As for an explanation, look at the rulebook, specifically
601.2a The player announces that he or she is casting the spell. That card (or that copy of a card) moves from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller. The spell remains on the stack until it's countered, it resolves, or an effect moves it elsewhere.
Paying for a spell occurs later.
601.2g The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can't be paid.
This is mostly only relevant to people who hang around the custom cards subforum. Quite a number of times someone will come up with a design that is simply impossible with the rules as they currently are. And when pointed out, they largely react with incredulity.
I would go back to how combat damage was assigned before: any damn way you wanted. It was supposedly for memory issues, but with damage removed from the stack, it isn't a problem trying to remember, because it's immediately relevant if you assign it in certain ways. Either you kill what you want to, or you play something like Pyroclasm.
Wait now. When did this happen? And does this mean nivmagus elemental can eat spells for free?
It doesn't make any sense! If a card is on the stack, i can eat it with the elemental. But if it hasn't had its cost paid, how can it be eaten?
Needs explanation!
No, you can't do that. You place it on the stack, but it's not cast until you pay for it. This is so players don't Candelabra of Tawnos themselves (or worse) when they try to cast a spell that they can't cast. It's the same reason you can't activate abilities or cast spells without a legal targets; it just makes it easier to take back, and leads to less ****ed board-states.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
My changes, if it were possible? Remove Flash, make Instant a supertype. Lightning Bolt would be an Instant Sorcery. Snapcaster Mage would be an Instant Creature - Human Wizard. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. There are too many rule snarls and too many old cards to realistically ever implement this.
Another change I'd like to make would be to change regeneration. Right now, it's clunky as all hell. "Regenerate ~" sets up this... prevention shield thing that may or may not be consumed? And even though you explicitly followed the instruction to "Regenerate ~", you didn't actually regenerate it - that comes later when the shield fires? Weird. This seems like such a hurdle for beginners.
Not sure how to fix it though - I guess I'd start by trying to make it a combination of a static keyword and a keyword action. "Regeneration G" would mean "If this creature would be destroyed, you may pay G. If you do, regenerate it instead." and the keyword action "regenerate" would mean the usual "tap it, remove it from combat, and remove all damage marked on it." Cards that say "Regenerate target creature" would instead have to say something like "The next time this turn target creature would be destroyed, regenerate it instead." I admit this is not an elegant solution. I'd have to think about how exactly to fix this in the best way.
Most rules are better today than they ever have been. Deathtouch and lifelink as static abilities is nice and intuitive. I'm happy damage on the stack and mana burn are gone.
Everything I have seen you post so far in this forum makes me think that we have a lot of similar opinions. I am tempted to just edit your post here into mine on page 3, because I agree with everything save that I would have to think some more about your regeneration suggestion.
Instant as a supertype has been mentioned by many in this thread, and the more I think about it the more I like it. Removing flash and using that supertype on any card type would be a very elegant solution in my book. It would lead to a hell of a lot of errata though ^^
I wouldn't change instants to sorceries with flash or a supertype - then we'd need to errata all sorts of things like Burning Wish and Merchant Scroll, and for no real functional improvement.
in short because it made some good cards bad. Cards that made the game more fun.
Lies. I got it the first time i was given the rule... and i was like 13. If you couldn't understand DOTS you can't understand the stack therefore you still don't understand the rules. If that's is the case just quite magic.
What cards did it invalidate that you would rather have than everything that's been printed since the change? Is it so bad that Mogg Fanatic can only trade with one creature now?
And why should I quit Magic because of something I didn't understand, what, twelve years ago? If you can convince me with logic that I should quit, I'll quit, give you my cards, and vote your way in the election. Because it sounds to me like you're adding "get off my lawn" to your cane shaking.
If you have read my posts you will know my stance with regard to "damage on the stack". I think the current system is a lot better than "DotS" ever was. The thread "A Look Back: Damage on the Stack" might be interesting for many people reading and responding in this thread. Perhaps it is a more suitable place to talk about the pros and cons of "damage on the stack". We could stop derailing this thread by moving that discussion there. That thread even has a cool poll for everyone to vote in!
I'm not sure I agree. Would combo deliberately want to choose to draw first, then skip playing a land turn 1, just to get one big bazaar of baghdad activation (without actually putting more than one card in the GY)? As someone who is definitely not a constructed combo player, I gotta say I have no idea.
"Zero Land" derivatives of combo decks most certainly would enjoy getting to draw up to 14 by the end of the first turn. (Belcher decks)
My change to the rules:
* Introduce "Fizzle" as the term for "Countered by the rules (all targets are illegal)".
* Add a rule that any time the library is searched, it's owner shuffles it.
* Introduce Legendary Subtypes and have it work in line with the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule.
The main thing I would change if given the option would be to tweak some of the rules to be more consistent with other similar rules, just for the sake of simplicity. There are a lot of corner cases where it feels like the rules guys came up with whatever rule sounded right at the time without regard for precedent. Examples:
- Giving a land a basic land type causes it to lose all other abilities it has, and no other type-changing effect works this way.
- Turning an artifact into an artifact creature lets it retain its other types without having to say so outright, and no other type-changing effect works this way.
- Ditto what others have said about the legend rule versus the planeswalker rule. It doesn't make sense that I can have Mikaeus, the Lunarch and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed at the same time but I can't have Sarkhan Vol and Sarkhan the Mad at the same time. I have no problem with the effect this has on gameplay (it isn't common for someone to be running a deck with more than one version of a specific legendary creature, while I don't want to see decks dropping every Jace at the same time) but the only explanation I've ever heard for the difference is that it's two different rules and therefore they can be different.
I'm on the side in favor of the removal of damage on the stack. Aside from the usual "it's an unintuitive rule" versus "card X is worse and this makes me sad" arguments, I like it the way it is now because of the consistency. Combat damage used to be the only turn-based action that used the stack; drawing a card, declaring attackers/blockers, and discarding at the end of the turn did not.
Not sure what change I would make, but what I would want to do is change the play first or draw option for the start of a game. The vast, vast majority of the time, I believe playing first is a huge advantage. I'm speaking as a standard player so if in older formats, drawing is considered just as viable as playing first, I'm not aware of that, but as a standard player, the other option should be just as viable as playing first.
I still maintain that I would make no changes, but...
It might be interesting (and complicated) to errata the Legendary supertype to have some form of Grandeur. I am neither here nor there on the uniqueness issue, but I agree with MaRo that Legendary cards (from a design elegency standpoint) should not be cards that by their very nature you are conflicted with how many to include in the deck. Something along the lines of a Grandeur type ability hard-wired in to the supertype would work well towards that end.
Were interrupts actually different from instants in any way? I remember trying to figure out what the difference was when I was younger, and coming up with zilch.
Interrupts were [generally?] pointless to play on your own turn due to their individual effects, but I couldn't find any general difference from the instant type.
Were interrupts actually different from instants in any way? I remember trying to figure out what the difference was when I was younger, and coming up with zilch.
Interrupts were [generally?] pointless to play on your own turn due to their effects, but I couldn't find any general difference from the instant type.
There wasn't much really; the similarity was why interrupts were subsumed by instants in 6th Edition.
The big difference was that only other interrupts could respond to an interrupt. There wasn't any opportunity to Brainstorm during counter wars.
As much as I liked damage on the stack, it does make more sense this way. Believe me, few people complained about the change as much as I did (it really hit one of my decks hard), but I agree that this just makes more sense.
I think if I were to change anything, I'd bring back mana burn, and go with the slightly more forgiving mulligan system of Mull to 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5 etc.
Then I'd abolish the Reserved List.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I would go back to how combat damage was assigned before: any damn way you wanted. It was supposedly for memory issues, but with damage removed from the stack, it isn't a problem trying to remember, because it's immediately relevant if you assign it in certain ways. Either you kill what you want to, or you play something like Pyroclasm.
I'm pretty sure that the point of the order-blockers-and-then-must-assign-to-each-in-order-up-to-lethal-damage business is to keep damage prevention from sucking. So you attack with a 6/6, I block with 3 2/3s, and I have a healing salve in hand (that you know about for some reason). With damage on the stack, you can either put 6 on one of the 2/3s and I won't be able to save it, or put 3 each on two 2/3s, and I can save one. Without damage on the stack, if there were no ordering of blockers at all, I would have to healing salve first, and then you could just kill the other two 2/3s, causing my healing salve to be an utter waste. With ordering of blockers, you choose an order, and then I can choose to healing salve the first one, giving you a choice of killing the first one or killing the second one but not both, or I can healing salve the second one, meaning you can only kill the first one.
What cards did it invalidate that you would rather have than everything that's been printed since the change? Is it so bad that Mogg Fanatic can only trade with one creature now?
It didn't invalidate all the much... but it did make many many cards worse like Giant growths and unsummon variants. Those cards being weaker makes limited less interactive and less enjoyable imo.
And why should I quit Magic because of something I didn't understand, what, twelve years ago? If you can convince me with logic that I should quit, I'll quit, give you my cards, and vote your way in the election. Because it sounds to me like you're adding "get off my lawn" to your cane shaking.
If you didn't understand DOTS... you don't under the stack. If you don't understand the rules of game how can you enjoy it?
But, i'm done here. Sounds like your trying to troll but failing badly at it.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I'd get rid of the mess that the layers are and simply state that the player controlling the creature chooses the order the effects are applied to it. That would add some depth to some situations. For simplicity, we could add that the order has to be applied the same way to all creature that player controls.
One interesting side effect of this is that a card like humility would turn into a permanent out vs. all spells that reduce toughness: just apply humility last!
(There is the problem with creatures that set their own toughness though. All */* creatures would be unkillable with 0/-X effects. You could add the caveat that at least one absolute value-setting ability has to be first to avoid this. It would still be simpler than the current mess.)
I'd get rid of the mess that the layers are and simply state that the player controlling the creature chooses the order the effects are applied to it. That would add some depth to some situations. For simplicity, we could add that the order has to be applied the same way to all creature that player controls.
So you won't actually know the p/t of a creature unless you ask? And it can change from moment to moment? That seems even more insane than what we have now.
It didn't invalidate all the much... but it did make many many cards worse like Giant growths and unsummon variants. Those cards being weaker makes limited less interactive and less enjoyable imo.
How exactly did DOTS make Unsummon effects worse, though?
Creature blocks your creature, when dmg is on the stack unsummon your creature and save it while destroying the blocking creature. That's a lot better than 'declare as a blocker, unsummon, derp, -1 myself in board position unless it's a creature with a relevant ETB effect' like it is now.
I understand why they got rid of it, and invalidating Tribe Elder, Mogg Fanatic and making creatures with flash worse isn't even that big of a deal. But since DOTS has been removed design, especially creature based, has gone in a really unpleasant direction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
The most painful thing in the world is when your perfectly normal sealed deck gives you 1 land on seven, no lands on six, 1 land on five.
Do you go to four? What four card hand are you hoping for?
A free mulligan to five here (but then you're done) would save people from the mercy of draft/sealed mana screw, but probably not change how anyone builds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
Competitive events should just use the edh style mulligan system, (i dont recall the name)' where you can choose to trade any number of cards, but you dont have to trade all of them.
Might be too good in legacy/vintage, but i think the benefit outweighs the danger
I also doubt combo would be too consistent with a mulligan change. It would make every deck more consistent, including the decks that already prey on combo
Competitive events should just use the edh style mulligan system, (i dont recall the name)' where you can choose to trade any number of cards, but you dont have to trade all of them.
Might be too good in legacy/vintage, but i think the benefit outweighs the danger
I also doubt combo would be too consistent with a mulligan change. It would make every deck more consistent, including the decks that already prey on combo
No thank you to partial paris in vintage...
Makes it a little easier for the player on the draw to find a FoW.
Makes it a little easier for the player on the play to find moxen, sol ring, FoW, Pact of Negation, JTMS...
To put it this way, we've disallowed partial paris in our Local EDH group because of how strong it made combo. In vintage, every opener would have a sol ring, black lotus, or a mana crypt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
Makes it a little easier for the player on the draw to find a FoW.
Makes it a little easier for the player on the play to find moxen, sol ring, FoW, Pact of Negation, JTMS...
To put it this way, we've disallowed partial paris in our Local EDH group because of how strong it made combo. In vintage, every opener would have a sol ring, black lotus, or a mana crypt.
/Echo all of this. Partial Paris is way too easy to abuse, even in EDH.
I do wish the mulligan system were a little more forgiving, but I can't think of a way to do it without inviting abuse. The most reasonable I've seen (and I even mentioned I'd change it, but I've since rethought) was 6-5-5-4-4-4, but there are decks that really only need four cards to start a huge combo, and will gladly take the extra chances for those combos. The proportional benefit to combo decks is just too high for any adjustment to the mulligan system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
The steps of casting a spell have been pretty much the same for a very long time now. I don't know exactly, but my guess would be in the ballpark of ten-ish years. The point people fail to see is that this nothing more than a technicality: Yes, the spell is on the stack a pico-milli-nano-second before it is paid for, but that is mostly irrelevant, as the whole process of casting a spell (from announcing it up until it is paid for) cannot be interrupted in any way.
Once you get your chance to eat that spell, it has been paid for.
But that's the problem i have with this rather bizarre "is on the stack before you pay the cost" thing.
Magic is a game of steps, rather than time. You can't lay down your cards as fast as physically possible in order to prevent your opponent from reacting. Everything just goes along in neat steps. 'A' happens, then 'B' and 'C'. They could be five minute steps or three second steps, it's completely irrelevent.
Some things happen sumiltaneously, some things happen in an order.
The reason for this order is important! It changes how we interact and participate with elements of the game.
If there is no possible way to use, interact with or otherwise participate in a spell until its cost has been paid, then paying the cost and entering the stack can be said to happen at the same time.
If the spell enters the stack first, and ACTUALLY enters the stack first, then you are now talking about an ordered sequence, and one that you could feasibly interact with... Otherwise what on earth is the point of there being an order?! The answer is none.
It sounds to me like meaningless, pointless rule-mongering. Technicality or no, and regardless of whether people like to reveal their cards before tapping their lands. If there is no reason for an order of steps to exist within the game rules (i.e. there is no way for you to interact with this order in any way, shape or form), then they should be said to happen simultaneously as far s game-steps are concerned.
Example. Someone casts wrath and a bunch of creatures all hit the bin. I physically place them one by one into the graveyard. Does that mean they die one by one? No, they die simultaneously. Can they be ordered in a particular way in the graveyard? Sure, why not... But it doesn't affect the step-by-step nature of the game. Some things, in game terms at least, happen all at once, even if you can't physically perform the actions all at once.
I just seems like a really basic concept that has got way out of hand and turned into a sort of rules black hole for some bizarre reason.
About 14 years, when 6th ed was introduced.
As for an explanation, look at the rulebook, specifically
Paying for a spell occurs later.
This is mostly only relevant to people who hang around the custom cards subforum. Quite a number of times someone will come up with a design that is simply impossible with the rules as they currently are. And when pointed out, they largely react with incredulity.
For example: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=358256&highlight=charmed+pendant
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
No, you can't do that. You place it on the stack, but it's not cast until you pay for it. This is so players don't Candelabra of Tawnos themselves (or worse) when they try to cast a spell that they can't cast. It's the same reason you can't activate abilities or cast spells without a legal targets; it just makes it easier to take back, and leads to less ****ed board-states.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everything I have seen you post so far in this forum makes me think that we have a lot of similar opinions. I am tempted to just edit your post here into mine on page 3, because I agree with everything save that I would have to think some more about your regeneration suggestion.
Instant as a supertype has been mentioned by many in this thread, and the more I think about it the more I like it. Removing flash and using that supertype on any card type would be a very elegant solution in my book. It would lead to a hell of a lot of errata though ^^
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
What cards did it invalidate that you would rather have than everything that's been printed since the change? Is it so bad that Mogg Fanatic can only trade with one creature now?
And why should I quit Magic because of something I didn't understand, what, twelve years ago? If you can convince me with logic that I should quit, I'll quit, give you my cards, and vote your way in the election. Because it sounds to me like you're adding "get off my lawn" to your cane shaking.
"Zero Land" derivatives of combo decks most certainly would enjoy getting to draw up to 14 by the end of the first turn. (Belcher decks)
My change to the rules:
* Introduce "Fizzle" as the term for "Countered by the rules (all targets are illegal)".
* Add a rule that any time the library is searched, it's owner shuffles it.
* Introduce Legendary Subtypes and have it work in line with the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule.
* Remove Planeswalkers
This could be done by introducing a Unique supertype and extracting the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule into this new supertype.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
- Giving a land a basic land type causes it to lose all other abilities it has, and no other type-changing effect works this way.
- Turning an artifact into an artifact creature lets it retain its other types without having to say so outright, and no other type-changing effect works this way.
- Ditto what others have said about the legend rule versus the planeswalker rule. It doesn't make sense that I can have Mikaeus, the Lunarch and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed at the same time but I can't have Sarkhan Vol and Sarkhan the Mad at the same time. I have no problem with the effect this has on gameplay (it isn't common for someone to be running a deck with more than one version of a specific legendary creature, while I don't want to see decks dropping every Jace at the same time) but the only explanation I've ever heard for the difference is that it's two different rules and therefore they can be different.
I'm on the side in favor of the removal of damage on the stack. Aside from the usual "it's an unintuitive rule" versus "card X is worse and this makes me sad" arguments, I like it the way it is now because of the consistency. Combat damage used to be the only turn-based action that used the stack; drawing a card, declaring attackers/blockers, and discarding at the end of the turn did not.
It might be interesting (and complicated) to errata the Legendary supertype to have some form of Grandeur. I am neither here nor there on the uniqueness issue, but I agree with MaRo that Legendary cards (from a design elegency standpoint) should not be cards that by their very nature you are conflicted with how many to include in the deck. Something along the lines of a Grandeur type ability hard-wired in to the supertype would work well towards that end.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Were interrupts actually different from instants in any way? I remember trying to figure out what the difference was when I was younger, and coming up with zilch.
Interrupts were [generally?] pointless to play on your own turn due to their individual effects, but I couldn't find any general difference from the instant type.
There wasn't much really; the similarity was why interrupts were subsumed by instants in 6th Edition.
The big difference was that only other interrupts could respond to an interrupt. There wasn't any opportunity to Brainstorm during counter wars.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I think if I were to change anything, I'd bring back mana burn, and go with the slightly more forgiving mulligan system of Mull to 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5 etc.
Then I'd abolish the Reserved List.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I'm pretty sure that the point of the order-blockers-and-then-must-assign-to-each-in-order-up-to-lethal-damage business is to keep damage prevention from sucking. So you attack with a 6/6, I block with 3 2/3s, and I have a healing salve in hand (that you know about for some reason). With damage on the stack, you can either put 6 on one of the 2/3s and I won't be able to save it, or put 3 each on two 2/3s, and I can save one. Without damage on the stack, if there were no ordering of blockers at all, I would have to healing salve first, and then you could just kill the other two 2/3s, causing my healing salve to be an utter waste. With ordering of blockers, you choose an order, and then I can choose to healing salve the first one, giving you a choice of killing the first one or killing the second one but not both, or I can healing salve the second one, meaning you can only kill the first one.
It didn't invalidate all the much... but it did make many many cards worse like Giant growths and unsummon variants. Those cards being weaker makes limited less interactive and less enjoyable imo.
If you didn't understand DOTS... you don't under the stack. If you don't understand the rules of game how can you enjoy it?
But, i'm done here. Sounds like your trying to troll but failing badly at it.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
One interesting side effect of this is that a card like humility would turn into a permanent out vs. all spells that reduce toughness: just apply humility last!
(There is the problem with creatures that set their own toughness though. All */* creatures would be unkillable with 0/-X effects. You could add the caveat that at least one absolute value-setting ability has to be first to avoid this. It would still be simpler than the current mess.)
So you won't actually know the p/t of a creature unless you ask? And it can change from moment to moment? That seems even more insane than what we have now.
How exactly did DOTS make Unsummon effects worse, though?
Creature blocks your creature, when dmg is on the stack unsummon your creature and save it while destroying the blocking creature. That's a lot better than 'declare as a blocker, unsummon, derp, -1 myself in board position unless it's a creature with a relevant ETB effect' like it is now.
I understand why they got rid of it, and invalidating Tribe Elder, Mogg Fanatic and making creatures with flash worse isn't even that big of a deal. But since DOTS has been removed design, especially creature based, has gone in a really unpleasant direction.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Current mulligan rules in draft and sealed, you can do the following.
Mulligan to (From 7 to) 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, stop.
I would change mulliganing in draft and sealed to
(From 7 to) 6, 5, 5, stop.
The most painful thing in the world is when your perfectly normal sealed deck gives you 1 land on seven, no lands on six, 1 land on five.
Do you go to four? What four card hand are you hoping for?
A free mulligan to five here (but then you're done) would save people from the mercy of draft/sealed mana screw, but probably not change how anyone builds.
Might be too good in legacy/vintage, but i think the benefit outweighs the danger
I also doubt combo would be too consistent with a mulligan change. It would make every deck more consistent, including the decks that already prey on combo
No thank you to partial paris in vintage...
Makes it a little easier for the player on the draw to find a FoW.
Makes it a little easier for the player on the play to find moxen, sol ring, FoW, Pact of Negation, JTMS...
To put it this way, we've disallowed partial paris in our Local EDH group because of how strong it made combo. In vintage, every opener would have a sol ring, black lotus, or a mana crypt.
/Echo all of this. Partial Paris is way too easy to abuse, even in EDH.
I do wish the mulligan system were a little more forgiving, but I can't think of a way to do it without inviting abuse. The most reasonable I've seen (and I even mentioned I'd change it, but I've since rethought) was 6-5-5-4-4-4, but there are decks that really only need four cards to start a huge combo, and will gladly take the extra chances for those combos. The proportional benefit to combo decks is just too high for any adjustment to the mulligan system.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
But that's the problem i have with this rather bizarre "is on the stack before you pay the cost" thing.
Magic is a game of steps, rather than time. You can't lay down your cards as fast as physically possible in order to prevent your opponent from reacting. Everything just goes along in neat steps. 'A' happens, then 'B' and 'C'. They could be five minute steps or three second steps, it's completely irrelevent.
Some things happen sumiltaneously, some things happen in an order.
The reason for this order is important! It changes how we interact and participate with elements of the game.
If there is no possible way to use, interact with or otherwise participate in a spell until its cost has been paid, then paying the cost and entering the stack can be said to happen at the same time.
If the spell enters the stack first, and ACTUALLY enters the stack first, then you are now talking about an ordered sequence, and one that you could feasibly interact with... Otherwise what on earth is the point of there being an order?! The answer is none.
It sounds to me like meaningless, pointless rule-mongering. Technicality or no, and regardless of whether people like to reveal their cards before tapping their lands. If there is no reason for an order of steps to exist within the game rules (i.e. there is no way for you to interact with this order in any way, shape or form), then they should be said to happen simultaneously as far s game-steps are concerned.
Example. Someone casts wrath and a bunch of creatures all hit the bin. I physically place them one by one into the graveyard. Does that mean they die one by one? No, they die simultaneously. Can they be ordered in a particular way in the graveyard? Sure, why not... But it doesn't affect the step-by-step nature of the game. Some things, in game terms at least, happen all at once, even if you can't physically perform the actions all at once.
I just seems like a really basic concept that has got way out of hand and turned into a sort of rules black hole for some bizarre reason.