Gifts Ungiven

"losing to game play is fun, but losing to the game is not"

Bay my opinion we are loosing game play with it, as there are numerous interactions which will not work the new way, so it's like "castrating" a lot of cards. And I don't really care that things as saccing a Fanatic after combat damage is on the stack is not intuitive. A lot of things in Magic are not intuitive (check those layer-ruling for example).

I have to shrug at some cards losing functionality. Back when I first played, Mirror Universe was a legitimate win condition, as you could drop yourself to 0 life without dying and pass that life total off to your opponent. When this bit of counter-intuitive play went away with a rules change, MU was no longer a wincon, and we were all okay.

Layering is, indeed, not super intuitive -- but it's also not nearly as significant a gameplay component as combat.

We lose some game play, we gain others. Now, it's no longer the obvious choice to put damage on and sacrifice for value; instead, you have to choose between the two. That is, as Zac has pointed out elsewhere, a more interesting "choice" than "choosing" to do the clearly correct play or not.

There will be more things like this as we play with the new rules.

(This all does make me wish I were around for the removal of Interrupts and batches...I know there are folks who still play by those rules, too.)

I think you are dramatically overestimating how difficult it is to remember damage assignments in gang block situations. It is almost always exactly lethal or the carryover from killing another blocker. The most glaring problem with the new rule is that it doesn't allow for sub-lethal splits. Though they are a rarity, they do come up, and they do so at a level of play where people are not going to be in the acquisition phase any longer.

Excellent article, very good arguments.

I agree that the inital article by WotC was a little confusing in regards to combat. You make that much clearer by arranging the blockers like a stack. (Though you might want to change rotation of 2-3 images to make it even clearer).

Personally, I don't think we will lose all that much. Many cards got worse (or less overpowered), but so what. Things change, and those who cry foul the loudest just don't want to see their favourite cards/strategies lose value.

How retarded are Magic players that they can't remember a few numbers between 1-4, as damage assigned to different creatures? Are we really too stupid to remember those things? How do we even function in our everyday lives if THAT is the excuse for making all blocking act like trample now? It's a giant excuse and a giant insult to all Magic players.

"However, it's a massive, massive gain in terms of player acquisition and retention"

Evidence? Oh right, none exists yet. :/

Also, regarding the whole "Now you have to make real choices with your Siege-Gang Commander!" argument:

No, you don't, because it may never see play again. Same with Mogg Fantastic. This isn't 1999, and the reason he saw play was because of his ability to sacrifice with damage on the stack. Same with SGC. And if they DO print a new version of Fanatic or SGC to replicate the old decisions under the new system, then WHAT was the point of replacing the old system in the first place?

I have yet to hear a single good argument in favor of the new combat rules. Not a single one, anywhere.

"As far as I'm concerned..."

Note the clear marker of opinion there. Clearly, there's no evidence until it works out.

However, I'm fine with it from my gameplay standpoint, so I'm happy.

(...and Siege-Gang Commander is actually still good, even if you can't sacrifice it with damage on. It generates multiple guys off of one card and gives you reach, as you can toss all your dudes at their face if you can no longer attack.)

This all does make me glad I skipped the transition to Sixth edition, and was able to come back in, look at the changes, and say, "Works for me." This is pretty much what I'm saying now.

This appears to be easier both in terms of visualizing the game and for intuition reasons (see the next post), and to simply be /different/ otherwise. If I have to cash in my STEs before damage, I'm okay with that. I'll keep playing them.

"How retarded are Magic players..."

No idea, but I know I've watched people use calculators for simple arithmetic, and tournament players the world over keep probabilistically poor hands because they "might get there."

It's not really that people are too dumb, it's that it's a hassle when the "typical" player (probably not me, probably not you) wants to play a game of Elves and Goblins fighting, and not a game of invisible floating damage after which other effects may or may not happen.

I suppose we can feel insulted if we want, but I think it's fair to recall that the majority of people who play aren't showing up at PTQs, or even FNMs, and if the game has been changed to make it appealing to them while still leaving a complex, fascinating game for us (which I think they've managed), then I think it's a good thing.

Meh. If we changed it "back" in four years, people would complain about how we're ruining the game. Like Mythics ruined it, or planeswalkers, or Shards of Alara block, etc, etc.

I like it. Looking forward to M2010.

"This is a cognitive load. It may be inconsequential to those of us who enjoy competitive play and funky combat tricks, but it's the kind of thing that confuses new players and makes complex combat situations drag out, which we can imagine might be discouraging for casual players as well."

The new system still requires you to remember the numbers when damage is dealt, it just steps from assignment to dealing without any step in between, much like if combat damage had split second.

This becomes important when you consider first strike, which now should interpose a step between first strikers' damage and non-first strikers' damage in which one can consider players will once again gain priority after damage is dealt but before some creatures are dealt damage. This will still confuse players. Moreover, players will know that deathtouch ignores this, since I now need only assign 1 damage to any creature in the Conga Line, then they all die.

IMHO- The change is OK for me as I never played with combat tricks. Bounce will affect me but whatevers- Im fine with that. I started playing playing when 6th ed came out and just watched friends play temp block before that and stopped playing when prophecy came out. Started again when Darksteel came out and wasnt too impressed so I stopped. Started once again when Future Sight came out and was quite unhappy so i stopped. Now I started again a few months be4 Reborn came out and I have to say that im pleased- probly because of how much access I have to MTGO and new take on colors. When I played a game on MTGO I saw someone throw down an Ajani. I was quite surprised and had NO idea what that was and why its not a creature but a PW. I dont like PW's. I dont plan on ever playing with a PW even if it can boost my deck. I dont see playing cards that have ridiculous abilities and are able to win. Id rather have someone channel, fireball me for 20 turn 1 or 2 instead of dieing to a PW.

Overall Im happy for a change since it could possibly engage more interest into me and start actually playing FNM more often.
Thanks for the Article.

"some of the obvious choices ("Damage on, sac this Goblin to Siege-Gang Commander") are replaced by real choices ("Deal damage to the blocker or sac to deal 2 damage to the player instead?")."

This is true. Mogg Fanatic now forces an option between combat damage vs sac effect. That doesn't make it horrible- just slightly worse sometimes. It still offs x/1 utility guys and can hit the opponent for 1 despite blockers. Likewise, Sakura Tribe-Elder doesn't suddenly suck because it's only 98% as useful- 98% of STE is still better than 100% of Rampant Growth. STE is still Rampant Growth that chumps. Siege-Gang is still good as well for reasons listed above.

Making a card 2% worse doesn't make it suddenly unplayable. If it still does what you need it to do, you will still play it. It just doesn't sometimes do that extra tiny little thing you're used to it doing that made it over-the-top good instead of just extremely good. Oh noes?? Even if sac creatures stop being played, something else that used to NOT be played will have a chance to shine. Same with new strategies that were previously inferior. It'll be just like how cards and decks rise and fall in value as the meta shifts. Fluxuating values is not a new concept, it's just a different catalyst this time.

Hi, at first I thought removing damage from the stack was wrong, now I'm looking forward to what wizards came up with. The more I think about the new options it opens up, the more I like it.

The only thing I'm not comfortable with is deathtouch in combat, it's an exception to the general rule of combat. Instead they should add to the rules for deathtouch that any amount of damage with it it's considered lethal for the purpose of combat damage, that way you still line them up, but can assign one to the first and one to the second, and so on, that way it's not really exception and makes more sense.

What do you think?

I've seen that "deathtouch = lethal" suggestion elsewhere. It is, in one sense, quite elegant. However, it generates a curious interaction between deathtouch and trample, such that you could have this happen:

Wren's Run Vanquisher equipped with Loxodon Warhammer (making it a 6/3 deathtouch trample creature) is blocked by four Cloudthreshers. Attacking player assigns 1 damage to each Thresher and the remaining 2 points to the defending player. All four Threshers die and some damage makes it through.

Or, to go with another example, defending player is at 4 life, and has a Darksteel Colossus on defense. The same Hammered-up Vanquisher attacks, assigns 1 damage to the Colossus, and tramples through with 5 damage for the win.

I'm not sure if this interaction is overpowered or overweird, but it's something that does detract a bit from the otherwise elegant "deathtouch = lethal" solution.