I don't know, but the same thing still happens.
If you are going to say you hate the blocker rule, at least bring up a situation where it would be relevant.
Green light, H_H, and I fixed the first post and added the two articles that I read earlier today. (And give good perspective on things)
Seds - Firstly, i didnt say i hate it, i just find it hard to accept.
As for bringing up a situation where it would be relevant - I shouldnt have to. we all know the saying "If it aint broke, dont fix it". I shouldnt be trying to give examples to show why the old rule was clearer. WOTC should be giving examples of why the new rule is better.
Can anyone honestly say that they have tried driving a car with oval wheels? No. Why not? Because there was no reason to explore a more efficient wheel
since the round wheel did what we wanted it to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am NOT the girl in my avatar. Stop hitting on me. I'm a dude, just like you!
They want to appeal to the casual player? Ha! Imagine when I have to look through my Type 4 stack, the one that took me lots of time and effort to put together. Or someone's cube. There's nothing but combat tricks!
Seems to me that this would be a good time for a boycott (maybe just on M10 to show our displeasure).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I'm working on:
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
you are missing what i am say trying to explain. I'll use examples.
in each example you are attacking with a 5/5 ramdom beastie of your choice with no abilities and i am blocking with 2 3/3 random beasties with no inherent abilities
scenario #1 (using the stack)
i assign 6 damage to your guy you assign 3 damage to one of mine and 2 damage to the other or 5 damage to one or whatever. i then respong with "damage on the stack" i cast righteousness targeting the one you assigned lethal damage. both my creatures live yours dies.
scenario #2 (using no stack but you can assign damage any way you want)
i cast righeousness on one of my creatures you assign 5 damage to the other, one of each of our creatures die.
Scenario #3 (using m10 rules)
you choose one of my guys to be first. i cast righteousness on the first guy you assign 5 damage to the first guy cause you have to . both my guys live yours dies
Funtionality of fast effects are more in line with their current uses this way. I can't think of too many that actually change too much aside form the obvious sac/bounce creature ones.
If you have Righteousness do you really need to block with 2 guys? Definitely not in that example.
If anyone has strong feelings, I suggest you direct them here, so people can aggregate a formalized reaction. I feel there is a larger number of pople disatisfied with this change, and many with valid ideas and detailed explanations. godspeed all.
The stack was a brilliant way to resolve spell confusion, and it worked wonders with damage as well. I feel that if anything, even if damage doesnt use 'the stack' it should use its OWN stack. That is just me.
while i did sign the petition, I am rather curious what the chances of wizards actually listening. while it feels as many people are displeased (I'm on MSN with a friend of mine who is a non MTGS user who dislikes them as well) there are probabaly many unspoken people out there who will not do anything about it/not care/are casual players who wil just continue to play with house rules, much like D&D.
but the real question here is what will it really take for them to scrap the change? Touney players speeking out; petitions like this one; product not selling (not like WotC needs to sell much of it, the profit margin on a package of cardboard crack has got to be insane). this feels like the kind of change they wouln't have made without good reason, and regardless of outcry feels like there is little chance of the change not taking place.
They want to appeal to the casual player? Ha! Imagine when I have to look through my Type 4 stack, the one that took me lots of time and effort to put together. Or someone's cube. There's nothing but combat tricks!
This.
Even, I believe, a casual EDH player is disappointed. R&D must have been on crack or sucking Hasbro's "ego".
The positive side is that paper players don't have to follow the new rules. The negative modo players like me will be forced to beta test the new rules. Ugh. Just the other day in edh I was using lyzolda and skeletal vampire to stack and sac. So much for those combos.
If you have Righteousness do you really need to block with 2 guys? Definitely not in that example.
no i don't it was an example to explain the reasoning without getting too complex. the real reasoning for the block would come from the current game state and possibly what other cards i had seen him play that game? for the sake of simplicity we'll just say i saw you use a negate early and wanted to make sure your guy still died if it got countered with another negate
I have a question now that somebody brought up skeletal vampire, if I declare one of my Bats a blocker, and after declaring him a blocker I sacrifice him, is the Attacking creature still blocked? just not assigned damage, or am I getting it Wrong
Innus, you are correct. Once a creature is blocked, it doesn't become unblocked until combat ends.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 3 Magic Judge
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
I have a question now that somebody brought up skeletal vampire, if I declare one of my Bats a blocker, and after declaring him a blocker I sacrifice him, is the Attacking creature still blocked? just not assigned damage, or am I getting it Wrong
I actually think the loss of the ability to stack combat damage deepens the strategic depth of the game. Strategy by definition implies the ability to make choices without having one obviously superior path. Originally you could have a Sakura-Tribe Elder trade with an attacking x/1 creature and have it fetch you a land. Now you need to decide which is more important, trading with the creature or getting another land. To succeed in this situation you need to be looking ahead and have an idea of how the decision will effect the rest of the game. With stacked damage sac effects are far more powerful but without it they require far more strategy and planning.
I apologize for the length (I tend to need to follow my train of thought to the end before proceeding to the next, resulting in overly long posts, papers, and monologues in conversations) and for the copious amount of parentheses.
Having now read Buehler and Zvi's pieces, I find myself wondering if Buehler will realise the inconsistency between:
1. Bemoaning the lack of instants and interaction in Shards block, and the degree it comes down to casting big creatures, casting sorceries and slamming into each other; and
2. Being in favour of rules changes which reduce the interactivity in combat.
Or to put it another way, I don't think Buehler has completely worked through this. Zvi basically has my reaction, so I agree with him
(also- shortening battlefield to "the battle?". Pretty sure it will get shortened to "the field", mate, or just ignored outright),
Here's a question I want to pose regarding these new changes:
What new areas of design space are opened as a result of these changes? Given that the functionality of some cards has changed, it stands to reason that new cards being made would be evaluated differently due to such changes. For example, I can see toughness-pumping spells growing a bit in usefulness thanks to the new combat changes, but what design spaces does this open up? It's a bit easier to imagine the new space from removing manaburn (i.e. more cards that care about life total), but what else can we expect?
Consider this card:
Bounce Dude 2U
Creature - Dude
3/1 U: Return ~this~ to your hand.
The core idea of this card is a fragile creature that can dodge removal by escaping to your hand. However, if it can dodge combat and still deal its damage, it's overpowered (in limited, anyways, and uninteresting in constructed). With the rules change, a card like this might see print. Sure, "efficient creatures that can be returned to your hand cheaply" is a small nugget of design space, but it's just one example of something that wasn't available with the old rules.
Interestingly enough, blinking spirit was originally printed under pre-Sixth rules, where you couldn't bounce with damage on the stack. Creature efficiency has improved since then, which is probably why they brought it back in 9th edition - the new trick wasn't part of the original design of the card, and back then it made the card "overpowered", but everything else has caught up. The same thing happened with mogg fanatic too.
I agree that combat damage not stacking is an alright thing. At first it seemed weird, but with more understanding it became a more comfortable concept. It does add more strategy and thinking, and also a chance for some Johnny out there to find the next Mogg Fanatic that works well with this change.
I'm glad that Lifelink is now more managable. A Rhox War Monk with a Behemoth Sledge on it is a scary thing to see swinging.
And I'm also glad that Deathtouch became a more potent mechanic. If I'm thinking the right thing about this that is. (Just wondering, is one point of deathtouch lethal to a blocker?) If that's true, I think that with these mechanics just became evenly powerful, which is what I wanted to see.
I'm a guy that hates sticking to a routine, so I am welcoming these changes to the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Have you ever tried running with a grape suit on? Then you haven't lived!"
-Squee (my friend's nickname, not the goblin.)
I'm gonna post this here in case people haven't read Zvi's article. He manages to speak with the clearity that only experience talking on the topic can give what I've been trying to tell people that think that strategy is made better now that you have to choose between effect and trade for creatures with sac effects:
Quote from Zvi Mowshowitz »
Creatures with sacrifice effects are now crippled, which is the more common case, and we shall see if the plan is to make such cards stronger to compensate. In the meantime, the strategic depth of such cards will be lost.
The result of all this is clear. Spells that help me win combat and abilities that help me but require activation, especially if activating them makes me vulnerable, become much worse and thus much less interesting... Yes, as Aaron Forsythe has pointed out when you block with a Nantuko Husk and a Siege-Gang Commander you can change the situation from one where I have a clean option that wins me the combat into one where I have several options and it is not clear which one is best (technically that’s a double block but it’s the same idea). There will also be cases in which I used to have multiple good options and now have only one left. The problem is the most likely response to this is to not play with Nantuko Husk and Siege-Gang Commander. The deck in question is probably now unplayable.
This, this is exactly my point. New strategic choices that come at the cost of raw power for an important subset of cards are not welcome, because other cards did not suffer of this. Strategy is made poorer, not richer, because stubbornly playing with now, subpar cards is not gonna give you many victories even if you manage to make the correct choice every time. Zvi hopes (and is the least thing we can hope now) that this will be fixed by raising the power of the sac creatures and the power of the spells you normally would use to effect combat and that now lost a ton of edge such as boomerang and momentary blink. However he laments that such changes would only make magic become more straightforward:
Magic will become strategically simpler and involve less skill. We will see more creatures with high power and high toughness and strong inherent always-on abilities. We will see less creatures with activated abilities such as regeneration, pumping abilities and especially sacrifice abilities. We will see more creature removal at the expense of pump spells, bounce spells and damage prevention.
What aggraviates me the most is that this change was not necessary. A ton of my favourite cards (I was looking forward a reprint of Greater Good to play along Naya, but now with the new rule, I don't care if they ever reprint it again.) and my favourite strategies were diminished; and I have to ask: What for? What am I getting in its place that is so much better that made necessary such a crippling change? How is this loss really helping Magic beyond the highly speculative and wishful thinking that by making the game more intuitive, new players will come in a swarm? Especially when making some moves more intuitive, they actually have to make the rules more complex to accomodate them? (see the wording mess that Deaththouch is to keep its functionality, or the fact that first strike magically creates a window of priority in the othwerwise now unresponsive combat damage phase, or the ridiculous rule they had to add to the way damage is assigned to blockers).
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I agree with some of the substantive changes, but I do think that replacing the allocation of damage with the ordering of damage is overdoing things.
A simpler change would have been to have an act by the player controlling a creature to remove it from play during the damage step interfere with the damage it would deal.
Also, cards that are removed from the game by a temporary effect that will involve their future return (i.e. Memory Jar) ought to be distinguished from those that are only removed from the game. That way, Wishes could still be used to fetch the cards in the latter category.
If they had also avoided gratuitously silly names like "battlefield", the rest of the changes would have been far less controversial, and far more welcomed.
Or to put it another way, I don't think Buehler has completely worked through this. Zvi basically has my reaction, so I agree with him
Of course, Buehler has played a few games under the new rules, and Zvi hasn't. Moreover, Buehler frames his experience right away: Zvi puts his disclaimer at the end.
People keep citing that combat is less interactive now. Having playtested, I do not agree with this assessment. No, I am not a PT player.
I am utterly astounded that Zvi did any speculation without playtesting. Anyone with design experience should recognize how crucial playtesting is to evaluating changes like these. Sure, he's super PT guy, but I don't care how smart or experienced a person is, you cannot accurately eyeball this stuff.
Hopefully he's noble enough to retract if his testing doesn't ply with his speculating.
I recommend people do the playtesting Zvi hasn't done yet and perhaps decide for themselves.
A ton of my favourite cards (I was looking forward a reprint of Greater Good to play along Naya, but now with the new rule, I don't care if they ever reprint it again.) and my favourite strategies were diminished; and I have to ask: What for? What am I getting in its place that is so much better that made necessary such a crippling change?
I will suggest Greater Good doesn't need damage on the stack to be one of the most powerful cards in the game. In fact, I'd say it would be a bit broken with it, given the creature curve nowadays.
And I bet Qasali Pride Mage will still be played. Other sac dudes? I'm not familiar enough with T2, but I thought only Mogg Fanatic was tech these days. I could be wrong... What deck is Husk in? I'd say that is pertinent to Zvi's lament.
And I'm also glad that Deathtouch became a more potent mechanic. If I'm thinking the right thing about this that is. (Just wondering, is one point of deathtouch lethal to a blocker?) If that's true, I think that with these mechanics just became evenly powerful, which is what I wanted to see.
1 point of deathtouch damage is not 'leathal damage' in respect to determining how you assign trample damage or the like. (ie. in relation to the rules).
Deathtouch damage is lethal in the colloquial sense that 1 point can kill. (just to stop people saying that)
So what happens to the "After blockers are declared but before damage is dealt" step?
The order and function of the steps hasn't changed, everybody still gets priority during the declare blockers step, same as always, but now instead of being an object on the stack damage occurs immediately at the beginning of the damage step, just like declaring attackers and blockers do in their respective steps.
As for bringing up a situation where it would be relevant - I shouldnt have to. we all know the saying "If it aint broke, dont fix it". I shouldnt be trying to give examples to show why the old rule was clearer. WOTC should be giving examples of why the new rule is better.
You gave the example, and it only elucidated the fact that the new rules don't affect very much. When your example only hurts your argument, then yes, it is reasonable to suggest a better example.
Can anyone honestly say that they have tried driving a car with oval wheels? No. Why not? Because there was no reason to explore a more efficient wheel
since the round wheel did what we wanted it to.
Actually, the oval wheels were tried first, then discarded for round ones. People who were endeared with their oval wheels complained that the new wheels made their carts "too simple" and "took all the fun out of manipulating" the "intricacies" of the oval wheel. After playing with the round wheel for awhile, though, they eventually embraced the change.
Why cant wizard just add a single line to a current combat damage stack rule.
"combat damage on stack fail to resolve(dealt) unless its source is in play at the time of resolution."
It will nerf the current sac and bounce ablity such as mogg without introducing whole new seperate ruleset that decrease stgical depth. what do you guys think?
Nerfing is a good idea for Wizards from a business and designing perspective.
They can now make the following card :
Mogg Double Fanatic R
Creature
Sacrifice Mogg Double Fanatic: Mogg Double Fanatic deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
It's strictly better than Mogg Fanatic, so everyone in red needs to have it. It's a way to keep designing cards and selling them ofcourse.
For now I highly dislike most of these changes (don't care about Exile or "beginning of the end step", those are good) so I'll probably going to play less magic and see how it all turns out to be ...
Imo if Mogg Fanatic became too powerfull with 6th rules, they should've changed it then, not wait 10 years ..
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retired DCI Level 2 Judge
"Everybody dies, Tracey. Someone's carrying a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is to die of old age before it finds you."
Of course, Buehler has played a few games under the new rules, and Zvi hasn't. Moreover, Buehler frames his experience right away: Zvi puts his disclaimer at the end.
People keep citing that combat is less interactive now. Having playtested, I do not agree with this assessment. No, I am not a PT player.
I am utterly astounded that Zvi did any speculation without playtesting. Anyone with design experience should recognize how crucial playtesting is to evaluating changes like these. Sure, he's super PT guy, but I don't care how smart or experienced a person is, you cannot accurately eyeball this stuff.
Hopefully he's noble enough to retract if his testing doesn't ply with his speculating.
I recommend people do the playtesting Zvi hasn't done yet and perhaps decide for themselves.
I mean no disrespect, but I think I'm gonna stick with the analysis of the person who's made a living of playing competitive Magic for 10 years and writing about it, as he can deduce far more than what a self-proclamed EDH-only player may have gathered from a few casual games. Also note, that pretty much as Zvi, Buehler had to admit that the game lost a bit of edge for the veteran players in favor of a presumed improvement of intuitivity for the new players. He, as Zvi, hopes that the veteran players will eventually be thrown a bone at to make up for this.
I will suggest Greater Good doesn't need damage on the stack to be one of the most powerful cards in the game. In fact, I'd say it would be a bit broken with it, given the creature curve nowadays.
Makes me wonder if you ever played with the card. You only want to sacrify big dudes to it, and the best time to do it is after they managed to trade in combat. You only want to sac your expensive 5/5 guys when they are about to die, not when they are pleasantly sitting around, having the chance to deal damage to the opponent. Now, Greater Good is only going to be good to sac creatures that would be hit by removal, which while still being good, is highly conditional on your opponent's deck. In other words, while the effect is still great, the times at you'd wish to activate it to obtain the maximum profit are now more than halved, so the card is now not good enough to warrant its place instead, for example another creature in that kind of deck.
And I bet Qasali Pride Mage will still be played. Other sac dudes? I'm not familiar enough with T2, but I thought only Mogg Fanatic was tech these days. I could be wrong... What deck is Husk in? I'd say that is pertinent to Zvi's lament.
I thank you for your honesty, but it goes to show that you are talking about something you don't even know. Rare is the game nowadays where you or your opponent for one reason or other won't say "with combat damage on stack..." at any point. Every single card with a sac clause (check it out, there are over 100 in T2 only) is worse now. Boomerang is worse now. Thornling is worse, Crag Puca, etc. There might be no tier 1 deck with husk at the moment, but the point Zvi makes is that now, there most likely will NEVER be one.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seds - Firstly, i didnt say i hate it, i just find it hard to accept.
As for bringing up a situation where it would be relevant - I shouldnt have to. we all know the saying "If it aint broke, dont fix it". I shouldnt be trying to give examples to show why the old rule was clearer. WOTC should be giving examples of why the new rule is better.
Can anyone honestly say that they have tried driving a car with oval wheels? No. Why not? Because there was no reason to explore a more efficient wheel
since the round wheel did what we wanted it to.
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
If you have Righteousness do you really need to block with 2 guys? Definitely not in that example.
while i did sign the petition, I am rather curious what the chances of wizards actually listening. while it feels as many people are displeased (I'm on MSN with a friend of mine who is a non MTGS user who dislikes them as well) there are probabaly many unspoken people out there who will not do anything about it/not care/are casual players who wil just continue to play with house rules, much like D&D.
but the real question here is what will it really take for them to scrap the change? Touney players speeking out; petitions like this one; product not selling (not like WotC needs to sell much of it, the profit margin on a package of cardboard crack has got to be insane). this feels like the kind of change they wouln't have made without good reason, and regardless of outcry feels like there is little chance of the change not taking place.
-Niv
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
This.
Even, I believe, a casual EDH player is disappointed. R&D must have been on crack or sucking Hasbro's "ego".
no i don't it was an example to explain the reasoning without getting too complex. the real reasoning for the block would come from the current game state and possibly what other cards i had seen him play that game? for the sake of simplicity we'll just say i saw you use a negate early and wanted to make sure your guy still died if it got countered with another negate
Dark Times (Vintage)
Project Parfait (Vintage)
Jaya Ballard (EDH)
(Northeastern PA Vintage)
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
he is still blocked but does not deal damage..
Dark Times (Vintage)
Project Parfait (Vintage)
Jaya Ballard (EDH)
(Northeastern PA Vintage)
Link to personality test
I apologize for the length (I tend to need to follow my train of thought to the end before proceeding to the next, resulting in overly long posts, papers, and monologues in conversations) and for the copious amount of parentheses.
1. Bemoaning the lack of instants and interaction in Shards block, and the degree it comes down to casting big creatures, casting sorceries and slamming into each other; and
2. Being in favour of rules changes which reduce the interactivity in combat.
Or to put it another way, I don't think Buehler has completely worked through this. Zvi basically has my reaction, so I agree with him
(also- shortening battlefield to "the battle?". Pretty sure it will get shortened to "the field", mate, or just ignored outright),
Consider this card:
Bounce Dude
2U
Creature - Dude
3/1
U: Return ~this~ to your hand.
The core idea of this card is a fragile creature that can dodge removal by escaping to your hand. However, if it can dodge combat and still deal its damage, it's overpowered (in limited, anyways, and uninteresting in constructed). With the rules change, a card like this might see print. Sure, "efficient creatures that can be returned to your hand cheaply" is a small nugget of design space, but it's just one example of something that wasn't available with the old rules.
Interestingly enough, blinking spirit was originally printed under pre-Sixth rules, where you couldn't bounce with damage on the stack. Creature efficiency has improved since then, which is probably why they brought it back in 9th edition - the new trick wasn't part of the original design of the card, and back then it made the card "overpowered", but everything else has caught up. The same thing happened with mogg fanatic too.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
I'm glad that Lifelink is now more managable. A Rhox War Monk with a Behemoth Sledge on it is a scary thing to see swinging.
And I'm also glad that Deathtouch became a more potent mechanic. If I'm thinking the right thing about this that is. (Just wondering, is one point of deathtouch lethal to a blocker?) If that's true, I think that with these mechanics just became evenly powerful, which is what I wanted to see.
I'm a guy that hates sticking to a routine, so I am welcoming these changes to the game.
-Squee (my friend's nickname, not the goblin.)
Favorite EDH Decks:
RBG Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund
W Kemba, Kha Regent
R Kiki-Jiki, Mirror-Breaker
Emmara Tandris
This, this is exactly my point. New strategic choices that come at the cost of raw power for an important subset of cards are not welcome, because other cards did not suffer of this. Strategy is made poorer, not richer, because stubbornly playing with now, subpar cards is not gonna give you many victories even if you manage to make the correct choice every time. Zvi hopes (and is the least thing we can hope now) that this will be fixed by raising the power of the sac creatures and the power of the spells you normally would use to effect combat and that now lost a ton of edge such as boomerang and momentary blink. However he laments that such changes would only make magic become more straightforward:
What aggraviates me the most is that this change was not necessary. A ton of my favourite cards (I was looking forward a reprint of Greater Good to play along Naya, but now with the new rule, I don't care if they ever reprint it again.) and my favourite strategies were diminished; and I have to ask: What for? What am I getting in its place that is so much better that made necessary such a crippling change? How is this loss really helping Magic beyond the highly speculative and wishful thinking that by making the game more intuitive, new players will come in a swarm? Especially when making some moves more intuitive, they actually have to make the rules more complex to accomodate them? (see the wording mess that Deaththouch is to keep its functionality, or the fact that first strike magically creates a window of priority in the othwerwise now unresponsive combat damage phase, or the ridiculous rule they had to add to the way damage is assigned to blockers).
A simpler change would have been to have an act by the player controlling a creature to remove it from play during the damage step interfere with the damage it would deal.
Also, cards that are removed from the game by a temporary effect that will involve their future return (i.e. Memory Jar) ought to be distinguished from those that are only removed from the game. That way, Wishes could still be used to fetch the cards in the latter category.
If they had also avoided gratuitously silly names like "battlefield", the rest of the changes would have been far less controversial, and far more welcomed.
BUG Dredge BUG]
WUBRG Storm WUBRG
UBR FaerieStalker UBR
EDH
Sygg, River Cutthroat (1vs1)
Maga, Traitor to Mortals (multiplayer)
Of course, Buehler has played a few games under the new rules, and Zvi hasn't. Moreover, Buehler frames his experience right away: Zvi puts his disclaimer at the end.
People keep citing that combat is less interactive now. Having playtested, I do not agree with this assessment. No, I am not a PT player.
I am utterly astounded that Zvi did any speculation without playtesting. Anyone with design experience should recognize how crucial playtesting is to evaluating changes like these. Sure, he's super PT guy, but I don't care how smart or experienced a person is, you cannot accurately eyeball this stuff.
Hopefully he's noble enough to retract if his testing doesn't ply with his speculating.
I recommend people do the playtesting Zvi hasn't done yet and perhaps decide for themselves.
I will suggest Greater Good doesn't need damage on the stack to be one of the most powerful cards in the game. In fact, I'd say it would be a bit broken with it, given the creature curve nowadays.
And I bet Qasali Pride Mage will still be played. Other sac dudes? I'm not familiar enough with T2, but I thought only Mogg Fanatic was tech these days. I could be wrong... What deck is Husk in? I'd say that is pertinent to Zvi's lament.
1 point of deathtouch damage is not 'leathal damage' in respect to determining how you assign trample damage or the like. (ie. in relation to the rules).
Deathtouch damage is lethal in the colloquial sense that 1 point can kill. (just to stop people saying that)
*EDIT*
The order and function of the steps hasn't changed, everybody still gets priority during the declare blockers step, same as always, but now instead of being an object on the stack damage occurs immediately at the beginning of the damage step, just like declaring attackers and blockers do in their respective steps.
You gave the example, and it only elucidated the fact that the new rules don't affect very much. When your example only hurts your argument, then yes, it is reasonable to suggest a better example.
Actually, the oval wheels were tried first, then discarded for round ones. People who were endeared with their oval wheels complained that the new wheels made their carts "too simple" and "took all the fun out of manipulating" the "intricacies" of the oval wheel. After playing with the round wheel for awhile, though, they eventually embraced the change.
"combat damage on stack fail to resolve(dealt) unless its source is in play at the time of resolution."
It will nerf the current sac and bounce ablity such as mogg without introducing whole new seperate ruleset that decrease stgical depth. what do you guys think?
They can now make the following card :
Mogg Double Fanatic R
Creature
Sacrifice Mogg Double Fanatic: Mogg Double Fanatic deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
It's strictly better than Mogg Fanatic, so everyone in red needs to have it. It's a way to keep designing cards and selling them ofcourse.
For now I highly dislike most of these changes (don't care about Exile or "beginning of the end step", those are good) so I'll probably going to play less magic and see how it all turns out to be ...
Imo if Mogg Fanatic became too powerfull with 6th rules, they should've changed it then, not wait 10 years ..
"Everybody dies, Tracey. Someone's carrying a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is to die of old age before it finds you."
My
540> 360 Powered CubeI mean no disrespect, but I think I'm gonna stick with the analysis of the person who's made a living of playing competitive Magic for 10 years and writing about it, as he can deduce far more than what a self-proclamed EDH-only player may have gathered from a few casual games. Also note, that pretty much as Zvi, Buehler had to admit that the game lost a bit of edge for the veteran players in favor of a presumed improvement of intuitivity for the new players. He, as Zvi, hopes that the veteran players will eventually be thrown a bone at to make up for this.
Makes me wonder if you ever played with the card. You only want to sacrify big dudes to it, and the best time to do it is after they managed to trade in combat. You only want to sac your expensive 5/5 guys when they are about to die, not when they are pleasantly sitting around, having the chance to deal damage to the opponent. Now, Greater Good is only going to be good to sac creatures that would be hit by removal, which while still being good, is highly conditional on your opponent's deck. In other words, while the effect is still great, the times at you'd wish to activate it to obtain the maximum profit are now more than halved, so the card is now not good enough to warrant its place instead, for example another creature in that kind of deck.
I thank you for your honesty, but it goes to show that you are talking about something you don't even know. Rare is the game nowadays where you or your opponent for one reason or other won't say "with combat damage on stack..." at any point. Every single card with a sac clause (check it out, there are over 100 in T2 only) is worse now. Boomerang is worse now. Thornling is worse, Crag Puca, etc. There might be no tier 1 deck with husk at the moment, but the point Zvi makes is that now, there most likely will NEVER be one.