Josh, after watching your actions on the video I would conclude that what happened was an intentional, and practiced cheat, and that your statements here are lies.
@zaphodava: I am confused by you post. More of it is FOR the rule changes than against.
Are you saying that the guy in the letter is an idiot? I am just not seeing it. You show why the changes are good, but don't rebuttal other than to say "You can laugh at me, but you are laughing at me for caring about the game."
You should read my post again. The usenet post is a 10 year old argument against the 6th edition changes. It wasn't listened to 10 years ago, and the 6th edition changes were the best thing that ever happened to the game. I'm pointing out that his arguments are exactly what Wizards is using to sell to us what is essentially changing them back.
Having a rulebook online is a great resource for players, but it doesn't sell cards to new people. Imagine walking into a store and being interested in Magic.
"Hey Mr. Salesperson! Which Magic product comes with a rulebook?"
"None. You can get one online though."
"Oh. How about that game Yugimon?"
"Here is a starter. Have fun." *ka-ching!*
After years of this type of sheer marketing failure, they have the gall to go "We are in aquisition mode! Let's change lots of stuff to be more friendly to new players!", and in the process damage the game.
I remember the 6th edition rules changes. I was there when other people were shouting doom. I read the rules, and thought they sounded pretty good, and waited to try them out. I particularly enjoyed the new interactions that 'damage on the stack' provided. Wizards sold it to all the players saying 'trust us, it's better this way'. In time, I found that the 6th edition changes were the best thing that ever happened to the game. Since then, I've become an avid player, (briefly) a pro tour competitor, and a level 2 judge.
Now 10 years later they are trying to sell me the opposite. They say we need to simplify to help attract new players. So I read the rules, and they sound horrible. This strikes me as funny... the company that wouldn't sell a RULEBOOK TO THE GAME for love or money wants to fundamentally change the game to attract new players.
Here is a cross post of one of my responses on the Wizards message board.
--------------------------------------
Proof positive that Wizards listens to their customers! It just takes 10 years.
Here is a repost of a Usenet comment from the time period of the 6th edition rules changes. His points were not particularly valid then, and 10 years of ripening haven't made them any better.
---------------------------------
An Open Letter to Bill Rose
Dear Bill,
Since you are soliciting only questions and not suggestions from those
of us who know the game best, I'll start with one of those.
How is First Strike going to work under the new Stack rule?
Now, I need to address an issue which must be rectified AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. I had originally resigned myself to just taking the 6th
edition changes and living with them, since I know you will never go
back. But one of those changes if very harmful to the game.
Although many of us play the game for intellectual stimulation, an even
bigger part of the mass appeal is the roleplaying aspect. To some
extent or other we, the players, imagine ourselves as Mages, casting
spell, leading armies. The cards work together to facilitate this
fantasy. I can imagine myself summoning creatures to myself, burning
opposing creatures, I can picture my pikemen expertly cutting down ball
lightning before it reaches me, or a Force of Nature pounding the hell
out of my knights on its way to crush me.
That is the game's biggest appeal. We believe that what we do with the
cards could actually happen.
Unfortunately, one of the 6th edition rules is:
Because there's no damage-prevention step in
Classic, the combat damage isn't dealt
immediately--instead, it goes on the stack. Players may
then play spells and abilities as usual. Nothing that
happens to the attacking and blocking creatures can affect
damage that's on the stack waiting to be dealt. When the
stack reaches the combat damage, it's dealt according to
the earlier damage announcements, even if one or more of
the creatures in combat are no longer in play.
Bill, if you or anyone you love pays attention to the newsgroups you
would know that none of us can come up with any kind of reasonable
explanation for how this could happen in the real world.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. If players are no longer playing a
"realistic" game, but one based on arbitrary rules which have no basis
in the real world, then many will lose interest. How long would you
play D&D with a DM who says: "Well you killed the monsters and managed
to not get hit at all, but you die." "Why? Nothing happened to me."
"So, nothing has to happen, it's not reality. This is just a game and I
say you die."?
We can relearn the rules, but when you take away Magic's basis in
fantasy-reality you attack what the game is at its core.
I know WHY you made this rule: because of your Grand Unified Theory of
Timing. I understand that, but there is a simple way to fix this.
All you have to do is add the stipulation that "during the combat damage
batch only damage prevention/redirection or regenerating spells and
abilities may be played."
That's all it takes! It can not be too late to make this simple fix
(you were still editing the rulebook on the 15th).
I urge all players who agree with me to e-mail Bill Rose at
custs...@wizards.com and tell him how you feel.
But only on this issue! There are many things wrong with Wizards way of
handling 6th edition, but we need to choose our fights or we will not
win any of them. Insist on them fixing the damage resolution step of
combat.
Bill Rose can and probably will ignore me, but he can not ignore US. We
are the ones who buy his product by the box and support the tournament
scene and the secondary market (which does net Wizards a lot of money).
We are the ones who will ultimately determine if Magic stays strong or
goes the way of Spellfire.
Ti Alan Chase
--------------------------------------
How could it happen in the real world? Magic.
Note to those laughing at us for being upset: Magic has been a big part of my life. I love the game enough to spend countless dollars on it, and countless hours promoting the game and running events. You can laugh at me, but you are laughing at me for caring about the game.
The worst part about this is that the change of adding new cards to the base set is a brilliant move. M10 will sell much better than recent base sets, and they will say "See? The changes are good!", when in reality leaving combat alone would net even larger sales.
Ready for the really funny part? Wizards has attacked our game and dealt damage, and no matter how hard we try, we really can't respond.
Here is the glossary entry on X from the Comprehensive rules
X
Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value.
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value.
If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities."
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value.
If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost.
If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.
In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.
This seems to make it clear that X will be 0. Not a combo, nothing to see here. Move along.
You should read my post again. The usenet post is a 10 year old argument against the 6th edition changes. It wasn't listened to 10 years ago, and the 6th edition changes were the best thing that ever happened to the game. I'm pointing out that his arguments are exactly what Wizards is using to sell to us what is essentially changing them back.
Having a rulebook online is a great resource for players, but it doesn't sell cards to new people. Imagine walking into a store and being interested in Magic.
"Hey Mr. Salesperson! Which Magic product comes with a rulebook?"
"None. You can get one online though."
"Oh. How about that game Yugimon?"
"Here is a starter. Have fun." *ka-ching!*
After years of this type of sheer marketing failure, they have the gall to go "We are in aquisition mode! Let's change lots of stuff to be more friendly to new players!", and in the process damage the game.
Now 10 years later they are trying to sell me the opposite. They say we need to simplify to help attract new players. So I read the rules, and they sound horrible. This strikes me as funny... the company that wouldn't sell a RULEBOOK TO THE GAME for love or money wants to fundamentally change the game to attract new players.
Here is a cross post of one of my responses on the Wizards message board.
--------------------------------------
Proof positive that Wizards listens to their customers! It just takes 10 years.
Here is a repost of a Usenet comment from the time period of the 6th edition rules changes. His points were not particularly valid then, and 10 years of ripening haven't made them any better.
---------------------------------
An Open Letter to Bill Rose
Dear Bill,
Since you are soliciting only questions and not suggestions from those
of us who know the game best, I'll start with one of those.
How is First Strike going to work under the new Stack rule?
Now, I need to address an issue which must be rectified AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. I had originally resigned myself to just taking the 6th
edition changes and living with them, since I know you will never go
back. But one of those changes if very harmful to the game.
Although many of us play the game for intellectual stimulation, an even
bigger part of the mass appeal is the roleplaying aspect. To some
extent or other we, the players, imagine ourselves as Mages, casting
spell, leading armies. The cards work together to facilitate this
fantasy. I can imagine myself summoning creatures to myself, burning
opposing creatures, I can picture my pikemen expertly cutting down ball
lightning before it reaches me, or a Force of Nature pounding the hell
out of my knights on its way to crush me.
That is the game's biggest appeal. We believe that what we do with the
cards could actually happen.
Unfortunately, one of the 6th edition rules is:
Because there's no damage-prevention step in
Classic, the combat damage isn't dealt
immediately--instead, it goes on the stack. Players may
then play spells and abilities as usual. Nothing that
happens to the attacking and blocking creatures can affect
damage that's on the stack waiting to be dealt. When the
stack reaches the combat damage, it's dealt according to
the earlier damage announcements, even if one or more of
the creatures in combat are no longer in play.
Bill, if you or anyone you love pays attention to the newsgroups you
would know that none of us can come up with any kind of reasonable
explanation for how this could happen in the real world.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. If players are no longer playing a
"realistic" game, but one based on arbitrary rules which have no basis
in the real world, then many will lose interest. How long would you
play D&D with a DM who says: "Well you killed the monsters and managed
to not get hit at all, but you die." "Why? Nothing happened to me."
"So, nothing has to happen, it's not reality. This is just a game and I
say you die."?
We can relearn the rules, but when you take away Magic's basis in
fantasy-reality you attack what the game is at its core.
I know WHY you made this rule: because of your Grand Unified Theory of
Timing. I understand that, but there is a simple way to fix this.
All you have to do is add the stipulation that "during the combat damage
batch only damage prevention/redirection or regenerating spells and
abilities may be played."
That's all it takes! It can not be too late to make this simple fix
(you were still editing the rulebook on the 15th).
I urge all players who agree with me to e-mail Bill Rose at
custs...@wizards.com and tell him how you feel.
But only on this issue! There are many things wrong with Wizards way of
handling 6th edition, but we need to choose our fights or we will not
win any of them. Insist on them fixing the damage resolution step of
combat.
Bill Rose can and probably will ignore me, but he can not ignore US. We
are the ones who buy his product by the box and support the tournament
scene and the secondary market (which does net Wizards a lot of money).
We are the ones who will ultimately determine if Magic stays strong or
goes the way of Spellfire.
Ti Alan Chase
--------------------------------------
How could it happen in the real world? Magic.
Note to those laughing at us for being upset: Magic has been a big part of my life. I love the game enough to spend countless dollars on it, and countless hours promoting the game and running events. You can laugh at me, but you are laughing at me for caring about the game.
The worst part about this is that the change of adding new cards to the base set is a brilliant move. M10 will sell much better than recent base sets, and they will say "See? The changes are good!", when in reality leaving combat alone would net even larger sales.
Ready for the really funny part? Wizards has attacked our game and dealt damage, and no matter how hard we try, we really can't respond.
X
Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value.
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value.
If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities."
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value.
If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost.
If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.
In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.
This seems to make it clear that X will be 0. Not a combo, nothing to see here. Move along.