Legend of the Five Rings survived a card back change (a forced change, in their case). It could happen, and the game would go on, but I'm in the "leave it alone" camp. I think the unchanged card back is a testament to the longevity and permanence of the game. In a world where so many CCGs came & went, M:TG was the originator and still reigns supreme.
@knifemind: My bad, I am running a cheerios variant of my own using an entire suite of 0 drop artifact creatures and retracts to kill my opponent with assault formation.
No worries, I wasn't trying to be negative about it.
Side note: I do like the idea of Assault Formation as another win condition. I may try running one. Seems like it could add some stability.
Here's the thing....People will ALWAYS play Magic. Forever. No matter what happens to WotC, as long as there are physical cards in existence, people will play. If the game dies off, demand will likely tank... but, as the others said, it's kind of impossible to determine how that will impact value of individual cards. Magic cards, in general, will always have *some* value, because people will want to play, but that is all you can say with any certainty.
I have a Kobold Deck togetyer thqt goes an entirely different route.
The deck consists of the kobolds, foundry street denizen, goblin bushwacker, simian spirit guide and a suite of burn spells in the likes of reckless abandon, bolts, mob justice and lotus petals with 16 mountains. Deck is a ton of fun to play.
Sounds like you're saying you just play a burn deck... With Kobolds. Although the title didn't imply it, we were really focused on Kobold Storm decks. (OP probably just said budget Kobold, because to my knowledge there aren't any other established Kobold style decks that aren't storm based, or at at least storm derived (Like laboratory maniac win). You can corner the "Kobold Burn" market, if you want to.
peteroupc is correct, but there may be some timing confusion on your opponent's part. Your opponent cannot "respond" to you declaring a blocker. Up until the declare blockers step your creature isn't a valid target for the spell (because it's not a blocking creature yet). Once the declare blockers step starts, the first thing that happens is that blocking is assigned. This cannot be responded to because it doesn't use the stack, and short of casting something like False Orders, there is nothing he can do to make his creature not blocked.
From the Comp. rules ( I only cut the most relevant points to your situation)
509. Declare Blockers Step
509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
509.1g Each chosen creature still controlled by the defending player becomes a blocking creature. Each one is blocking the attacking creatures chosen for it. It remains a blocking creature until it’s removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
510. Combat Damage Step
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.
After blockers are assigned then damage assignment order is chosen, then any triggered effects go on the stack, and only then does the active player get priority to cast a spell.
To be more specific, your latter statement is correct. You CANNOT pay multiple energy to give multiple instances of indestructible. As jskura said, the trigger occurs and offers you a one time payment:effect result. If it were intended to be allowed multiple times it would say so.
How about "if a spell or ability would deal damage to a player, that spell or ability may instead deal damage to a planeswalker that player controls. If that spell or ability would target a player, it may instead target a planeswalker"
No. That would give a player a target outlet for undesirable effects. I can't cite any specific cases where it would be beneficial, but I guarantee someone will break it. You'd have to rewrite entire sets of rules, and/or errata huge numbers of cards. You haven't thought this through very well.
118.5. If an effect sets a player’s life total to a specific number, the player gains or loses the necessary amount of life to end up with the new total.
. Who was the ass that came up with this play style and why would they do something so annoying?
People have been stacking lands for over 20 years. As you are in the almost immeasurably small minority in this matter, I think you should unbunch your undergarments and deal with it.
It might be a bandwagon thing, like when people learned how to flick the cards in their hand. I have gotten used to it but when I see pros do it, and they do it to the point where the microphone from the feature match area picks it up is rather excessive.
There's no bandwagon. People don't do it because other people do; they do it because it makes sense. Such behaviors started up independently in countless places at roughly the same time period with no influence on each other. I've been stacking land since 1994. Nobody taught me to. I do it because it makes sense and is efficient. There are different methods and ideas behind land stacks, but as long at the game state is clear, I cannot imagine any reason to have a problem with how my opponent arranges theirs. I personally keep my land in groups of up to 4, based on mana production color.
But I totally agree you about the card flicking thing...I have actually met people that started doing that simply because the observed others doing so.
I don't think there's any judge, anywhere, that would allow that. Aside from the fact that you're including Magic cards in "your deck" that are not part of "your library" , 2 cards in a penny sleeve will not stack perfectly flush, let alone 60 times. Something as simple as "is this card poking out slightly above my Sorrow's path, or slightly below?" constitutes a marked deck.
I would like to see them developed more, but it's unlikely. It would probably take a return to Sarpadia to ever see Homarids again.....which I would love, because then we'd probably get to see some REALLY, REALLY cool Thrulls.
No worries, I wasn't trying to be negative about it.
Side note: I do like the idea of Assault Formation as another win condition. I may try running one. Seems like it could add some stability.
Sounds like you're saying you just play a burn deck... With Kobolds. Although the title didn't imply it, we were really focused on Kobold Storm decks. (OP probably just said budget Kobold, because to my knowledge there aren't any other established Kobold style decks that aren't storm based, or at at least storm derived (Like laboratory maniac win). You can corner the "Kobold Burn" market, if you want to.
Here's the version I run...still tweaking a card here & there, and constantly adjusting the sideboard.
4 Ornithopter 4 Memnite
4 Shield Sphere 4 Phyrexian Walker
4 Crimson Kobolds 4 Crookshank Kobolds
4 Kobolds of Kher Keep 4 Lotus Petal
2 Mox Opal 2 Wild Cantor
2 Street Wraith 2 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Gitaxian Probe 4 Glimpse of Nature
2 Personal Tutor 1 Land Grant
1 Grapeshot 2 Scapegoat
1 Retract 1 Pact of Negation
1 Noxious Revival 1 Force of Will
1 Breeding Pool 1 Taiga
Sideboard
2 Altar of the Brood
2 Tinder Wall
2 Elvish Spirit Guide
2 Street Wraith
2 Nature's Claim
1 Noxious Revival
1 Force of Will
1 Retract
1 Pact of Negation
1 Laboratory Maniac
I do not have any Multani's Presence, but it would be a good addition.
From the Comp. rules ( I only cut the most relevant points to your situation)
509. Declare Blockers Step
509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
509.1g Each chosen creature still controlled by the defending player becomes a blocking creature. Each one is blocking the attacking creatures chosen for it. It remains a blocking creature until it’s removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
510. Combat Damage Step
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.
After blockers are assigned then damage assignment order is chosen, then any triggered effects go on the stack, and only then does the active player get priority to cast a spell.
No. That would give a player a target outlet for undesirable effects. I can't cite any specific cases where it would be beneficial, but I guarantee someone will break it. You'd have to rewrite entire sets of rules, and/or errata huge numbers of cards. You haven't thought this through very well.
People have been stacking lands for over 20 years. As you are in the almost immeasurably small minority in this matter, I think you should unbunch your undergarments and deal with it.
There's no bandwagon. People don't do it because other people do; they do it because it makes sense. Such behaviors started up independently in countless places at roughly the same time period with no influence on each other. I've been stacking land since 1994. Nobody taught me to. I do it because it makes sense and is efficient. There are different methods and ideas behind land stacks, but as long at the game state is clear, I cannot imagine any reason to have a problem with how my opponent arranges theirs. I personally keep my land in groups of up to 4, based on mana production color.
But I totally agree you about the card flicking thing...I have actually met people that started doing that simply because the observed others doing so.