I understand the reason for the new hologram thing, but it looks silly. And I'm truly bored with the artwork and have been honestly since the late 90's. It's just extremely generic and homogenous... it really frustrates me that every piece of artwork is expected to reflect the color of the card (green cards have green-leaning artwork, ect). I also am frustrated by how realistic it all is... I miss the more "cartooney" look of the old cards (4th edition dragon whelp is way cooler than the commander artwork, for example) and I miss the days when artists had the freedom to create really WTF artwork like stasis and developers could create WTF cards like goblin snowman. Fortunately for me, asthetics is less important than game-play.
I wasn't happy with the frame change (8th and the new M15 frame) because I enjoy the fantasy feel that the old frame has. Both new frames are just to generic for me. On the old frame each colors frame felt like what the color embodies such as the rock for red and water for blue.
As for rules, I've been mostly happy with them except for the stupid Legend/Planewalker uniqueness rule recently changed because of flavor reasons. Instant/Interrupt/Mana Source/restrictions on cards like during combat but before damage but after blockers being declared this card can be played/activated, the rules just simply make more sense now for the most part and are being worded in a way that are easier to understand.
However, I'm not happy with the direction of the game for the most part. Creatures are to powerful, spells are to weak, and there isn't a good balance between the two. I also miss the more fantasy driven stories and feel of the old sets. When you looked at old sets like Fallen Empires and Homelands you could get and understand the world that was being built. Each set felt unique and each world felt like a story was being told in the cards. Now you don't get that IMO. I still enjoy collecting and playing but I buy way fewer cards of each new set that comes out. I totally stopped playing Standard during Theros but I'm hoping Khans changes that.
I still have a small rulebook from the revised edition starter packs. To give you an idea of how clear the rule were, there was the example of Grizzly Bears being target by Lightning Bolt, and saved by a Giant Growth played in response, and what would happen if the bolt was played in response of the growth instead. That was about it to explain the batch. For the rest, the book said that if players would run into more complicated solutions, it was up to them to agree on what happened. It wasn't so uncommon for judges to have wildly different rulings for the same situation back then, to the point some trickier situations would be decided by a dice roll, coin toss etc. The introduction of the stack was a most than welcome cleanup of the situation. Then, the removal of mana burn was also a welcome change, no more tracking of mana pools etc. Same goes for damage on stack which could lead to confusing situations. The most striking change for me was the removal of missed triggers for opponents & co. Being punished because you didn't notice something your opponent should have on an overly complicated board was really annoying. For the rest, I''d say they did a nice job of cleaning up the game as it became more popular, like the new legends rule for instance.
I've noticed that when changes occur regarding the rules, I tend to readily accept them, but when changes occur regarding the flavor or appearance, I tend to reject them.
Most of the major rules revisions have made the game progressively better and cleaner in my opinion. I don't get nostalgic about interrupts, mana burn, artifacts being turned off when tapped, or damage on the stack. (And I didn't really get nostalgic about damage NOT using the stack back when they added that feature. Damage on the stack just felt like cheating at the time.)
The things I DO get nostalgic about are the old frames and old style of art work. I quit for awhile around Tempest because the cards started getting too homogenous in their style and depiction of the same characters. This continued for years, but I guess it was a common enough complaint that they started diversifying the subject matter more. I'd still like to see a greater range of classical styles, though.
I'm kind of in this poster's camp. I've been around since 4th edition/ice age, though I stopped playing for a decade or so and came back with Avacyn Restored. I think literally every rule change has been an improvement, although I'll admit I miss the old winter orb/icy manipulator combo.
In terms of the change in focus (more powerful creatures, less powerful spells) I think it was a good decision, but I think it's gone a bit too far... Basically, I think creatures are at the right power level at this point, but feel that the diversity of modern would improve if the power level of spells were slightly higher, ESPECIALLY in green and white. I also feel modern could use some cards that enable some more non-traditional strategies like prison, LD, ect. Don't get me wrong, I don't think these things should be tier 1, but they should be playable like in legacy, where you can show up with totally off-the-wall decks like pox, stax, enchantress, or lands and win a few matches even if you're never going to take down a pro-tour with them.
In terms of formats, I love how there is something for everyone these days. I wish they could support legacy more (insert grumbling about the reserved list here) but creating modern was an elegant solution to much of that problem... honestly, it's a format that would be worth playing even if they ditched the RL and printed a billion new duals. Official support of EDH is awesome, and there has been an enormous improvement in the general quality of both limited and standard.
In terms of information availability I'm split... On one hand it's really nice to be able to go get a dozen tier 1 netdeck lists in 5 minutes, on the other hand it makes it nearly impossible to do well with a truly unique idea even locally unless you REALLY dedicate yourself to it AND you're very, very clever. Overall though, I like having the net and I like my opponents having the same information I do.
In terms of asthetics, I admit I am nostalgic for the past. The "modern" frame is ok, but I like the old ones more. I understand the reason for the new hologram thing, but it looks silly. And I'm truly bored with the artwork and have been honestly since the late 90's. It's just extremely generic and homogenous... it really frustrates me that every piece of artwork is expected to reflect the color of the card (green cards have green-leaning artwork, ect). I also am frustrated by how realistic it all is... I miss the more "cartooney" look of the old cards (4th edition dragon whelp is way cooler than the commander artwork, for example) and I miss the days when artists had the freedom to create really WTF artwork like stasis and developers could create WTF cards like goblin snowman. Fortunately for me, asthetics is less important than game-play.
I agree with all of this with the exception of the art. Art like stasis really turned me off the game and I'm kinda glad for a more homegenous look. For me it's better flavor wise because the deck as a whole seems to fit together neater thematically than it did back in the old days.
But yea I feel the rule changes were very much for the best, I do kinda wish I'd been able to appreciate some of the strategies open to me then more, but I didn't really have as strong an understanding of the game haha.
I have played the game 20 years and early on I was upset by a few of Wotc's decisions and directions they took. So much so I thought about quitting and selling off. I think I am one of the few old timers that prefer the new art to the old and the new cleaner frames and font. I try and read the older cards and get a headache with the font they used back then. The only 2 recent choices that rubbed me the wrong was are planeswalkers and mythics, but over time I have learned to live with both. For the most part, the rules changes were for the better and make the game smoother and easier to keep track of. Though it took time to understand that.
I'm a newer player but I want to make an analogy. So, im a pretty seasoned player of the video game League of Legends. I've been around since basically the beginning and it was the main game I played at the time. Throughout the years the game has went through many drastic changes, and its become a staple of the game that changes happen frequently and drastically. At the end of each season, they overhaul a certain aspect of the game, and everything changes, from what characters are good to the entire meta game.
I was thinking about the history of the game, and was thinking about if it was similar to Magic. League isnt the game I once played, years ago, and it sometimes makes me sad. The game that I originally played is gone, and this new thing now exists.
Because I wasnt around in magic during the early days, I was wondering if the same empty feeling occurs with the experience players
Magic doesn't change the same way you talk about League of Legends changing. What you are talking about with changes every year is more analogous to Standard rotations every year or Modern bannings.
I liked the old Legend rule were if you play a legendary card that is already in play you destroy both copy's. I liked the old damage on the stack rule were you could block with a Mogg Fanatic killing the creature and then in response sac it to deal damage to another creature or player. I think that wizards has really dumb down the game over the years. I hate that creatures are so strong and spells are so weak in comparison. What happened to the abundance of Global Enchantments? Now there is like 1 or 2 per block.
The only thing I really miss is the old foiling process. Pre-8th edition foils look so much better to me. Comparing a foil Thassa from theros to my old monoblue general Rayne. there just is no comparison. All the other changes the game has endured have been just fine.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
Unless you really want to micro analyze Magic, the game hasn't changed much at all. It still plays basically the same way. Personally, damage on or off the stack didn't suddenly make Magic a "new" game, as well as all the other changes such as the introduction of Planeswalkers, etc.
The only really big change early on was the 4 of rule. Early Magic could be pretty stupid with 20 Black Lotus, 20 Channel and 20 Fireball in your deck. But outside of that, nothing has really been earth shattering. Of course if you've been playing the game for 20 years, because of how slowly the changes that have been made were woven into the game itself, you probably don't notice as much as opposed to somebody who started playing in 94, quit in 95 and started again last year. Then it could be quite a culture shock.
As for the look of the game, the new borders and improved art (how it's rendered), make the game more modern looking. The old art really was cheesy. Having said that, some of the new art is very generic and dull while some of the old art, as cheesy as it was, was memorable, even if it was bad.
But Magic is Magic. It's essentially the same game now as it was in 1994.
When life link stopped stacking I had a few decks to take apart, so that was pretty sad. When the legend rule changed I was upset at first, but now enjoy the dark depths combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
So two Opalescence and a Humility walk into a bar, I forget the rest of the joke but your sanctioned judge is a scrub.
I have played the game 20 years and early on I was upset by a few of Wotc's decisions and directions they took. So much so I thought about quitting and selling off. I think I am one of the few old timers that prefer the new art to the old and the new cleaner frames and font. I try and read the older cards and get a headache with the font they used back then. The only 2 recent choices that rubbed me the wrong was are planeswalkers and mythics, but over time I have learned to live with both. For the most part, the rules changes were for the better and make the game smoother and easier to keep track of. Though it took time to understand that.
Pretty much this. The new fonts and text are a LOT easier to read, and rules templating is always impoving. The new frames are less flavorful, but like Bopcephus said, much cleaner design. Planeswalkers just feel like they were wedged into the existing rules (which they were) and I really don't like them much. I would have been OK with Mythics like the Soul of Innistrad cycle: big, splashy, flavorful, but not Primeval Titan powerful. When the only card in a set worth anything is one chase Mythic like Voice of Resurgence, I think they've done something wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
I left the game right around the time type 2 was formed. I have since returned, happy to see type 1 alive and well. It's also great to see EDH became a real thing, bring community driven. I applaud WotC for backing up their clients with EDH based cards. That's putting a ton of trust in the player base. And I must say, it looks like the players haven't let WotC down in this regard.
I am PRETTY sure Mogg fanatic dealing with two threats was legal on release. It was my pet card.
On topic: I really hated every change since 6th edition rules, I still do, and I still stand by the things I said then. Magic was completely different with interrupts, no official stack, LD, counters and the such. And I really miss it. Why am i still playing the game? Well, its still fun, but not the same fun.
From what I can read on the internet and have heard from other players combat damage didn't use the stack before the 6th edition rule changes.
For the second part, let's just agree to disagree. What is fun for one might not suit another
"Combat damage on the stack" could not have existed pre-6th edition because the stack didn't exist at that time, so you're right about that.
Actually, the official Wizards site gives "Unsummoning a creature with damage on the stack" as a specific example, so, no, you wouldn't have been able to kill 2 creatures with a Mogg Fanatic pre-6th.
As someone who has played Magic since 1994, I can say a big, resounding YES.
But it's more nostalgia for the things around the game: not knowing all the cards in a set (there were no spoilers then and definitely no searchable online databases), seeing all the old boxes of cards out for YOU to pick packs from (I'm talking A/B/U, Legends, Arabian Nights, etc), the wonder of "tournaments" that usually happened in malls and other strange venues...even the stigma of playing is different! Kids then would rather be dead than be caught playing a game like Magic and they took hiding it seriously. It's weird to miss that, but it's kind of like you were part of a really secret club.
The game itself? Nah. It's a little stale and you start to notice patterns, but it's still fun and essentially the same game it always was, just a little more predictable.
I was just thinking the other day about how Magic has built itself a world that actually functions like a fantasy world where there are "spells" that only old masters know, wisdom that people gained through years of practicing the art, and how there are some artifacts that actually function as artifacts that are extremely rare and valuable, etc.
But it's more nostalgia for the things around the game: not knowing all the cards in a set (there were no spoilers then and definitely no searchable online databases)
Despite having started in 2007ish, this is one big thing I miss - not that spoilers didn't exist, I just didn't know where to look for them, and even then there were 15 years of cards to know, so there'd always be something new to find.
I think stuff like this is the reason that, if you ask someone when the best time for Magic was, there's a good chance they'll respond that it was when they started playing. (Obviously the real answer is the Ravnica-Time Spiral-Lorwyn era, everyone else is just in denial.)
As an aside: Has anyone else noticed a pattern with people who talk about how the rules were better before 6th Edition tend to lump the removal of Combat Damage on the Stack in with all the other good ol' pre-6th rules that have been lost?
I think stuff like this is the reason that, if you ask someone when the best time for Magic was, there's a good chance they'll respond that it was when they started playing. (Obviously the real answer is the Ravnica-Time Spiral-Lorwyn era, everyone else is just in denial.)
*EYEBROW RAISE*
The best time for Magic was OBVIOUSLY the beginning of it, you fool!!!!
First, my credentials: I started during Revised and have been playing mostly constantly since, aside from a break during broken Urza's block and another that covered Timespiral block.
Overall, I couldn't be happier with the way the game has evolved over time. Sure, some of their decisions have rubbed me the wrong way: I didn't like the new cardface at first; I'm still not sure how I feel about mythic rares; Planeswalkers are okay, but if they disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't miss them (they feel like a marketing gimmick to me sometimes). But those are minor nitpicks; as I said, overall I'm happy.
I maintain that Magic is the greatest game ever, and a big part of that is the very fact that it's changed so much over time. All great games do. Look at American football, for example: if you watch games from early NFL and compare them to now, they are very different. But they're still American Football, using mostly the same rules, and the modern fan can still follow the action and appreciate the games. I think the same is true of Magic. Someone mentioned missing the "new player" feeling, but part of the beauty of Magic is that since it keeps changing. Even old hands like me get to feel a little like a noob every time a new set comes out. For example, I hadn't played Standard all through RtR/Theros Standard, but when Khans hit it seemed to completely revitalize the format, and I'm loving it.
Edit: I forgot art! Overall, I like the newer art better. I agree with whoever said Stasis-style art is cheesy; it just doesn't seem "good enough" for a game like Magic. The new art is slick and tends to all match thematically; just the other day, I commented to my girlfriend how aesthetically pleasing my standard deck was, because all the cards looked great together. That wasn't always the case. I get the "it all looks the same" arguments, but I disagree.
I started arround Tempest and i think the changes are imprenscindible to the game mostly because the power level is constanting rising, so balance is always needed!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was thinking about the history of the game, and was thinking about if it was similar to Magic. League isnt the game I once played, years ago, and it sometimes makes me sad. The game that I originally played is gone, and this new thing now exists.
Because I wasnt around in magic during the early days, I was wondering if the same empty feeling occurs with the experience players
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Oh... Ok... Clearly.
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
I'm still not a fan of this one, the new card frames just look bad to me compared to the old stylized ones that had a theme for every colour. You have no idea how happy I was when they started making judge promos in the old frame or the old frames in Time Spiral that allowed for foiled versions of some cards.
As for the newest frame, I think a lot of people assumed I'd hate it because of how vocal I can be about disliking the 8th Ed frame, but honestly I didn't care, simply because changing from one from I don't like to another doesn't really matter to me. Though the M15 one does look a little better in my opinion.
Oh... Ok... Clearly.
Most of the major rules revisions have made the game progressively better and cleaner in my opinion. I don't get nostalgic about interrupts, mana burn, artifacts being turned off when tapped, or damage on the stack. (And I didn't really get nostalgic about damage NOT using the stack back when they added that feature. Damage on the stack just felt like cheating at the time.)
The things I DO get nostalgic about are the old frames and old style of art work. I quit for awhile around Tempest because the cards started getting too homogenous in their style and depiction of the same characters. This continued for years, but I guess it was a common enough complaint that they started diversifying the subject matter more. I'd still like to see a greater range of classical styles, though.
I was all for the changes... except for that weird damage on the stack thing.
A decade later, they reversed that decision then people complain about that as well.
pre-6th ed rules were like a labyrinth. Jesus. Anyone who thinks it was better is insane.
Most other changes in my view are cosmetic, minor, temporary, or flavor of the month. The only other change that I disapprove of was the original legends rule. I liked the original far more than the current incarnation. Sure, it's less frustrating, but it's also less flavorful.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I'm kind of in this poster's camp. I've been around since 4th edition/ice age, though I stopped playing for a decade or so and came back with Avacyn Restored. I think literally every rule change has been an improvement, although I'll admit I miss the old winter orb/icy manipulator combo.
In terms of the change in focus (more powerful creatures, less powerful spells) I think it was a good decision, but I think it's gone a bit too far... Basically, I think creatures are at the right power level at this point, but feel that the diversity of modern would improve if the power level of spells were slightly higher, ESPECIALLY in green and white. I also feel modern could use some cards that enable some more non-traditional strategies like prison, LD, ect. Don't get me wrong, I don't think these things should be tier 1, but they should be playable like in legacy, where you can show up with totally off-the-wall decks like pox, stax, enchantress, or lands and win a few matches even if you're never going to take down a pro-tour with them.
In terms of formats, I love how there is something for everyone these days. I wish they could support legacy more (insert grumbling about the reserved list here) but creating modern was an elegant solution to much of that problem... honestly, it's a format that would be worth playing even if they ditched the RL and printed a billion new duals. Official support of EDH is awesome, and there has been an enormous improvement in the general quality of both limited and standard.
In terms of information availability I'm split... On one hand it's really nice to be able to go get a dozen tier 1 netdeck lists in 5 minutes, on the other hand it makes it nearly impossible to do well with a truly unique idea even locally unless you REALLY dedicate yourself to it AND you're very, very clever. Overall though, I like having the net and I like my opponents having the same information I do.
In terms of asthetics, I admit I am nostalgic for the past. The "modern" frame is ok, but I like the old ones more. I understand the reason for the new hologram thing, but it looks silly. And I'm truly bored with the artwork and have been honestly since the late 90's. It's just extremely generic and homogenous... it really frustrates me that every piece of artwork is expected to reflect the color of the card (green cards have green-leaning artwork, ect). I also am frustrated by how realistic it all is... I miss the more "cartooney" look of the old cards (4th edition dragon whelp is way cooler than the commander artwork, for example) and I miss the days when artists had the freedom to create really WTF artwork like stasis and developers could create WTF cards like goblin snowman. Fortunately for me, asthetics is less important than game-play.
As for rules, I've been mostly happy with them except for the stupid Legend/Planewalker uniqueness rule recently changed because of flavor reasons. Instant/Interrupt/Mana Source/restrictions on cards like during combat but before damage but after blockers being declared this card can be played/activated, the rules just simply make more sense now for the most part and are being worded in a way that are easier to understand.
However, I'm not happy with the direction of the game for the most part. Creatures are to powerful, spells are to weak, and there isn't a good balance between the two. I also miss the more fantasy driven stories and feel of the old sets. When you looked at old sets like Fallen Empires and Homelands you could get and understand the world that was being built. Each set felt unique and each world felt like a story was being told in the cards. Now you don't get that IMO. I still enjoy collecting and playing but I buy way fewer cards of each new set that comes out. I totally stopped playing Standard during Theros but I'm hoping Khans changes that.
BUG Reanimator
BWG Nic-Fit
BGR Punishing Nic-Fit
I agree with all of this with the exception of the art. Art like stasis really turned me off the game and I'm kinda glad for a more homegenous look. For me it's better flavor wise because the deck as a whole seems to fit together neater thematically than it did back in the old days.
But yea I feel the rule changes were very much for the best, I do kinda wish I'd been able to appreciate some of the strategies open to me then more, but I didn't really have as strong an understanding of the game haha.
Magic doesn't change the same way you talk about League of Legends changing. What you are talking about with changes every year is more analogous to Standard rotations every year or Modern bannings.
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
The only really big change early on was the 4 of rule. Early Magic could be pretty stupid with 20 Black Lotus, 20 Channel and 20 Fireball in your deck. But outside of that, nothing has really been earth shattering. Of course if you've been playing the game for 20 years, because of how slowly the changes that have been made were woven into the game itself, you probably don't notice as much as opposed to somebody who started playing in 94, quit in 95 and started again last year. Then it could be quite a culture shock.
As for the look of the game, the new borders and improved art (how it's rendered), make the game more modern looking. The old art really was cheesy. Having said that, some of the new art is very generic and dull while some of the old art, as cheesy as it was, was memorable, even if it was bad.
But Magic is Magic. It's essentially the same game now as it was in 1994.
At least to me it is.
Pretty much this. The new fonts and text are a LOT easier to read, and rules templating is always impoving. The new frames are less flavorful, but like Bopcephus said, much cleaner design. Planeswalkers just feel like they were wedged into the existing rules (which they were) and I really don't like them much. I would have been OK with Mythics like the Soul of Innistrad cycle: big, splashy, flavorful, but not Primeval Titan powerful. When the only card in a set worth anything is one chase Mythic like Voice of Resurgence, I think they've done something wrong.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
"Combat damage on the stack" could not have existed pre-6th edition because the stack didn't exist at that time, so you're right about that.
Actually, the official Wizards site gives "Unsummoning a creature with damage on the stack" as a specific example, so, no, you wouldn't have been able to kill 2 creatures with a Mogg Fanatic pre-6th.
But it's more nostalgia for the things around the game: not knowing all the cards in a set (there were no spoilers then and definitely no searchable online databases), seeing all the old boxes of cards out for YOU to pick packs from (I'm talking A/B/U, Legends, Arabian Nights, etc), the wonder of "tournaments" that usually happened in malls and other strange venues...even the stigma of playing is different! Kids then would rather be dead than be caught playing a game like Magic and they took hiding it seriously. It's weird to miss that, but it's kind of like you were part of a really secret club.
The game itself? Nah. It's a little stale and you start to notice patterns, but it's still fun and essentially the same game it always was, just a little more predictable.
I was just thinking the other day about how Magic has built itself a world that actually functions like a fantasy world where there are "spells" that only old masters know, wisdom that people gained through years of practicing the art, and how there are some artifacts that actually function as artifacts that are extremely rare and valuable, etc.
Despite having started in 2007ish, this is one big thing I miss - not that spoilers didn't exist, I just didn't know where to look for them, and even then there were 15 years of cards to know, so there'd always be something new to find.
I think stuff like this is the reason that, if you ask someone when the best time for Magic was, there's a good chance they'll respond that it was when they started playing. (Obviously the real answer is the Ravnica-Time Spiral-Lorwyn era, everyone else is just in denial.)
As an aside: Has anyone else noticed a pattern with people who talk about how the rules were better before 6th Edition tend to lump the removal of Combat Damage on the Stack in with all the other good ol' pre-6th rules that have been lost?
*EYEBROW RAISE*
The best time for Magic was OBVIOUSLY the beginning of it, you fool!!!!
Overall, I couldn't be happier with the way the game has evolved over time. Sure, some of their decisions have rubbed me the wrong way: I didn't like the new cardface at first; I'm still not sure how I feel about mythic rares; Planeswalkers are okay, but if they disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't miss them (they feel like a marketing gimmick to me sometimes). But those are minor nitpicks; as I said, overall I'm happy.
I maintain that Magic is the greatest game ever, and a big part of that is the very fact that it's changed so much over time. All great games do. Look at American football, for example: if you watch games from early NFL and compare them to now, they are very different. But they're still American Football, using mostly the same rules, and the modern fan can still follow the action and appreciate the games. I think the same is true of Magic. Someone mentioned missing the "new player" feeling, but part of the beauty of Magic is that since it keeps changing. Even old hands like me get to feel a little like a noob every time a new set comes out. For example, I hadn't played Standard all through RtR/Theros Standard, but when Khans hit it seemed to completely revitalize the format, and I'm loving it.
Edit: I forgot art! Overall, I like the newer art better. I agree with whoever said Stasis-style art is cheesy; it just doesn't seem "good enough" for a game like Magic. The new art is slick and tends to all match thematically; just the other day, I commented to my girlfriend how aesthetically pleasing my standard deck was, because all the cards looked great together. That wasn't always the case. I get the "it all looks the same" arguments, but I disagree.
Modern: GW Hatebears/midrange, WGU Knightfall/evolution midrange stuff
Standard: nope
Legacy: W Death & Taxes
EDH (not Commander!): W Avacyn, Angel of Hope, GR Ruric Thar, the Unbowed, WGB Anafenza, the Foremost, WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator