Major Rules Changes Announced!!!

[Vegeta2711]

What is WRONG with these new rules other than "But I totally understood the old rules better than my noob opponents!"

The new combat damage rules effectively nerf huge swaths of bounce, pump and sacrifice effects. For formats where combat is the mainstay (Hello Limited, only the most popular format!) they've just devolved a portion of combat and invalidated a bunch of cards from seeing play. That isn't understanding the rules better than the opp. (although it can be), it's removing options and some amount of subtlety from the attack step. No matter how good or bad you are, cards like Nantuko Husk and Putrid Leech just got miles worse because not only does their ability get weaker but it telegraphs what they have to do with it.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I feel the rest of the rules changes aren't that big of a deal (although Deathtouch mod is way more complicated than they had hoped) and I get steamlining the game is good. Damage Stacking though was not a big issue and was hardly complicated once you saw it happen a few times and knew how to read.

[Matt]

What doesn't make sense is when your dead elf then taps for 1 mana, allowing you to cast giant growth on himself, and he somehow survives.  Understanding the latter is much harder to a new player.

Is there some reason you can't do this under the new rules? Just play GG during 'declare blockers'...?

Also, if it had never existed, every single one of you would think the idea of mana burn was completely insane. Just sayin'.

[Diakonov]

I think the "blockers line up" concept might actually make things interesting.  Suddenly, toughness is more relevant than it used to be.  

Also, I think as far as flavor goes it kind of makes sense.  On a battlefield, attackers are purportedly going right for the opponent, charging through.  It is the job of the blockers to get in their way, and a big tough guy is going to be the first one in the line of defense.  If the attacker gets through the "front line," he then has to face down the next blocker, and so on.

Someone else also mentioned that this would make walls much better, which is probably a good thing.  Previously they needed to have some outstanding ability or ridiculously cheap cost to even be considered playable.  Now you can line one up alongside a creature and it's like throwing a bunch of extra toughness on him.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I think the "blockers line up" concept might actually make things interesting.  Suddenly, toughness is more relevant than it used to be.  

Also, I think as far as flavor goes it kind of makes sense.  On a battlefield, attackers are purportedly going right for the opponent, charging through.  It is the job of the blockers to get in their way, and a big tough guy is going to be the first one in the line of defense.  If the attacker gets through the "front line," he then has to face down the next blocker, and so on.

Someone else also mentioned that this would make walls much better, which is probably a good thing.  Previously they needed to have some outstanding ability or ridiculously cheap cost to even be considered playable.  Now you can line one up alongside a creature and it's like throwing a bunch of extra toughness on him.

How are walls better and how does your creature randomly beelining through a gauntlet without the option to retreat make sense?

[Sam101]

I think the "blockers line up" concept might actually make things interesting.  Suddenly, toughness is more relevant than it used to be.  

Also, I think as far as flavor goes it kind of makes sense.  On a battlefield, attackers are purportedly going right for the opponent, charging through.  It is the job of the blockers to get in their way, and a big tough guy is going to be the first one in the line of defense.  If the attacker gets through the "front line," he then has to face down the next blocker, and so on.

Someone else also mentioned that this would make walls much better, which is probably a good thing.  Previously they needed to have some outstanding ability or ridiculously cheap cost to even be considered playable.  Now you can line one up alongside a creature and it's like throwing a bunch of extra toughness on him.

I don't think you understand.  The attacking player chooses the line up for blockers.  So the attacking player can choose to put your creature first and your wall second, thereby killing the creature.  Having a wall doesn't "throw a bunch of extra toughness on him."

Sam

[sundering jerk]

Why not just print more sets of portal if you want to make a game for idiots who can't handle a concept like the stack.
Then they can say they'll never ever make that new portal set legal, wait for their associates to buy up cards like imperial seal then make it legal and profit. It worked once.

Wizards doesn't give a crap about old players who like the game the way it is, the know these nerd cards are like crack and we'll keep buying them cause now its a habit. They just wanna get more little kids who can't understand how things like burn work to buy more packs and be more able to play with big kids. Why else would they switch to YuGiO terminology. F you WOTC. Thanks for watering down my game for your own profit.

This makes blue suck again since you can't stack and bounce which was one of my favorite things. Why not make blue for smart people and make red for morons who only wanna burn and swing without care.

The formats that are actually hurt by this is vintage and legacy. But since they don't make any money off those formats they don't care.
Wishes, stax decks, combo decks, mana drain, memory jar, and ect are what this jerks around.

Sorry for ranting. WOTC just boils my piss with how much they shit on us. If they were smart at all they would make money off us by actually catering to our needs, and helping our formats, but they are to aweful at business for that.

[Diakonov]

I think the "blockers line up" concept might actually make things interesting.  Suddenly, toughness is more relevant than it used to be.  

Also, I think as far as flavor goes it kind of makes sense.  On a battlefield, attackers are purportedly going right for the opponent, charging through.  It is the job of the blockers to get in their way, and a big tough guy is going to be the first one in the line of defense.  If the attacker gets through the "front line," he then has to face down the next blocker, and so on.

Someone else also mentioned that this would make walls much better, which is probably a good thing.  Previously they needed to have some outstanding ability or ridiculously cheap cost to even be considered playable.  Now you can line one up alongside a creature and it's like throwing a bunch of extra toughness on him.

I don't think you understand.  The attacking player chooses the line up for blockers.  So the attacking player can choose to put your creature first and your wall second, thereby killing the creature.  Having a wall doesn't "throw a bunch of extra toughness on him."

Sam

Ahh...I have not read those rules in detail.  I just assumed that's what they meant.  Nevermind then.

[patat]

What doesn't make sense is when your dead elf then taps for 1 mana, allowing you to cast giant growth on himself, and he somehow survives.  Understanding the latter is much harder to a new player.

Is there some reason you can't do this under the new rules? Just play GG during 'declare blockers'...?

Your elf would survive, but he's tapped and can't deal damage.. if you have no G mana up of course. =P

And @ Moxlotus and M.Solymossy:

Don't get me wrong, I love mana burn.  I think it adds another great element to the game.  I think that removing it is much less confusing in a rules sense, and even though it changes the way some cards interact, it doesn't quite simplify things. In fact, it opens many play possibilities.  Ever been low on life and up against a wall wishing you could play drain off that lotus and not burn? That might have previously discouraged you in a sligh matchup.

It makes it easier to play certain cards, and it may cut off many cards functions, but it also opens up other facets of the game.  I'm sad to see mana burn go, because it does make things more calculated and precise, but a good player doesn't want to waste resources anyways, right?

[oneofchaos]

What doesn't make sense is when your dead elf then taps for 1 mana, allowing you to cast giant growth on himself, and he somehow survives.  Understanding the latter is much harder to a new player.

Is there some reason you can't do this under the new rules? Just play GG during 'declare blockers'...?

Your elf would survive, but he's tapped and can't deal damage.. if you have no G mana up of course. =P

And @ Moxlotus and M.Solymossy:

Don't get me wrong, I love mana burn.  I think it adds another great element to the game.  I think that removing it is much less confusing in a rules sense, and even though it changes the way some cards interact, it doesn't quite simplify things. In fact, it opens many play possibilities.  Ever been low on life and up against a wall wishing you could play drain off that lotus and not burn? That might have previously discouraged you in a sligh matchup.

It makes it easier to play certain cards, and it may cut off many cards functions, but it also opens up other facets of the game.  I'm sad to see mana burn go, because it does make things more calculated and precise, but a good player doesn't want to waste resources anyways, right?

Drains just got soooo much better vs stax.  Drain your titan, I'll let me mana go away go.  Drains are now strictly superior to counterspell. 

[Blue Lotus]

Drains just got soooo much better vs stax.  Drain your titan, I'll let me mana go away go.  Drains are now strictly superior to counterspell. 

I don't think it was any trouble to discern which was better before

[Matt]

What doesn't make sense is when your dead elf then taps for 1 mana, allowing you to cast giant growth on himself, and he somehow survives.  Understanding the latter is much harder to a new player.

Is there some reason you can't do this under the new rules? Just play GG during 'declare blockers'...?

Your elf would survive, but he's tapped and can't deal damage.. if you have no G mana up of course. =P

Except that tapped blockers still deal damage, as they have since 1998.

The main difference, as I eventually figured out (read somewhere), is that if the non-elf player has removal, he can get a 2-for-1. Under the old rules, the elf player could wait for damage to go on the stack before casting GG, in which case the opposing removal only turns a 1-1 trade into 2-2 (the small non-elf is going to die for sure, and the GG is lost for sure, the question is whether the Bolt is worth the Elf). So there's some diminishment, yes, but the specific GG+elf situation still works the same, absent the removal.

[brainiac7]

I'm certain many of you haven't played around with the new rules for very long and are just knee-jerking off your opinions!

Seriously, there are still a lot of complicated interactions within the game and this mild dumbing down of the game, if you feel that way, isn't
going to ruin your enjoyment of the game. The game overall at this point in it's development is much more complicated due to complexity creep than 15 years ago and so removing some largely irrelevant and marginally interesting aspects is a good move.

Due to the huge number of cards in the game, what will happen to the nerfed cards that have suddenly become unplayable will now be replaced with another card out of the many hundreds that are available. There are some new constraints placed on making your decks and that's not a big deal at all. In fact, it's a new and interesting challenge which is one of the main reasons to play this game.

The game is still fun, interesting and challenging with the new rules. Give them a chance, you just might find that you like them better than pre-M10 rules.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I'm certain many of you haven't played around with the new rules for very long and are just knee-jerking off your opinions!

Seriously, there are still a lot of complicated interactions within the game and this mild dumbing down of the game, if you feel that way, isn't
going to ruin your enjoyment of the game. The game overall at this point in it's development is much more complicated due to complexity creep than 15 years ago and so removing some largely irrelevant and marginally interesting aspects is a good move.

Due to the huge number of cards in the game, what will happen to the nerfed cards that have suddenly become unplayable will now be replaced with another card out of the many hundreds that are available. There are some new constraints placed on making your decks and that's not a big deal at all. In fact, it's a new and interesting challenge which is one of the main reasons to play this game.

The game is still fun, interesting and challenging with the new rules. Give them a chance, you just might find that you like them better than pre-M10 rules.

They didn't add anything new or interesting. There are no "replacements". All they did was take out some good stuff because idiots were getting confused. Its not like "new strategies" are going to emerge or anything like that as a result of these changes. Board sweepers are worse, burn is worse, creatures with abilities are worse, wishes are dead, bounce is worse, stuff that adds obnoxiously large amounts of mana is better (not a good thing). Combat tricks and mana burn is nowhere near irrelevant and those "marginally interesting aspects" were just replaced with shit that doesn't make any sense at all. I still don't see why the fuck all creatures now simultaneoulsy chopping each other's heads off during the combat damage step is anything short of retarded. I'm pretty much never going to play Limited again because the only reason I played it was for the interactive combat phase that doesn't happen often in Eternal. So I'd say yes it did ruin an aspect of my enjoyment of the game.

There is absolutely no way anyone will like these new rules better than the old rules. (I'm not counting keywords as "rules" because they're really just replacing lots of words with one word.) They will either have no impact on a person or be worse for their overall enjoyment. For something to be more enjoyable you either need to remove something bad or add something good. They did niether. They could have at least nerfed Vault if they were going to go apeshit on the rules. :/

[GrandpaBelcher]

I'm glad for the new rules.

We have to remember that casual players aren't a subgroup; they're actually the majority.  Wizards isn't pandering to the people who don't understand or don't care about the game.  They're giving new players an easier opportunity to learn the game, become more involved, and (most importantly) to buy packs.  Yes, of course this is all about the money, but that's a good thing for everyone.  If more people learn and enjoy the game, they are more likely to become long-term Magic players.  As a result, there will be more, bigger tournaments in every format.  In the end, that's all I really care about too.  I enjoy playing Magic.  I want to play Vintage every night after work, or at least a couple weekends a month, and more opponents means that's more likely to happen.  Those of you threatening to sell your cards and quit the game forever, okay; sorry to see you go.  You'll be replaced by new players who found the rules simple enough to learn but still strategically satisfying.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I'm glad for the new rules.

We have to remember that casual players aren't a subgroup; they're actually the majority.  Wizards isn't pandering to the people who don't understand or don't care about the game.  They're giving new players an easier opportunity to learn the game, become more involved, and (most importantly) to buy packs.  Yes, of course this is all about the money, but that's a good thing for everyone.  If more people learn and enjoy the game, they are more likely to become long-term Magic players.  As a result, there will be more, bigger tournaments in every format.  In the end, that's all I really care about too.  I enjoy playing Magic.  I want to play Vintage every night after work, or at least a couple weekends a month, and more opponents means that's more likely to happen.  Those of you threatening to sell your cards and quit the game forever, okay; sorry to see you go.  You'll be replaced by new players who found the rules simple enough to learn but still strategically satisfying.

How many people do you honestly think aren't willing to play MTG competatively or buy more packs because combat damage uses the stack? I honestly don't think it is even close to a relevant amount. I don't think anyone would be against these changes if there was a huge influx of players, especially in Vintage. The problem is that it probably won't do anything but piss off some people and cause a lot of talk. Its not like they made this game significantly easier to learn. All they did was change "everything uses the stack except mana sources and lands" to "only spells and non-mana abilities use the stack". Not exactly a big difference in how much you need to remember. Actually you need to remember more because now you have to know how to block rather than just assigning damage however you want to among creatures. Thats likely harder to remember than "and lose one life for each mana removed." Not to mention you need to remember to empty your mana pool more often. They didn't really end up doing anything except taking out some arguably fun elements. If somebody is going to go to the great lengths to learn everything else about MTG (most of which is significantly more complicated than what they took out) they're not going to say "fuck this combat damage using the stack is stupid I'm not learning this dumb game".

God forbid a new player reads any card pre-10th and sees "remove from the game."

[wjcuttler]

I'm glad for the new rules.

We have to remember that casual players aren't a subgroup; they're actually the majority.  Wizards isn't pandering to the people who don't understand or don't care about the game.  They're giving new players an easier opportunity to learn the game, become more involved, and (most importantly) to buy packs.  Yes, of course this is all about the money, but that's a good thing for everyone.  If more people learn and enjoy the game, they are more likely to become long-term Magic players.  As a result, there will be more, bigger tournaments in every format.  In the end, that's all I really care about too.  I enjoy playing Magic.  I want to play Vintage every night after work, or at least a couple weekends a month, and more opponents means that's more likely to happen.  Those of you threatening to sell your cards and quit the game forever, okay; sorry to see you go.  You'll be replaced by new players who found the rules simple enough to learn but still strategically satisfying.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement.
I remember not so long ago when just about everyone was complaining that tournament attendance was down and vintage was dying.
Alot of people on here said that not enough new players were entering the format to compensate the loss of others leaving the format.
The reasoning in the highlighted section above is very sound.

[TracerBullet]

I'm glad for the new rules.

We have to remember that casual players aren't a subgroup; they're actually the majority.  Wizards isn't pandering to the people who don't understand or don't care about the game.  They're giving new players an easier opportunity to learn the game, become more involved, and (most importantly) to buy packs.  Yes, of course this is all about the money, but that's a good thing for everyone.  If more people learn and enjoy the game, they are more likely to become long-term Magic players.  As a result, there will be more, bigger tournaments in every format.  In the end, that's all I really care about too.  I enjoy playing Magic.  I want to play Vintage every night after work, or at least a couple weekends a month, and more opponents means that's more likely to happen.  Those of you threatening to sell your cards and quit the game forever, okay; sorry to see you go.  You'll be replaced by new players who found the rules simple enough to learn but still strategically satisfying.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement.
I remember not so long ago when just about everyone was complaining that tournament attendance was down and vintage was dying.
Alot of people on here said that not enough new players were entering the format to compensate the loss of others leaving the format.
The reasoning in the highlighted section above is very sound.

If you believe that removing combat tricks and mana burn were the reasons that Magic's playerbase is declining, then I've got some Florida land I want to sell you.  The reason behind Magic's decline is demographics, and the quite simple fact that it's an aging medium with an aging player base.

Moreover, you're assuming that the people who Magic needs to support itself long-term are the same people who would support/need these rules changes.  Hell, you're assuming that the people who need these rules changes will even KNOW that the rules have been changed!  I would argue that the more casual a player is, the less likely they are to know these rules existed in the first place, and the less likely they are to notice that they've been changed in their favor.  If we're talking about people who are less likely to know and less likely to care, WHY change the rules to cater to them?


It's nearly the same issue as changing the cardface a couple years back; you're trying to make yourself more appealing to a younger crowd with less desire for complexity.  Unfortunately, in doing so, you're also alienating your existing player base and diluting the product to which they became hooked years ago.  Will it be Semenmans "Chicken Little" scenario?  Probably not.  Does it help?  Certainly not.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I'm glad for the new rules.

We have to remember that casual players aren't a subgroup; they're actually the majority.  Wizards isn't pandering to the people who don't understand or don't care about the game.  They're giving new players an easier opportunity to learn the game, become more involved, and (most importantly) to buy packs.  Yes, of course this is all about the money, but that's a good thing for everyone.  If more people learn and enjoy the game, they are more likely to become long-term Magic players.  As a result, there will be more, bigger tournaments in every format.  In the end, that's all I really care about too.  I enjoy playing Magic.  I want to play Vintage every night after work, or at least a couple weekends a month, and more opponents means that's more likely to happen.  Those of you threatening to sell your cards and quit the game forever, okay; sorry to see you go.  You'll be replaced by new players who found the rules simple enough to learn but still strategically satisfying.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement.
I remember not so long ago when just about everyone was complaining that tournament attendance was down and vintage was dying.
Alot of people on here said that not enough new players were entering the format to compensate the loss of others leaving the format.
The reasoning in the highlighted section above is very sound.

If you believe that removing combat tricks and mana burn were the reasons that Magic's playerbase is declining, then I've got some Florida land I want to sell you.  The reason behind Magic's decline is demographics, and the quite simple fact that it's an aging medium with an aging player base.

Moreover, you're assuming that the people who Magic needs to support itself long-term are the same people who would support/need these rules changes.  Hell, you're assuming that the people who need these rules changes will even KNOW that the rules have been changed!  I would argue that the more casual a player is, the less likely they are to know these rules existed in the first place, and the less likely they are to notice that they've been changed in their favor.  If we're talking about people who are less likely to know and less likely to care, WHY change the rules to cater to them?


It's nearly the same issue as changing the cardface a couple years back; you're trying to make yourself more appealing to a younger crowd with less desire for complexity.  Unfortunately, in doing so, you're also alienating your existing player base and diluting the product to which they became hooked years ago.  Will it be Semenmans "Chicken Little" scenario?  Probably not.  Does it help?  Certainly not.

I'm saying that these rules are there to make it easier for new players to learn the game.  Whether they're going to play at the kitchen table, their local game store, or the top 8 of a Pro Tour doesn't make any difference.  This exactly answers that aging player-base problem.  And Wizards isn't alienating the existing player base because the reasonable ones will get over it and continue playing anyway.  Even you called these players "hooked years ago."  I remember when the new card face was introduced that I swore I'd never buy any cards from the newly formatted sets, yet here I am, still playing and still buying cards.  It will be the same thing with the rules.  Yes, the rules and strategies you were used to for combat are gone.  Now you get to develop and learn entirely new strategies under the new system.  And because Wizards will make and sell more cards to the new players who discover the game under the new rules, soon there will be 1,000s of new cards that improve and accent the new strategies.

[TracerBullet]

I'm glad for the new rules.

We have to remember that casual players aren't a subgroup; they're actually the majority.  Wizards isn't pandering to the people who don't understand or don't care about the game.  They're giving new players an easier opportunity to learn the game, become more involved, and (most importantly) to buy packs.  Yes, of course this is all about the money, but that's a good thing for everyone.  If more people learn and enjoy the game, they are more likely to become long-term Magic players.  As a result, there will be more, bigger tournaments in every format.  In the end, that's all I really care about too.  I enjoy playing Magic.  I want to play Vintage every night after work, or at least a couple weekends a month, and more opponents means that's more likely to happen.  Those of you threatening to sell your cards and quit the game forever, okay; sorry to see you go.  You'll be replaced by new players who found the rules simple enough to learn but still strategically satisfying.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement.
I remember not so long ago when just about everyone was complaining that tournament attendance was down and vintage was dying.
Alot of people on here said that not enough new players were entering the format to compensate the loss of others leaving the format.
The reasoning in the highlighted section above is very sound.

If you believe that removing combat tricks and mana burn were the reasons that Magic's playerbase is declining, then I've got some Florida land I want to sell you.  The reason behind Magic's decline is demographics, and the quite simple fact that it's an aging medium with an aging player base.

Moreover, you're assuming that the people who Magic needs to support itself long-term are the same people who would support/need these rules changes.  Hell, you're assuming that the people who need these rules changes will even KNOW that the rules have been changed!  I would argue that the more casual a player is, the less likely they are to know these rules existed in the first place, and the less likely they are to notice that they've been changed in their favor.  If we're talking about people who are less likely to know and less likely to care, WHY change the rules to cater to them?


It's nearly the same issue as changing the cardface a couple years back; you're trying to make yourself more appealing to a younger crowd with less desire for complexity.  Unfortunately, in doing so, you're also alienating your existing player base and diluting the product to which they became hooked years ago.  Will it be Semenmans "Chicken Little" scenario?  Probably not.  Does it help?  Certainly not.

I'm saying that these rules are there to make it easier for new players to learn the game.  Whether they're going to play at the kitchen table, their local game store, or the top 8 of a Pro Tour doesn't make any difference.  This exactly answers that aging player-base problem.  And Wizards isn't alienating the existing player base because the reasonable ones will get over it and continue playing anyway.  Even you called these players "hooked years ago."  I remember when the new card face was introduced that I swore I'd never buy any cards from the newly formatted sets, yet here I am, still playing and still buying cards.  It will be the same thing with the rules.  Yes, the rules and strategies you were used to for combat are gone.  Now you get to develop and learn entirely new strategies under the new system.  And because Wizards will make and sell more cards to the new players who discover the game under the new rules, soon there will be 1,000s of new cards that improve and accent the new strategies.

But do you really think, in the whole HISTORY of Magic, there has been a single player who said "Well, I kinda like this game, but that whole mana burn thing is just too much for me..."


It's a complexity that adds to the richness and flavor of the game.  It's a rule that forces foresight and paying attention to one's resources in a flavorful and real-world like way.  Resource management is a very basic tenet in every strategy game; Chess has pawns, Risk has men, Starcraft has resources, and ALL of these things are far more complex than simply counting one's resources and seeing the drawbacks to cards that generate too much mana. 

[Vegeta2711]

And Wizards isn't alienating the existing player base because the reasonable ones will get over it and continue playing anyway.

Nice blanket absolute there. Always what I want to see on the other side of an argument to confirm it isn't worth taking much time to explain,  since they apparently aren't paying attention anyway. :/

[hitman]

I've tried not to say anything about the changes until I'd thought about them for a while but I have to say that I really dislike the direction Wizards is going in.  When I first heard about the changes, I was infuriated.  I don't know the reasons everyone else plays but I actually play Magic specifically because I like the rules and the stack.  I think they're well thought out and elegant.  I couldn't care less about the flavor of the game.  I play Magic because the rules are (were) excellent.

Limited has become my favorite format for the last year to year-and-a-half and these changes have killed what I loved about the format.  I'm absolutely serious.  I loved the stack interactions in combat.  They just took my reason to play limited away. 

Taking mana burn away is asinine.  I really don't care if it makes sense to people flavor-wise.  Tracer Bullet expressed how I feel about that very well.  Instead of a game about resource management, they're shifting it (whether slightly or not) to become more sloppy and user friendly to adolescents. 

Giving new juvenile names to zones makes me embarrassed to play this game in public.  I've heard comparisons to other games and that's what it feels like.  Now, I feel like I'm playing one of those other card games little kids play. 

You can make the argument that we'll all just adapt and like what they give us but as far as I'm concerned, the changes are a negative.  I'm sure the game will continue to be fun but a diminished fun to me.  I know I won't be playing any formats that revolve around the combat step any time soon. 

Why are we copying failing models anyway?  The other card games aren't nearly as successful as Magic.  Why would we simplify our model to potentially attract people who don't play Magic or any of the dumbed down games already out there?  Did they do any research whatsoever before they made these changes?  Every response I've seen personally and locally in my area has been negative. 

As far as rules are concerned, why do we care what casual players think anyway?  Who cares if they're the majority of players.  Casual players play by their own rules.  They don't come to tournaments because they prefer to play with their friends.  They don't want to travel or spend the money.  They play inefficient, win-more combos.  These changes aren't going to attract these kinds of players to tournament play. 

I really wish Wizards and the DCI would stop trying to fix things because they keep making me want to quit the game.  That's not to say that I plan on quitting but if they continue this trend, I won't be playing for long.  For all you hopefuls out there, you don't have anything resembling a guarantee that these changes will attract a significant amount of players so it may be out of line to just brush off the players who have been playing for years and supporting Wizards just to hear how easily they'll be replaced by new players wherever and whenever they come along. 

[coldcrow]

[...] And because Wizards will make and sell more cards to the new players who discover the game under the new rules, soon there will be 1,000s of new cards that improve and accent the new strategies.

Exactly. That is one of the real reasons for these changes. Changing the game rules to provide new design space. That is why I am a bit angry at the official explanation because it is the usual marketing bullcrap. But actually that is to be expected of a quite large company owned by an even larger one.

I won't even comment on how I dislike those changes.

[Noah]

This is just me but the ONLY rules change I have a real problem with is the loss of Stacking Damage in combat. All the Wizards personnel who say "Stacking Combat Damage isn't flavorful" is just horse shit. I've been playing for quite a while and have taught many people how to play magic at a competitive level. Sure the stack was hard to teach but the hardest part of the stack they couldn't understand at first was putting, ordering and resolving abilities and spells not combat damage. Here's how I would explain combat using the stack to I guess "my students" with very clear flavor behind the "Damage on the Stack" phase: (this explanation will be completely flavored to show you a full combat step in the land of Magic the Gathering, enjoy!)

Scenario - How Mogg Fanatics should be able to kill a Grizzly Bear: (a major usage of Stacking Damage)

I am an all mighty Planeswalker seeking battle against another Planeswalker who threatens my land.

To start my the first wave of attacks, I summon my battalion of Mogg Fanatics who are ambushed by my opponents Grizzly Bear pack. (Declare Attackers and Blockers)

During the battle, my Mogg Fanatics are dealt fatal injuries while the defending Bears barely survive. (Assigning Damage)

While suffering, I order the Fanatics to use their self-destruct ability (sac: deal 1 damage to something) to try and finish off the Grizzlies so they perish aswell. (Damage on the Stack)

My apposing Planeswalker sees the order I have given the Fanatics and trys to think of something to save his Grizzly Bears before they share the same fate. (Opponent being able to respond to the Fanatics ability during Damage on the Stack)

Fortunately for me, he has run out of Mana and is unable to save his Bears from the Fanatics kamikaze final blow. (Ability resolving while Damage still on the Stack)

Finally the Grizzlies die due to the initial attack and finishing attack of the Mogg Fanatics. (Damage resolving)


Quick Scenario 2 - How Unsummoning your attacker with damage on and the blocker still dieing should work flavorfully as well.

- I attack with a Hill Giant
- Opponent blocks with Hill Giant
- We both put damage on the Stack
- While both creatures are suffering from their fatal wounds, I cast unsummon returning my Hill Giant to my hand to aid his wounds so he eventually recovers and survives.
- Opponent has nothing and watches his Hill Giant bleed to death from his wounds. (Damage Resolving)

The world of Magic is a Mythical place with Dragons breathing fire, Humans wielding swords and Elves shooting Arrows etc. Unless every kind of weapon in Magic kills you instantly (cards with split second), you'll usually be able to do one final attack (an ability) or have your commanding Planeswalker heal you before you actually die from your wounds. To me, assigning damage is when the creatures actually deal their damage. Actually putting the damage on the stack is the window of opportunity where the creatures controllers can heal their creatures wounds before they actually die after damage resolves. Using damage on the stack makes combat more realistic and believable in my opinion.

The way the rule is after M10, combat is like 2 or more creature being shot in the head simultaneously with a shotgun at point blank range. There is no time to actually save/heal your creature(s) without potentially getting blown out by your opponents removal spell (before damage). This will make limited a lot less complicated and skill intensive because Wizards is extracting an entire Phase from the Step and not replacing it with anything. It also ups the value of the already favored combat trick - targeted Removal, and greatly devalues the already less favored tricks - Pump/Protection spells. Actually, Pump spells might not even be playable in limited anymore because of this.

I will be attending GP Boston and will test out the new rules and see if they will be bearable. If I get blown out and get 2 for 1ed too many times because I couldn't stack damage, I'll probably be limiting my Magic play to mainly Eternal formats where only the Mana Burn rules changes will mainly only apply (not a big deal). Although this will make aggressive strategies not as appetizing unfortunately but that's another story I don't have time for.

I'd like to hear your opinions on my argument. Noah Long

[Troy_Costisick]

This is just me but the ONLY rules change I have a real problem with is the loss of Stacking Damage in combat. All the Wizards personnel who say "Stacking Combat Damage isn't flavorful" is just horse shit. I've been playing for quite a while and have taught many people how to play magic at a competitive level. Sure the stack was hard to teach but the hardest part of the stack they couldn't understand at first was putting, ordering and resolving abilities and spells not combat damage. Here's how I would explain combat using the stack to I guess "my students" with very clear flavor behind the "Damage on the Stack" phase: (this explanation will be completely flavored to show you a full combat step in the land of Magic the Gathering, enjoy!)

I run a highschool gaming club.  Anywhere from 12 to 20 kids come every month.  They play all sorts of rpgs and ccgs including Magic.  Their experience with gateway games like Duel Maters, Yu-G-O, Pokemon, and Maple Story has caused them to play Magic wrong in a lot of ways.  They tap to block, draw on the play on turn 1, take manadbun if they forget to untap their lands at the begining of their turn, and so on.  For the last year I've made a concerted effort to clear up their confusion about Magic.  It's hard for them to unlearn how to play and then learn to play the game right.  Hands down, the hardest concept for them is damage on the stack.  They have the hardest time conceptualizing that creatures can take actions after damage has been dealt to them.  Or that creatures not in play still deal damage.  My thoughts on the new rules are that they are sensible.  Those who believe otherwise likely have little to no contact with the types of players WotC needs to attract to its game to keep it going for another ten years.

[Wagner]

This is just me but the ONLY rules change I have a real problem with is the loss of Stacking Damage in combat. All the Wizards personnel who say "Stacking Combat Damage isn't flavorful" is just horse shit. I've been playing for quite a while and have taught many people how to play magic at a competitive level. Sure the stack was hard to teach but the hardest part of the stack they couldn't understand at first was putting, ordering and resolving abilities and spells not combat damage. Here's how I would explain combat using the stack to I guess "my students" with very clear flavor behind the "Damage on the Stack" phase: (this explanation will be completely flavored to show you a full combat step in the land of Magic the Gathering, enjoy!)

I run a highschool gaming club.  Anywhere from 12 to 20 kids come every month.  They play all sorts of rpgs and ccgs including Magic.  Their experience with gateway games like Duel Maters, Yu-G-O, Pokemon, and Maple Story has caused them to play Magic wrong in a lot of ways.  They tap to block, draw on the play on turn 1, take manadbun if they forget to untap their lands at the begining of their turn, and so on.  For the last year I've made a concerted effort to clear up their confusion about Magic.  It's hard for them to unlearn how to play and then learn to play the game right.  Hands down, the hardest concept for them is damage on the stack.  They have the hardest time conceptualizing that creatures can take actions after damage has been dealt to them.  Or that creatures not in play still deal damage.  My thoughts on the new rules are that they are sensible.  Those who believe otherwise likely have little to no contact with the types of players WotC needs to attract to its game to keep it going for another ten years.

Amen to that. I had to teach a couple of younger players such interactions and the damage on the stack was always a problem.

One of the most frequently use arguments against these rule changes are that casual player won't care, won't know and will still use whatever rule they want. While this may be true with some, a lot of casual players DO follow the rules set by Wizards, whatever their reasons for not doing any tournaments is irrelevant, but I did frequent a couple of circles of casual players and yes, they go on the Internet, yes they keep up to date and yes these changes will have an impact on them.

You don't have to be in a tournament to follow rules, most casual players will also follow them since they will play with others who follow them.

Also keep in mind, Wizards is a company, its goal is to make profit, as any other company, and it they feel this will make them sell more, even if they do alienate some players, (I'm sure they did a market study) it is still the best decision.

Take this situation for example: McDonalds found a way to cut 20% of costs on fries by changing the recipe/cooking/whatever, but they frist tested them on 10,000 people, and 10% of them saw a change and didn't like them. Do you seriously think that they still wouldn't do the change because 10% of people was not happy and wrote angry letters to them, even thought they would make millions more?

[Explosion]

Fortunately for me, he has run out of Mana and is unable to save his Bears from the Fanatics kamikaze final blow. (Ability resolving while Damage still on the Stack)

Finally the Grizzlies die due to the initial attack and finishing attack of the Mogg Fanatics. (Damage resolving)

So what you're saying is that the Moggs and Grizzlies square off, prepare to fight each other (damage on the stack), then the Mogg suicide-bombs the Grizzly, and after that resolves, the damage on the stack should resolve? Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't buy the notion of Sakura Tribe Elder simultaneously being able to fight for all he's worth and ALSO leave combat forever to seek out a land. It's one or the other, bub. If STE is dealt lethal damage, he's in no condition to be land-seeking.

I really like these changes because it'll make players choose whether they want to do combat damage, or use sacrificial abilities. Moreover, because creatures will no longer be able to do both, we'll get some new creatures with bad-ass abilities that will be still be considered balanced because the choice is necessary.

[evouga]

This is just me but the ONLY rules change I have a real problem with is the loss of Stacking Damage in combat. All the Wizards personnel who say "Stacking Combat Damage isn't flavorful" is just horse shit. I've been playing for quite a while and have taught many people how to play magic at a competitive level. Sure the stack was hard to teach but the hardest part of the stack they couldn't understand at first was putting, ordering and resolving abilities and spells not combat damage. Here's how I would explain combat using the stack to I guess "my students" with very clear flavor behind the "Damage on the Stack" phase: (this explanation will be completely flavored to show you a full combat step in the land of Magic the Gathering, enjoy!)

I run a highschool gaming club.  Anywhere from 12 to 20 kids come every month.  They play all sorts of rpgs and ccgs including Magic.  Their experience with gateway games like Duel Maters, Yu-G-O, Pokemon, and Maple Story has caused them to play Magic wrong in a lot of ways.  They tap to block, draw on the play on turn 1, take manadbun if they forget to untap their lands at the begining of their turn, and so on.  For the last year I've made a concerted effort to clear up their confusion about Magic.  It's hard for them to unlearn how to play and then learn to play the game right.  Hands down, the hardest concept for them is damage on the stack.  They have the hardest time conceptualizing that creatures can take actions after damage has been dealt to them.  Or that creatures not in play still deal damage.  My thoughts on the new rules are that they are sensible.  Those who believe otherwise likely have little to no contact with the types of players WotC needs to attract to its game to keep it going for another ten years.

This argument is strong, but raises for me one question: are kids getting dumber over time, or what? We all learned to play Magic with manaburn and with combat damage going on the stack (or with even more convoluted and unintuitive rules, such as tapped blockers dealing no damage, batches of spells, tapped artifacts losing abilities, etc) and had little trouble with it. Over time, I would argue that the rules have gotten simpler and more consistent: so why is it that the ruleset that attracted plenty of players yesterday needs to be dumbed down to attract enough players today?

[Wagner]

are kids getting dumber over time, or what?

Yes, yes they are. If not dumber, they are definitively getting lazier and need everything to be easy to understand so they don't have to think too hard.

[Noah]

are kids getting dumber over time, or what?

Yes, yes they are. If not dumber, they are definitively getting lazier and need everything to be easy to understand so they don't have to think too hard.

Agreed.

[LotusHead]

are kids getting dumber over time, or what?

Yes, yes they are. If not dumber, they are definitively getting lazier and need everything to be easy to understand so they don't have to think too hard.

Agreed.

Kids aren't getting dumber. The rules have just changed.

How many phone numbers do any of us know now? (I know almost zero. They are just entries on my Cell Phone now...)