note: i posted this on the mtgrules subreddit; it got zero answers. maybe some people here might be able to answer
-------------
these days, we have the Comprehensive Rules as the authority for Magic rules, and a Rules Manager (plus a community of rules enthusiasts) to make sure the rules are internally consistent. also, changes to the Comprehensive Rules are posted on the Wizard's official Magic website, so theoretically you could see the change made to the Comprehensive Rules, and possibly the reason for making the changes.
i'm curious about how long it's been like this.
a) for example, i know that in the 4th edition rulebook, spells resolved in first-in-last-out order (much like our contemporary stack), except that direct damage spells were always resolved last; so if i Giant Growth my Grizzly Bears, and you respond to my Giant Growth by casting Lightning Bolt on my Grizzly Bears, then the Lightning Bolt resolves last; my Grizzly Bears would live.
is it documented anywhere when they changed this rule (eg was it still true in 5th edition)? is it documented anywhere why they made this rule in the first place?
were changes to pre-6th edition rules actually made by an official party? did they post official changes to the rules? were the rulebooks that came in starter packs the most authoritative rules documentation, or was there a more official documentation? how were amendments to the rulebooks documented?
b) also for example, i vaguely remember someone saying that pre-6th edition rules were not complete nor internally consistent, and that there were boardstates in actual tournaments where rulings were up to the subjective opinions of whatever judge was at the tournament about what was "fair", because the rules themselves could not give a definite answer. is this true?
When I learned the rules about four years ago, abilities were objects that did not have colour. I assume that still is the case now.
So, suppose a red enchantment activates one of its activated abilities to deal damage to a Knight of Grace; now there is an ability on the stack, whose source is red. I then cast an instant that changes the colour of that enchantment to black. Is the ability from the (previously red) enchantment now an ability from a black source, or a red source? (And any supporting quotations from the comprehensive rules will be appreciated).
i love to block so well that my opponents basically cannot get through, and mill my opponents out in this way. so there is that style of format.
then there is the format you describe where attacking is favoured.
is there something in between? why do i have such fond memories of Battle for Zendikar draft and Khans of Tarkir draft?
and you know, i've been playing limitted less and less, too.
your (well written!) discussion on too-powerful threats and about curving out; it's not just relevant to spikes who feel rewarded for becoming more strategically better at the game. it's also relevant to casual johnny-timmies like myself who like to explore weird and varied experiences, and to goof around with the game.
(and for what it's worht, i had quit hearthstone after a month of playing, when it first came out, because drafting seemed to dependent on explosive draws. but then again, i was terrible at hearthstone; magic heuristics didn't trasnlate well for me there :P)
i actually do like formats where you could stonewal your opponent /if/ you drew right and drew your defensive spells at the right time. that is, if you get lucky, you get to shut off the creature duels. i loved this strategy in M12, which didn't work very often given how aggro M12 was, but M12 also didn't have many "grow P/T very high" mechanics or pump effects, such that a x/5 actually /would/ block most common creatures and almost definitely survive.
in other words, i do like the option of stonewalling as a /possibility/, instead of the default of "it's about creatures that duel" being the "always" state.
[however, having said that, wasn't 3xkhans often a boardstall format? or am i misremembering]
whoa, that's a /lot/ more ramp than i had realized! mixed with the card draw, and you make me hopeful that i could actually pull it off a few times in a tournament. thanks!
if i open Approach of the Second Sun, i'll want to play it. but i'm not interested in drafting an aggro deck. how can i build a white control deck and/or splash this card in a non-white contorl deck?
wow, that's a really good guess! some of you all are just so good at this.
-------------
these days, we have the Comprehensive Rules as the authority for Magic rules, and a Rules Manager (plus a community of rules enthusiasts) to make sure the rules are internally consistent. also, changes to the Comprehensive Rules are posted on the Wizard's official Magic website, so theoretically you could see the change made to the Comprehensive Rules, and possibly the reason for making the changes.
i'm curious about how long it's been like this.
a) for example, i know that in the 4th edition rulebook, spells resolved in first-in-last-out order (much like our contemporary stack), except that direct damage spells were always resolved last; so if i Giant Growth my Grizzly Bears, and you respond to my Giant Growth by casting Lightning Bolt on my Grizzly Bears, then the Lightning Bolt resolves last; my Grizzly Bears would live.
is it documented anywhere when they changed this rule (eg was it still true in 5th edition)? is it documented anywhere why they made this rule in the first place?
were changes to pre-6th edition rules actually made by an official party? did they post official changes to the rules? were the rulebooks that came in starter packs the most authoritative rules documentation, or was there a more official documentation? how were amendments to the rulebooks documented?
b) also for example, i vaguely remember someone saying that pre-6th edition rules were not complete nor internally consistent, and that there were boardstates in actual tournaments where rulings were up to the subjective opinions of whatever judge was at the tournament about what was "fair", because the rules themselves could not give a definite answer. is this true?
So, suppose a red enchantment activates one of its activated abilities to deal damage to a Knight of Grace; now there is an ability on the stack, whose source is red. I then cast an instant that changes the colour of that enchantment to black. Is the ability from the (previously red) enchantment now an ability from a black source, or a red source? (And any supporting quotations from the comprehensive rules will be appreciated).
Or, should the text instead say "the next time you would roll exactly one single-sided dice..."?
i feel stupid! what's the joke in this?
then there is the format you describe where attacking is favoured.
is there something in between? why do i have such fond memories of Battle for Zendikar draft and Khans of Tarkir draft?
your (well written!) discussion on too-powerful threats and about curving out; it's not just relevant to spikes who feel rewarded for becoming more strategically better at the game. it's also relevant to casual johnny-timmies like myself who like to explore weird and varied experiences, and to goof around with the game.
(and for what it's worht, i had quit hearthstone after a month of playing, when it first came out, because drafting seemed to dependent on explosive draws. but then again, i was terrible at hearthstone; magic heuristics didn't trasnlate well for me there :P)
in other words, i do like the option of stonewalling as a /possibility/, instead of the default of "it's about creatures that duel" being the "always" state.
[however, having said that, wasn't 3xkhans often a boardstall format? or am i misremembering]