Major Rules Changes Announced!!!

[SiegeX]

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.

I'm not saying that is or isn't true, but let me offer some attempt at an explanation. When I started playing Magic in '95, there really wasn't any comparable CCG at that time; so I had no preconceived notions of what should or shouldn't happen.  Kids who start to play magic today now have many choices to choose from.  Due to the complexity of Magic I would venture a guess that most grow into Magic but do not start with it; they use Yugioh and Pokemon as their training wheels.  Their years of playing these other CCG's have trained them to expect certain things to happen in similar situations that Magic does not necessarily hold true to (pre M10 at least); and I believe this is why today's youth is having such a hard time.  It's like walking into your Calculus course for the first time and realizing that your fundamentals of algebra no longer hold true; that's going to take some time to get over.  

[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.

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...)

Exactly my point, everything is made easier for everyone these days, and I have a feeling this is not pushing forward the development of memory/common sense/logic/etc.

Kids (and people) have less and less stuff to worry about since more and more stuff is done automatically, while it isn't a bad thing by itself, I'm not sure it actually makes people smarter.

This is getting beside the point, but, if these assumptions are correct, Wizards is just jumping on the wagon and making things simpler too, and I don't blame them. They are merely going to make more money of a simpler system, after all, wouldn't you pay an extra $10 to have a phone number memory function on your phone if it wasn't there already or would you say no and memorize the numbers instead?

[brianpk80]

Is it my imagination or is the article understating how broad the combat changes are?

Triskelion, Goblin Welder + Artifact Creature, Arcbound Ravager, Umezawa's Jitte, and Icatian Javelineers seem to be substantially more limited to me just at first glance, in addition to Fanatic and Pridemage listed earlier.  Who knows what else will be affected. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

I don't see how Jitte is affected?  The number of counters isn't hidden information and your opponent gets to use pretty much the same responses.  Getting more counters still happens only after the damage has "done its thing."

[Wagner]

I don't see how Jitte is affected?  The number of counters isn't hidden information and your opponent gets to use pretty much the same responses.  Getting more counters still happens only after the damage has "done its thing."

Let's say you have 2 Bears in combat, Jitte with 1 counter and your opponent has a Bolt.

With the stack, you can deal 2 damage, and after try to save your Bear by giving it +2+2. Your opponent is going to lose his Bear no matter what, and he might kill your Bear with his Bolt.

Without the stack, if you want your Bear to survive the fight, you need to give him +2+2 before combat, in response to which your opponent will probably Bolt him and you lose your Bear and your counter.

There same situation applies with the -1-1 counters.

[TopSecret]

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.

Well, there are also different expectations, too.

As mentioned previously, other cardgames are now potential gateways to picking up Magic.
If Magic is too counterintuitive for people who have learned these other card games to pick up,
then why would they invest time in learning it?
Not a huge factor, but it's additional incentive if the rules changes already seemed like a good idea.

There is also an issue with how immersive entertainment has become.
A lot of movies now are 3 hours long, with amazing special effects.
Then there's modern videogames, which unlike their predecessors,
are much better at eliminating inconsistencies within the little universes they create,
whether it's with better graphics, controls, or plot.

The list goes on and on, but the bottom line is
less weight is put on individuals to use their imaginations and minds
to fill in the blanks left in the illusions crafted by entertainment.

Of course, this is a different topic that could go on and on
and I don't know how much influence it has on the rules changes exactly.

Someone should make a thread in the community forum about it,
so I can vent about how those kids won't stay off my lawn.

[Matt]

Exactly my point, everything is made easier for everyone these days, and I have a feeling this is not pushing forward the development of memory/common sense/logic/etc.

Kids (and people) have less and less stuff to worry about since more and more stuff is done automatically, while it isn't a bad thing by itself, I'm not sure it actually makes people smarter.

"I'm worried about this "agriculture" thing, how will kids these days learn how to identify which wild plants are good to eat if they spend all their time planting seeds we already KNOW are healthy?!?"

It doesn't make them smarter or dumber, it just frees them up to learn other things instead.

[Implacable]

"I'm worried about this "agriculture" thing, how will kids these days learn how to identify which wild plants are good to eat if they spend all their time planting seeds we already KNOW are healthy?!?"

This is one of my favorite things I've ever read here.

At any rate, isn't this all a little irrelevant for our format?  I mean, we're by far the least combat-tricky format; and the changes to the combat step seem to  be what we're talking about (and the rest of the changes seem pretty much agreed upon).  Do we care all that much if the Giant Growths we weren't using are suddenly not as good as they never were? 

[Red Irish]

Most players I have talked to are firmly against these changes, particularly the new combat rules.

I think the new combat rules detract from the game.

[Red Irish]

Is it my imagination or is the article understating how broad the combat changes are?

Triskelion, Goblin Welder + Artifact Creature, Arcbound Ravager, Umezawa's Jitte, and Icatian Javelineers seem to be substantially more limited to me just at first glance, in addition to Fanatic and Pridemage listed earlier.  Who knows what else will be affected. 

No, it is not your imagination.

[Harlequin]

I contest that simple rules automatically equals a "dumb" game.

The most Iconic "Smart" games in history are games you can litterally 'learn how to play' in about 30 mins.

Chess, Go (which steve brought up a few pages back), and Bridge to name a few.  All games where learning how the peices move takes minutes; but mastering the game takes a lifetime.

Who knows maybe the simpiler rules will make for MORE stratigic choices where the better PLAYER wins as opposed to trying to make a move where you say "Boy I hope my opponent doesn't know the rules as good as I do!"

[Moxlotus]

"I'm worried about this "agriculture" thing, how will kids these days learn how to identify which wild plants are good to eat if they spend all their time planting seeds we already KNOW are healthy?!?"

This is one of my favorite things I've ever read here.

At any rate, isn't this all a little irrelevant for our format?  I mean, we're by far the least combat-tricky format; and the changes to the combat step seem to  be what we're talking about (and the rest of the changes seem pretty much agreed upon).  Do we care all that much if the Giant Growths we weren't using are suddenly not as good as they never were? 

I care about Welder and arcbound ravager and trike and grim lavamancer and mogg fanatic and pentavus and triskelavus and suchi and mishra's factory  and aether spellbomb and repeal and echoing truth.  Maybe you don't, but I'm sure there are others who also care about the cards i listed.

[Norm4eva]

I contest that simple rules automatically equals a "dumb" game.

The most Iconic "Smart" games in history are games you can litterally 'learn how to play' in about 30 mins.

Chess, Go (which steve brought up a few pages back), and Bridge to name a few.  All games where learning how the peices move takes minutes; but mastering the game takes a lifetime.

Who knows maybe the simpiler rules will make for MORE stratigic choices where the better PLAYER wins as opposed to trying to make a move where you say "Boy I hope my opponent doesn't know the rules as good as I do!"

This.  Even games like Chess have 'hidden rules' that don't immediately stick to a player's mind.  The example I've been using is en passant; you can't explain it within the rules given except to understand it as a response to another 'new' rule, the ability for pawns to move two squares on their first move, and you only get the opportunity to do so once per pawn.  The best players in the world grok it and use it; the players at home need not apply as it is comes off as a strange exception to otherwise simple rules.  Castling is a lesser offender.

It doesn't really need to be a case-by-case sort of thing, like "Well Chess has one move that's weird and Magic has a whole process called 'the stack' that's weird,"  weird is as weird does and inaccessible rules are inaccessible.

I don't like the notion that the game has to change to suit the whim of the CCGs that are more or less children of the original.  At some point, everyone takes the training wheels off their bike, or they don't ride.  Magic retains issues other games to not, vis-a-vis the "land problem" and the fact that it is, in fact, the more complicated of the CCGs out there.  Pardon my wretched writing, but we extol youth for taking on chess successfully at an early age, thinking about how most kids are still attempting 'minor' games of skill, checkers, Mario Bros, Chutes and Ladders.

I did exactly what I didn't want to do about a month ago, I sold about 95% of my card collection due to a series of financial meteor strikes, untrustworthy roommates, etc.  At the time it was less sad than I thought it'd be; it feels like an irony now.  I'm not saying I'm quitting - I didn't sell a single deck.  But it's funny to me that this rules change should happen right as the nature of my relationship to the game changes.  I'll admit I'm a strange player, I enjoy the older formats but I play questionable decks, Angel Stompy and Mono-Black Control and Sorcery-speed High Tide combo, with random other aggro sprinkled throughout.  So yeah, I feel the hit of this rules difference and I don't care for it.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I contest that simple rules automatically equals a "dumb" game.

The most Iconic "Smart" games in history are games you can litterally 'learn how to play' in about 30 mins.

Chess, Go (which steve brought up a few pages back), and Bridge to name a few.  All games where learning how the peices move takes minutes; but mastering the game takes a lifetime.

Who knows maybe the simpiler rules will make for MORE stratigic choices where the better PLAYER wins as opposed to trying to make a move where you say "Boy I hope my opponent doesn't know the rules as good as I do!"

This.  Even games like Chess have 'hidden rules' that don't immediately stick to a player's mind.  The example I've been using is en passant; you can't explain it within the rules given except to understand it as a response to another 'new' rule, the ability for pawns to move two squares on their first move, and you only get the opportunity to do so once per pawn.  The best players in the world grok it and use it; the players at home need not apply as it is comes off as a strange exception to otherwise simple rules.  Castling is a lesser offender.

It doesn't really need to be a case-by-case sort of thing, like "Well Chess has one move that's weird and Magic has a whole process called 'the stack' that's weird,"  weird is as weird does and inaccessible rules are inaccessible.

I don't like the notion that the game has to change to suit the whim of the CCGs that are more or less children of the original.  At some point, everyone takes the training wheels off their bike, or they don't ride.  Magic retains issues other games to not, vis-a-vis the "land problem" and the fact that it is, in fact, the more complicated of the CCGs out there.  Pardon my wretched writing, but we extol youth for taking on chess successfully at an early age, thinking about how most kids are still attempting 'minor' games of skill, checkers, Mario Bros, Chutes and Ladders.

In addition to that there are also many things that a player must know about Chess that isn't a rule nor intuitive and yet is severely important. There aren't rules that state a value on Chess pieces, but there are general values. However, I've played and watched hundreds of games where Pawns are worth more than Rooks. Not to mention you can buy books that tell you the way International Grandmasters play out games to like the 25th move just because there is always a "best" line of play even if one can't see it, especially when it comes to openings. Now these may not be rules but they're certainly things that you absolutely NEED to know or you'll just lose. Not to mention adapting your game plan due to time constraints, ect. Essentially the "learn how to play in 30 minutes" is the casual players who use whatever rules they want to. I can learn how to pull a trigger in 3 seconds. Does that make me a sharpshooter? What if I buy a candy bar shipped in from Japan to my local store, does that mean I understand international commerce? You can't simply say somebody knows how to do something just because they have the physical ability to do it. Removing the stack from combat damage won't help idiots understand the massively complex interactions in MTG that are required to play in tournaments, which is supposedly the whole point for these changes. Just like teaching an idiot how to push a pawn forward doesn't mean they'll be ready to play in Chess tournaments

Who knows maybe the simpiler rules will make for MORE stratigic choices where the better PLAYER wins as opposed to trying to make a move where you say "Boy I hope my opponent doesn't know the rules as good as I do!"

By dumbing down the rules you're actually creating more situations where idiots that don't know the rules/complex interactions will lose for reasons other than strategic choices. Its not like combat damage using the stack was holding back all those MTG geniuses who just "didn't know the rules as good as you did." What happens if one of those idiots plays against Ichorid? They would go to time in the first upkeep Ichorid got. God forbid they face a Dragon deck or somebody casts Chains of Mephistopheles. By eliminating stepping stones between something like "play 1 land per turn" and "heres how Ichorid works" you're not helping these idiots at all.

[Fester]

In addition to that there are also many things that a player must know about Chess that isn't a rule nor intuitive and yet is severely important. There aren't rules that state a value on Chess pieces, but there are general values. However, I've played and watched hundreds of games where Pawns are worth more than Rooks. Not to mention you can buy books that tell you the way International Grandmasters play out games to like the 25th move just because there is always a "best" line of play even if one can't see it, especially when it comes to openings. Now these may not be rules but they're certainly things that you absolutely NEED to know or you'll just lose. Not to mention adapting your game plan due to time constraints, ect. Essentially the "learn how to play in 30 minutes" is the casual players who use whatever rules they want to. I can learn how to pull a trigger in 3 seconds. Does that make me a sharpshooter? What if I buy a candy bar shipped in from Japan to my local store, does that mean I understand international commerce? You can't simply say somebody knows how to do something just because they have the physical ability to do it. Removing the stack from combat damage won't help idiots understand the massively complex interactions in MTG that are required to play in tournaments, which is supposedly the whole point for these changes. Just like teaching an idiot how to push a pawn forward doesn't mean they'll be ready to play in Chess tournaments

By dumbing down the rules you're actually creating more situations where idiots that don't know the rules/complex interactions will lose for reasons other than strategic choices. Its not like combat damage using the stack was holding back all those MTG geniuses who just "didn't know the rules as good as you did." What happens if one of those idiots plays against Ichorid? They would go to time in the first upkeep Ichorid got. God forbid they face a Dragon deck or somebody casts Chains of Mephistopheles. By eliminating stepping stones between something like "play 1 land per turn" and "heres how Ichorid works" you're not helping these idiots at all.

Your constant use of the term idiot suggests that you're not really interested in seeing this game's player's base grow.  Also, I sincerely doubt you're as smart as you think you are.

**EDIT**

In terms of growing a player base, the attitudes of existing tournament players in any game are probably more important then whatever rules are in place.

[Shock Wave]

In addition to that there are also many things that a player must know about Chess that isn't a rule nor intuitive and yet is severely important. There aren't rules that state a value on Chess pieces, but there are general values. However, I've played and watched hundreds of games where Pawns are worth more than Rooks. Not to mention you can buy books that tell you the way International Grandmasters play out games to like the 25th move just because there is always a "best" line of play even if one can't see it, especially when it comes to openings. Now these may not be rules but they're certainly things that you absolutely NEED to know or you'll just lose. Not to mention adapting your game plan due to time constraints, ect. Essentially the "learn how to play in 30 minutes" is the casual players who use whatever rules they want to. I can learn how to pull a trigger in 3 seconds. Does that make me a sharpshooter? What if I buy a candy bar shipped in from Japan to my local store, does that mean I understand international commerce? You can't simply say somebody knows how to do something just because they have the physical ability to do it. Removing the stack from combat damage won't help idiots understand the massively complex interactions in MTG that are required to play in tournaments, which is supposedly the whole point for these changes. Just like teaching an idiot how to push a pawn forward doesn't mean they'll be ready to play in Chess tournaments

By dumbing down the rules you're actually creating more situations where idiots that don't know the rules/complex interactions will lose for reasons other than strategic choices. Its not like combat damage using the stack was holding back all those MTG geniuses who just "didn't know the rules as good as you did." What happens if one of those idiots plays against Ichorid? They would go to time in the first upkeep Ichorid got. God forbid they face a Dragon deck or somebody casts Chains of Mephistopheles. By eliminating stepping stones between something like "play 1 land per turn" and "heres how Ichorid works" you're not helping these idiots at all.

Your constant use of the term idiot suggests that you're not really interested in seeing this game's player's base grow.  Also, I sincerely doubt you're as smart as you think you are.

**EDIT**

In terms of growing a player base, the attitudes of existing tournament players in any game are probably more important then whatever rules are in place.

By your response, I could say the same about your own attitude. While the assertions made above could have been done so more tactfully, that in no way compromises their validity. You have not challenged the arguments raised in any relevant manner, so why not start there instead of fuelling the fire?

[jaeppel]

Arent the new combat timing changes just going back to the roots of magic?  when i first learned the game, creatures killed on the battlefield couldnt also be sacrificed.  it was under these rules that mogg fanatic was designed, then got very lucky when the rules turned him into a 2/1 trampler for  .  I for one look forward to these new rules and think alot of folks never had to explain to a new player exactly how it was that you killed all of their creatures with damage on the stack.  sure, its easy for those of us who know, but sit down and play with a noob and they will probably think you just cheated. 

I learned to play revised, then slipped out of the game a couple years when 6th ed came out.  i remember one of the first games i played getting back, long after the rest of the world knew about the damage stack.  my well laid attack plan didnt calculate on a fanatic doing what it did... and after far too much 'wtf, wotc changed the rules???' i grudgingly accepted that yes, there are new rules now, and no i will not continue to play this game.  the first of those realizations was the only one that remained true

To me it seems alot like the en passant rule in chess.  It is a rule of the game.  Most competant players know of its existance, but at the same time its highly unintuitive and many players do not know it is a legal move.  Many casual players know the rule is out there, but ive been in the situation where four people all thought it worked differently.  I was right, but my opponent thought i was cheating until googling 'international chess rules.' 

There is enough unituitive interactions in the game, and the complexity will only increase as more sets and keywords are added.  For a game as simple as chess to have moves as unintutive as castling and en passant is one thing... they are the only 2 exceptions to an otherwise highly ordered system.  Magic is a very disordered system and taking out unintuitive wierdness from the game is a good thing.  Triskellion and fanatic, perhaps the two cards most hurt by this rule were designed under other rules, which the mightly planeswalkers have reinstated as the law of the land.

Removing mana burn is just terrible though.  It will not be a healthy thing for vintage, im sure of it.  Removing the drawback from cards that tap for bajillions is going to open up design space... in vintage deck design.  It also takes away the only thing that makes manadrain even seem slightly fair.  Maybe that means we are about to get some bad news about drain later this month.

[LotusHead]

Mana Drain was never fair. ever.

I got my first three drains trading from people shaking in fear of Mana Drain.  (I knew they could combo with Fireball/Disintegrate and so forth, as long as I was willing to take those risks.).

Now that Mana Drain has no drawback, well, good for them.  Shop decks get their own boons with burnless mana.

Now if Mana Drain AND Mishra's Workshops get restricted, then I WOULD start an e-riot.

But I don't think that's gonna happen.

Most decks don't worry about mana burn in the slightest (fish, ichorid, for the most part combo).

So all is good?  It's just a combat step re-learning that's going on here. (and that RFG vs Exile thing)

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

In addition to that there are also many things that a player must know about Chess that isn't a rule nor intuitive and yet is severely important. There aren't rules that state a value on Chess pieces, but there are general values. However, I've played and watched hundreds of games where Pawns are worth more than Rooks. Not to mention you can buy books that tell you the way International Grandmasters play out games to like the 25th move just because there is always a "best" line of play even if one can't see it, especially when it comes to openings. Now these may not be rules but they're certainly things that you absolutely NEED to know or you'll just lose. Not to mention adapting your game plan due to time constraints, ect. Essentially the "learn how to play in 30 minutes" is the casual players who use whatever rules they want to. I can learn how to pull a trigger in 3 seconds. Does that make me a sharpshooter? What if I buy a candy bar shipped in from Japan to my local store, does that mean I understand international commerce? You can't simply say somebody knows how to do something just because they have the physical ability to do it. Removing the stack from combat damage won't help idiots understand the massively complex interactions in MTG that are required to play in tournaments, which is supposedly the whole point for these changes. Just like teaching an idiot how to push a pawn forward doesn't mean they'll be ready to play in Chess tournaments

By dumbing down the rules you're actually creating more situations where idiots that don't know the rules/complex interactions will lose for reasons other than strategic choices. Its not like combat damage using the stack was holding back all those MTG geniuses who just "didn't know the rules as good as you did." What happens if one of those idiots plays against Ichorid? They would go to time in the first upkeep Ichorid got. God forbid they face a Dragon deck or somebody casts Chains of Mephistopheles. By eliminating stepping stones between something like "play 1 land per turn" and "heres how Ichorid works" you're not helping these idiots at all.

Your constant use of the term idiot suggests that you're not really interested in seeing this game's player's base grow.  Also, I sincerely doubt you're as smart as you think you are.

**EDIT**

In terms of growing a player base, the attitudes of existing tournament players in any game are probably more important then whatever rules are in place.

My use of the word idiot suggests that I think anyone with an IQ>potato can understand the rules that they took out with the reason of "people were getting confused." This has nothing to do with how smart I think I am and it isn't meant to condescend to anyone. I would be glad to see our player base grow but the changes they did won't do anything for any format unless people quit Standard/Limited and come over to Vintage.

[Harlequin]

In addition to that there are also many things that a player must know about Chess that isn't a rule nor intuitive and yet is severely important. There aren't rules that state a value on Chess pieces, but there are general values. However, I've played and watched hundreds of games where Pawns are worth more than Rooks. Not to mention you can buy books that tell you the way International Grandmasters play out games to like the 25th move just because there is always a "best" line of play even if one can't see it, especially when it comes to openings. Now these may not be rules but they're certainly things that you absolutely NEED to know or you'll just lose. Not to mention adapting your game plan due to time constraints, ect. Essentially the "learn how to play in 30 minutes" is the casual players who use whatever rules they want to. I can learn how to pull a trigger in 3 seconds. Does that make me a sharpshooter? What if I buy a candy bar shipped in from Japan to my local store, does that mean I understand international commerce? You can't simply say somebody knows how to do something just because they have the physical ability to do it. Removing the stack from combat damage won't help idiots understand the massively complex interactions in MTG that are required to play in tournaments, which is supposedly the whole point for these changes. Just like teaching an idiot how to push a pawn forward doesn't mean they'll be ready to play in Chess tournaments

I agree that these games are learned in stages, but that doesn't mean the ~Rules~ need to provide those stones for new players to step on.

Bridge is a GREAT example of this.  Pick up any "how to play Bridge" book.  Lets say its 200 pages.  The first chapter is "the rules" of the game.  This chapter is about probably about 20 pages tops.  The other 180 pages are going to likely be devoted to "the rules of a bidding system"  Which are actually ~not~ part of the rules of the game.  Bidding by the rules of game can be explained in one paragraph.  And I'll do that here.

Bidding starts with the dealer, and a player can bid a Suit plus a value (1 to 7), double a previous opponent bid, or pass.  Bidding ends when 3 players pass.  In order to bid you have to increase the bid in either value, rank or both.  The suit ranks go: Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades, No Trump (ordered lowest to highest).  

Ok now you "know how to bid."  Now there's going to be a chapter or two on opening bids.  What to bid on each type of hand and why.  Next chapter is on responses to opening bid, again what to bid and why.  Next chapter is bidding convensions, which makes heads and tails out of 'power' bids like how sometimes "2 Hearts" actually means "Hey I've got good Spades."  Why is that? Read the section on the 'Jacoby Transfer' to find out.   We haven't even discussed what happens when you take into conisideration what your opponents bid!  Overcalls, defensive bids, Take-out doubles... All part of the game, without a single game rule to cover it.  Oh and we need to discuss the scoring system here too, and which spesific guidlines can and cannot be fudged when the score is taken into consideration...  And that's just bidding.  We need a chapter or two about power-plays like the Finesse, "the devils lead," and pulling trump.

The complexity of the game is derived from the systems that optimize play.  Not the rules.  I'm just suprized that people suddenly think that you need the rules to punish overcommitment... Tapping out your resources foolishly will ALWAYS be bad.  You don't need the rules to punish your for that the GAME already does.  And removing combat damage doesn't suddenly make Darksteel Forge an equal pick to Skullclamp in a draft.  The GAME is still going to reward smart, strategic, well thought out plays; and punish players who don't quite have a grasp on things yet.  I'd rather new players learn strategy from players rather than learn rules from judges.  To me that seems like a generally better game.

[Norm4eva]

I'm not even talking about good player vs. bad player here, though.  What constitutes a complex set of rules and a simple set of rules has as much to do with presentation and example as it does with the person receiving the instruction.

People kept trying to explain Pitch to me for years.  I didn't get it until I was two years out of high school.  The difference?  It was shown to me, I got to watch people play and THEN it clicked.  I'm sure some people would just internalize how to play pitch by just hearing the rules a few times, but I couldn't do that.

Individual learning curves will vary, and the amount of struggle a player has doesn't necessarily correlate to an assumed capacity to learn the ground rules of Magic.  I'm not saying there's no situation where a given player won't immediately know what's up, Humility oddities and things just happen.  But seriously, the stack isn't complex.  I've taught the stack to noobs in five minutes.  It doesn't imply difficulty, it's just a concept.

I guess that's why I don't buy the notion that the rules of the game are its own obstacle.  Eventually, at some point, someone who's been exposed to Magic either attempts to learn the game, or doesn't.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

The complexity of the game is derived from the systems that optimize play.  Not the rules.  I'm just suprized that people suddenly think that you need the rules to punish overcommitment... Tapping out your resources foolishly will ALWAYS be bad.  You don't need the rules to punish your for that the GAME already does.  And removing combat damage doesn't suddenly make Darksteel Forge an equal pick to Skullclamp in a draft.  The GAME is still going to reward smart, strategic, well thought out plays; and punish players who don't quite have a grasp on things yet.  I'd rather new players learn strategy from players rather than learn rules from judges.  To me that seems like a generally better game.

I assume the first part is in reference to mana burn, which I find to be a gross oversimplification of the rule. Mana burn not only punishes wasting resources but it also creates an inherent drawback to cards/combos that add massive amounts of mana to a player's mana pool. This drawback means nothing to a new player who often won't be tapping more than exactly what they need. It creates absolutely no pressure on idiots or "slow learners/new players". However, it adds an element of gameplay that creates entire new strategies. Do you tap that Workshop to drop a Sol Ring and burn for 2 to drop a 6cc artifact, or do you wait until next turn to only drop that 5cc artifact? What about Storm, do you blast down all your rituals for that 1 big bomb and risk walking into some sort of Orim's Chant to burn for a ton of mana, or do you slowplay 1 ritual at a time for smaller increments? What if you flip a bunch of rituals off a Mind's Desire? Do you cast them all for a ton of storm and risk getting raped by a Stifle or do you storm for a smaller amount? These sort of interactions never come up to generic creature.dec which is what 90%+ of casual players probably play. You're right, this game will always reward tight play and smart strategic choices, but I disagree that it punishes those that don't have a grasp on how things work yet. Mana burn and combat tricks were the only 2 things that actually punished the unprepared, now they're gone. That doesn't mean playing like an idiot is a good thing but the more strategic elements that one eliminates, the less chances there are for a good player to show just how good they are. On the other hand, I am yet to see an argument for why an intelligent person would have such a huge problem with these eliminated rules that they don't play MTG competatively. Hence my use of the term "idiot" to describe those that these changes were meant to pander to. Idiots aren't what this game needs to stay afloat.

Also combat tricks are infinitely more cool than anything else you can do in MTG in my opinion, and I'm sure quite a few people will agree with me on this one. I personally got into MTG just because of them, and moved on to Vintage when I realised there are more fun things to do with busted cards. That doesn't mean combat tricks aren't cooler though. People who like this game will learn how to play it, and those that don't won't. The rules themselves are very rarely any sort of barrier at all. People who want to play Soccer competatively will join a team and learn how shit works, those that don't will keep doing tricks in their backyards. Making the net bigger in tournaments won't change that.

[Explosion]

What about Storm, do you blast down all your rituals for that 1 big bomb and risk walking into some sort of Orim's Chant to burn for a ton of mana, or do you slowplay 1 ritual at a time for smaller increments? What if you flip a bunch of rituals off a Mind's Desire? Do you cast them all for a ton of storm and risk getting raped by a Stifle or do you storm for a smaller amount?

The mana burn is incidental to these examples. In nearly every format, combo is an all-in sort of thing. If they Stifle your Tendrils off Mind's Desire and you haven't got a counter for the Stifle or a second Tendrils, you're probably scooping anyway. Your hand's empty, there's no more gas off Mind's Desire, etc. The fact that you might mana burn to 10 instead of staying at 18 life isn't nearly as important as the fact that you're in top-deck mode with a deck that doesn't do well in top-deck mode.

I understand that Magic is a game of small incremental advantage, but the mana burn isn't the big concern in the Storm situation.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

What about Storm, do you blast down all your rituals for that 1 big bomb and risk walking into some sort of Orim's Chant to burn for a ton of mana, or do you slowplay 1 ritual at a time for smaller increments? What if you flip a bunch of rituals off a Mind's Desire? Do you cast them all for a ton of storm and risk getting raped by a Stifle or do you storm for a smaller amount?

The mana burn is incidental to these examples. In nearly every format, combo is an all-in sort of thing. If they Stifle your Tendrils off Mind's Desire and you haven't got a counter for the Stifle or a second Tendrils, you're probably scooping anyway. Your hand's empty, there's no more gas off Mind's Desire, etc. The fact that you might mana burn to 10 instead of staying at 18 life isn't nearly as important as the fact that you're in top-deck mode with a deck that doesn't do well in top-deck mode.

I understand that Magic is a game of small incremental advantage, but the mana burn isn't the big concern in the Storm situation.

Since when is Storm bad at topdeck mode? You have the highest possible chance of any deck at topdecking some nuts bomb or tutor and just winning. That doesn't mean you're going to win, but scooping is just a bad option unless you're tight on time. No offence but you must have lost a ton of games by just randomly scooping when you didn't have to. Storm decks are probably the second most likely to take mana burn after Shops in my experience so I hardly think it isn't a big concern to the deck.

[TracerBullet]

The complexity of the game is derived from the systems that optimize play.  Not the rules.  I'm just suprized that people suddenly think that you need the rules to punish overcommitment... Tapping out your resources foolishly will ALWAYS be bad.  You don't need the rules to punish your for that the GAME already does.  And removing combat damage doesn't suddenly make Darksteel Forge an equal pick to Skullclamp in a draft.  The GAME is still going to reward smart, strategic, well thought out plays; and punish players who don't quite have a grasp on things yet.  I'd rather new players learn strategy from players rather than learn rules from judges.  To me that seems like a generally better game.

I'm going to focus simply on mana burn for a second.  First, to all those saying that not having mana burn makes the game easier to learn- it's not a complex rule.  It's not a difficult to understand rule.  This isn't combat damage on the stack, where'd your creature go, how'd mine end up dead... this is as simple as explaining to someone "if you don't use your mana, it hurts you."  It's flavorful, in that if you tap energy from your lands, and don't do something with it, it will end up damaging you.  Even in the article they mention that it was as simple as eliminating 3 lines of text from the rule book.  This isn't a matter of complex interactions, and oh so many cards having to be explained based on replacement effects vs timestamps etc.  This is simple, and an effective way to get people to understand that there is a negative side effect of not using what you generate.

Now, to those who say it's simply an arbitrary rule - you're right, it was an arbitrary rule when it was created; now it's a matter of design.  Every card in the history of Magic was designed relying on this rule, and a large number of cards were designed specifically to force a player into strategic decisions based on this rule.  But it's not simply the "oh, that card obviously relies on the impact of mana burn" cards; it's everything.  People haven't noticed that Wasteland/Strip Mine/Null Rod/Mox Monkey/Karn just got worse, as there isn't a reason to not float your mana now.  These kinds of simple interactions are a basic tenet of the game, and have now been changed for what amounts to not requiring a person to do addition and subtraction ever during a game.  There is very little gain, and given that every Magic card was designed knowing this rule, there is significant cost.

To those who say that mana burn is incidental- yes, it's incidental to some decks.  Try playing Mono Brown Workshops before and after the manaburn change; your average lifeloss per game to manaburn is somewhere in the 2-3 range.  This is *big*, under some circumstances.  How many games have you won while at 2 life?


Harelquin, it's not so much simply having rules as making sure that those rules force a player to choose different sides of a strategic decision; mana burn exemplifies this to a T.  It forces you to choose between Mana Drain and Counterspell; Eladamri's Vinyard and Llanowar Elves; float to bluff the counter and lose 2 life.  These are decisions that the player has to make when formatting and playing their deck that can significantly alter the course of a single game, much less a tournament.  Isn't that exactly what rules are designed to do?  Moreover, when the rule in question is so simple and elegant, where is the gain in eliminating it?

Losing combat tricks is certainly the larger change, but combat tricks are also more complex and more confusing to those who don't know the rules up down left and right.  Mana burn is simple; you don't use your mana, it hurts you.  What is the cost of having such a simple rule?

[Dr.KnowMaD]

Well I think FlyFry has said most of what I would have at this point so I will simply come from another perspective.  Not only am I one of those casual players, I am also a nomadic crazy teacher that has taught this game too so many people and sat at a great number of coffee shop/kitchen tables all over this country.  With that said at no time that I can remember did anyone have a problem grasping mana burn.  It is just one of those rules that is simple and adds so much to the game.  If someone did have a problem it was only with remembering the phase changes. I think cleaning that up with the mana pools is fine though saying it is for the casual player is ridicules seeing how they already had a hard time with just the phases.  Now they want them to know every single step, I can hear it already "are you sure thats a step."  (Twice now I have completely disagreed with Explosion on this subject, play much Storm?  Really... scoop?  No topdeck?)  Anyways, I do believe that mana burn is something WotC should not completely removed. 

When I do play something competitive and put money into this game it is usually Limited because of building skill and understanding combat stack tricks.  As do the majority of people I have played Limited with.  So how does pissing off the crowd that gives WotC a good deal of business good for them.  They say it is to get more people to play by making it easier to introduce but the facts people are going to play or not.  Out of all the people that I have introduced and taught this game too, the ones that are truly interested will learn and the ones that are not don't.  Simple.

I would also like to restate something someone else already did and that is a lot of casual play groups I have played with Do Make Up Their Own Rules whenever it is more convenient or easier for the group.  A lot, not all, but the great deal if not close to majority.  If one rule seems stupid, it was simply gone.  Has anyone heard or said "one or no lands, no problem just take seven new cards".  Casual is as casual does.

One last thing for now.  Thanks Noah for showing people how to properly articulate this game in an imaginative and flavorful way that is understandable and makes the stack make sense.  If that wasn't clear enough for someone (sorry Explosion) then well I just don't know what to say.  I know they can play my game.  It was designed to be simple and fun and expansive for a wide audience.


Lates for now,
Dr.KnowMaD

Oh, and I still like to use my burning wish do things like walk will walk wish walk, and other esque tricks.  I think WotC just Exiled me somewhat.

[Norm4eva]

Arent the new combat timing changes just going back to the roots of magic?  when i first learned the game, creatures killed on the battlefield couldnt also be sacrificed.  it was under these rules that mogg fanatic was designed, then got very lucky when the rules turned him into a 2/1 trampler for  .  I for one look forward to these new rules and think alot of folks never had to explain to a new player exactly how it was that you killed all of their creatures with damage on the stack.

Given the amount of tension caused in the past by WotC, under the flag of restoring "original intent" or "intended functionality", I would submit that a great deal of their most egregious mistakes have come from their varying attempts to move aspects of the game backwards in time.

Not singling you out, just sayin' is all.

[korgano]

Man, that article by Mark R. @ wizards that Lotus Head posted was full of so much corporate-speak and strawmen. Mana burn didn't "defend itself in the design space?" Seriously Mark? More than half of that article was focused on his "deep" understanding of what people think, e.g. that those who initially don't accept changes will ultimately accept them. Wow, what truly groundbreaking critiques on humanity this comm major has.

His only real argument for removing mana burn (as apposed to people's inability to comprehend straightforward rules) was that it didn't come up much in the "extensive" month long testing that his team did. What I'm sure he didn't mention is that they were presumably using a T2 cardsets, which typically isn't designed to have out of control mana streams.  I've played plenty of matches in vintage where burn matters, and where burn has either won or lost me the game.

As was said before me, mana burn has always forced players who have access to larger amounts of mana, and thus the potential to make larger, more diverse, or more broken plays, to either use it all or take pain. Risk and reward going hand and hand. This removal just dumbs-down the game further.

[Lurker101]

I care about Welder and arcbound ravager and trike and grim lavamancer and mogg fanatic and pentavus and triskelavus and suchi and mishra's factory  and aether spellbomb and repeal and echoing truth.  Maybe you don't, but I'm sure there are others who also care about the cards i listed.

I care too and agree that eliminating combat tricks detracts from strategy and rewards inattentive playing. Also those are all cards that see vintage play and there are a hell of a lot more than that too. It would be nice if they kept at least the combat damage not going on the stack change to all the formats that aren't eternal, but they would never do that.  Sidenote: I'm also not a big fan of not being able to get exiled cards back using cards like the wish cycle or research/development but I can live with that change.