Assigning combat damage on the stack makes a lot of things simpler and better. Post combat sorceries like Pyroclasm are worse. Damage prevention abilities like Bandage are worse. Wither with multiple blockers is worse. And there are bound to be other abilities that are weaker without stacking damage.
And what do we get in return? Creatures can no longer stack damage, leave combat, and still deal combat damage. Is ther any other benefit?
Rather than completely overhauling combat to handle damage stacking in a round about way, why not just answer it up front with just one rules change/addition?
If a creature assigns and/or is assigned combat damage but is not in combat as combat damage resolves, that creature neither deals nor is dealt combat damage.
What is the benefit of such an obtuse rules change that weakens so many different abilities just to stop creatures dealing damage after they have left combat. One simple rules change could achieve the same result without messing with other abilities nearly as much.
Let creatures assign damage and put combat damage on the stack as combat damage step begins. As combat damage resolves, all creatures that are in combat simultaneously deal their damage as assigned.
new magic will be okay.
but my play group will stick with the old rules.
like many other play groups.
"enter the battlefield."
a phrase we will no be using.
EVER.
things are played.
or are put into play.
if you dont understand, play yugioh.
Ha. What?
Game terminology changes all the time. It was cast before it was play, and now it's cast again.
Who cares if they call it exile or the battlefield? It will become 2nd nature really fast.
You're not going to play by the "new rules"? Just make up your own rules then... like it or not, these are now the ONLY rules of Magic the Gathering. Anything else you'll be playing by will be house rules only. May as well use a few other rules in there as well, so long as you're not playing by the actual rules of the game.
This. The thing that makes Magic enjoyable - to me at least - is the strategic aspects. (And I must say, I don't think these changes are THAT horrible) WotC seems to be taking away opporutinies that make the game a more tactically-rich experience and I'm afraid of where it might go.
No, this adds strategy. Here's I posted this a while back.
Old Rules Scenario: Player {A} has Sakura-Tribe Elder and Player {B} has Savannah Lions. Player {B} swings and you block, sac your elder, get your land. Player {B} loses his lion. Woo you get a land and you each lose a creature. No-thought scenario.
New Rules Scenario: Player {A} has Sakura-Tribe Elder and Player {B} has Savannah Lions. Player {B} swings and you declare the Elder as a blocker. Ah, now you have a choice! Let damage go through, you both lose your creature but you get no land. OR you can block and sac, get your land but no damage gets dealt and the lion lives. You have something called strategy. Do you want to get your land? Do you want the lion to live? Could something in your hand stop the lion next turn? Do you really need the extra land? Etc, etc.
You have more thought-based choices now. It almost seems like everyone just doesn't want to think...
1.) Damage no longer uses the stack: This is really bad idea... it makes so many creatures useless. I think from now on we will see far less creatures with sacrifice a ability seeing any play, unless their ability is just that good. Also, I hate the fact that it removes so many combat tricks from the game. Many combat tricks revolved off of the words "Damage on the stack", the loss of it takes away alot of skill that separated a good aggressive deck player from another less skilled player due to the ability to think out well planned combat tricks.
Also, it makes many creatures, somewhat new and old, far weaker then they should be. Some examples are Mogg Fanatic, Putrid Leach, ECT.
2.) The new Damage Assignment Rule (IE, deal lethal to one before dealing any to the next.): Another bad idea, it again takes away so many skilled decisions. Also, how does this work with deathtouch? If I have a 3/3 creature with deathtouch and it gets triple blocked by three 3/3s, can I deal one to each or do I have to deal all to one? If it is the second that is just terrible.
I'm sure I could rant more, but thats just the main idea of my rant.
This. The thing that makes Magic enjoyable - to me at least - is the strategic aspects. (And I must say, I don't think these changes are THAT horrible) WotC seems to be taking away opporutinies that make the game a more tactically-rich experience and I'm afraid of where it might go.
They haven't removed any strategic depth at all. Now you have to make the decision to have the tribe-elder deal it's one damage OR fetch a land. Instead of it always doing both. More decisions = more "depth" weather it makes the cards a little less powerful or not.
The combat damage change was simply unnecessary. All of you guys defending wotc until you're blue in the face... were any of you sitting there a week ago saying COMBAT DAMAGE ON THE STACK SUCKS! WE SHOULD CHANGE THIS! i'm guessing no.
the fact that the majority of mtg players understood the combat dmg rules perfectly fine, AND the fact that this change affects hundreds of cards only compounds the problem.
while i plan to continue to play magic and adapt to the changes... i don't have to like them.
bottom line is: change was not needed... especially change that (on the surface level) seems to simplify the game AND alter the functionality of so many cards that have already been printed.
I don't think this is correct. During declare blockers step, the attacking player decides the order in which he is going to assign damage. After he chooses this order, you then get the opportunity to respond, say with giant growth. He chose an order of 3/3 for #1, 2/2 for #2, you then Might of New Alara on your 3/3, it eats all the damage, trading with the attacker, and the 2/2 takes none.
Yes, I know. Perhaps my example was confusing but what I mean is, before, your opponent would probably assign 3 to the 3/3 and 2 to the 2/2, at which point you could Might the 3/3 and have it survive. This way, though, to use your Might of Alara you have to use it before your opponent has chosen any damage assignments, so he gets to plan accordingly once you've used your trick (which, I think, defeats the entire purpose of calling it a trick... now it's more of a buff...).
If they were changing the rules to have a player pick out "Blocker #1" and "Blocker #2" why couldn't they have just changed the rules to have a player pick out "3 damage to this guy" and "2 damage to this guy" (now damage is NOT on the stack, there's just the concept that when damage is dealt that's the amount that will be dealt) and then give players a chance to use Giant Growth or Healing Salve or whatever else. It's essentially the same as using the stack, but Mogg Fanatic and stuff will still have to function the same way... if you want him to deal the 1 damage you've chosen to assign, you can't sacrifice him. If you do, the damage you've chosen to assign dissapears (much like mana in the pool at the end of a step). This change would seem the best of both worlds, to me, but perhaps there is something I'm missing.
I would imagine it would get confusing once there's massive blocks going on to remember "okay so 2 to that guy 1 to that guy 3 to that guy 2 to that guy" etc. etc. but I'd imagine it's not a whole lot more confusing than blockers 1 through 4, or how combat is done already via assigning damage and then putting it on the stack....
A lot of people are complaining about these rules changes because they make certain cards worse... remember that throughout Magic history all the time cards that were considered a certain strength before are being reevaluated. As we're talking about in respect to the new duals... right now basics suck, so these duals seem a bit on the weak side. In a realm where basics are excellent (or simply one where nonbasics are not that good or there simply aren't that many to choose from) these new duals are great! Another example... how good would Seismic Assault's inclusion in 10th have been without Swans of Brynn Argol in Shadowmoor? The same way in Magic's past, creatures were worthless because in general non-creature spells and permanents were way stronger. These days, creature is probably the most important permanent type (format depending, of course...). This time certain cards have to be reevaluated based on a rules change rather than only because new cards are being introduced, but ultimately that's what we do every time a new set is released anyway!
Did anybody else notice this at the end of the official rule change notice on the Magic site?
"The changes listed in this article aren't the only rules changes that are taking place, but they're the most relevant ones to modern Magic Play."
Of the other changes, banding is mentioned. Friggin' banding. All of the "Zendikar iz RPG setz" folks will have fun with that one.
Any changes they would make to combat would likely affect banding as well, so this isn't surprising to me. I doubt they're bringing back banding, just keeping ol' banding in line with the relevant features of the game.
2.) The new Damage Assignment Rule (IE, deal lethal to one before dealing any to the next.): Another bad idea, it again takes away so many skilled decisions. Also, how does this work with deathtouch? If I have a 3/3 creature with deathtouch and it gets triple blocked by three 3/3s, can I deal one to each or do I have to deal all to one? If it is the second that is just terrible.
deathtouch gets to use the old rules (assign the damage wherever you want)... you know, cuz, like, that was too confusing for players except in cases where deathtouch was involved, or something. i think. huh?
This. The thing that makes Magic enjoyable - to me at least - is the strategic aspects. (And I must say, I don't think these changes are THAT horrible) WotC seems to be taking away opporutinies that make the game a more tactically-rich experience and I'm afraid of where it might go.
Yeah, two new card types in the last 3 blocks disagrees with you. Each new block has WAY more new mechanics than the older sets to boot.
For instance, Tempest block had Kor, Slivers, Shadow, Buyback, Spikes, Licids and overpowered enchantments. It took away multicolor (very few multicolor cards in the cycle, aside from slivers).
Mirage block had banding, flanking, phasing, cumulative upkeep and rampage.
Alara had colored artifacts, creatures-over-power-5-matter, unearth, bombs-matter, devour, domain, hybrid and exalted.
Planechase shows wizards is finally opening up to variant formats again (poor vanguard was so ahead of its time). Promos of chase rare planeswalkers show that wizards doesn't want it to be a "rich man wins" game as much as it could be.
Planechase shows wizards is finally opening up to variant formats again (poor vanguard was so ahead of its time). Promos of chase rare planeswalkers show that wizards doesn't want it to be a "rich man wins" game as much as it could be.
putting foil promos in boxed sets = a marketting tool. please don't kid yourself into thinking wotc isn't about the bottom line of selling as much product as possible. (i'm not saying i'm not glad they do it... but i can tell you i wouldn't buy any of those products if they didn't include some special foils)
I agree about the sac creatures that there are more options (Though I still don't like it), but all of them kind of nerf the thing that made the card playable to begin with.
But think about every other time you've said "Damage on" and done somthing...I don't know, I can't think of anything off of the top of my head (I have been ill for a few days so forgive my inability to debate). I just feel it was so unneeded.
Still, it's not like arguing will do anything to change these, so whatever.
Why. Let's say I have two bullets. I can either use those 2 bullets to kill one guy, or use one on each to wound them and leave something else to mop both of them up (like say, a Vithian Stinger I discard in my second main, unearth, and ping with). Now I can't really do that.
Your bullet analogy (and ditto for the arrow explanation I read earlier in this thread) fails for every creature who's not capable of attacking at long-range, which is to say, it fails for most creatures.
If it works, why change it so that it is possibly no longer viable? Change for the sake of change isn't always a good thing.
Where did you get the idea that any of the changes being discussed in this thread were made just for the sake of change? Did you even read the article linked to in the opening post? If you had, you'd have read the rationale behind each change. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with it, but you're ignoring it instead.
The entire point of sacrificing a card is that you perform an action by dying. Sacrificing a card for an effect on the damage stack is effectively getting the benefit of dying twice.
I agree. Sacrificing Mogg Fanatic or Ravenous Baloth after blocking, and still dealing damage with it, is completely illogical and arbitrary. People cling to it as if it makes perfect sense only because of nostalgia: that's the way they learned to play the game, and so they are deeply suspect and sensitive to any signifiant changes.
No, it cuts strategy, cause
1) the lion's controller is now playing a bad creature just because combat tricks are now nerfed
2) the lion's controller does not need to think anymore, he just needs to attack attack attack
I used The lions because it was a 2/1. Your first point is laughably bad since you're attacking a card and not the point at hand. Your second point is again laughable. Because you always need to think in MTG. You're just seeing the field at hand. You take no consideration each players hand, open mana the following turn, etc, etc. You attack each turn with a creature you have unless it has Defender, or is so important you dare not throw it into the fray, or you need a blocker. The lion is neither "defendeing" nor a critical component and thus logically you'd attack with it whenever you could anyhow.
Yeah, two new card types in the last 3 blocks disagrees with you. Each new block has WAY more new mechanics than the older sets to boot.
For instance, Tempest block had Kor, Slivers, Shadow, Buyback, Spikes, Licids and overpowered enchantments. It took away multicolor (very few multicolor cards in the cycle, aside from slivers).
Mirage block had banding, flanking, phasing, cumulative upkeep and rampage.
Alara had colored artifacts, creatures-over-power-5-matter, unearth, bombs-matter, devour, domain, hybrid and exalted.
Planechase shows wizards is finally opening up to variant formats again (poor vanguard was so ahead of its time). Promos of chase rare planeswalkers show that wizards doesn't want it to be a "rich man wins" game as much as it could be.
I don't remember ever mentioning card types or any previous WotC decisions. I'm talking about these changes.
No, it cuts strategy, cause
1) the lion's controller is now playing a bad creature just because combat tricks are now nerfed
2) the lion's controller does not need to think anymore, he just needs to attack attack attack
wow just wow, Savannah lions is a bad creature now? And sure the Savannah lions controller still has to think. does he want to lose his lions? Will the defender kill his lions or go for land? The attacker really has the same dilema as before if he was going to attack into a tribe elder before this change he will still do it and if he wasn't going to attack into the tribe elder before for fear of losing his creature he still won't. The change is now the defender has a dilema, get the land or get rid of the terribad creature no more automatic two-for one... thus more strategy added.
Banding:
"You may assign combat damage dealt to an attacking or blocking band. Creatures with banding may attack or block in a band. Only one non-banding creature may be a part of an attacking band. If one creature in a band in blocked, all creatures in the band are blocked."
Wordy? Yes. Confusing? Not really. Its actually really simple: it only gets confusing when trample is involved or when players cheat by lying and claiming keywords are somehow shared or that banding modifies how their damage is done.
Personally I hope they change how poison counters are done in preparation for the Zendalkar block. Specifically, using Poisonous instead of all the variations of it.
Then again, I also hope some day Vampiric will be keyworded...
I think some players who have played this game for years will rediscover a feel to the game that they didn't even know was missing.
I think newer players will be taught more easily.
I think some other players will be indifferent.
honestly, that's good to hear and i hope i feel the same way as you do in a few weeks. i've been playing since antiquities, and i've tested the new changes a bit while playing apprentice with a friend... so far i find it far from nostalgic and far from intuitive.
but i'll adapt. i'm not sure i'll ever like it though.
Wizards you are loseing your mind (and likely soon your loyal customers)
you had me ok until you screwed with combat damage... I could tolerate battlefeild.... cast, the lifelink,deathtouch (though thoughs ones were harder) but basicly now I am just going to be playing in my play group who will play "True Magic" the correct way. Without Wizards telling me what is or is not better for the game.
I don't remember ever mentioning card types or any previous WotC decisions. I'm talking about these changes.
Yeah, your saying that WotC is making the game less tactical. But really they are removing some tactics while adding others.
Claming Magic is any less complex now than immediately after 6th edition is a lie. Even if you just look at standard, the game has way more tactics now then it did in Urza's or even Mercadia block.
Of course, people love feeling superior to others by going "When I played magic, things were better."
you had me ok until you screwed with combat damage... but basicly now I am just going to be playing in my play group who will play "True Magic" the correct way. Without Wizards telling me what is or is not better for the game.
There is a group you should look into. They refuse to play with any cards printed after Fallen Empires and play pre-sixth edition rules.
As for 4th, the big difference there is 4th is really wizard's first DnD game. d20/3.0 wasn't their baby. They just got a good portion of the rights to it. This is our first real look into a 100% WotC RPG. It kinda sucks...but it is easier to DM/judge/play with strangers. Which is Wizards primary concern with both Magic and DnD: can it be made into a massively organized game with refs/judges?
Yeah, your saying that WotC is making the game less tactical. But really they are removing some tactics while adding others.
Claming Magic is any less complex now than immediately after 6th edition is a lie. Even if you just look at standard, the game has way more tactics now then it did in Urza's or even Mercadia block.
Of course, people love feeling superior to others by going "When I played magic, things were better."
6Ed stack rules: some cards worse, many cards better.
M10 combat rules: many many many many cards worse, very few cards better
Try again, bub.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And what do we get in return? Creatures can no longer stack damage, leave combat, and still deal combat damage. Is ther any other benefit?
Rather than completely overhauling combat to handle damage stacking in a round about way, why not just answer it up front with just one rules change/addition?
Let creatures assign damage and put combat damage on the stack as combat damage step begins. As combat damage resolves, all creatures that are in combat simultaneously deal their damage as assigned.
Ha. What?
Game terminology changes all the time. It was cast before it was play, and now it's cast again.
Who cares if they call it exile or the battlefield? It will become 2nd nature really fast.
You're not going to play by the "new rules"? Just make up your own rules then... like it or not, these are now the ONLY rules of Magic the Gathering. Anything else you'll be playing by will be house rules only. May as well use a few other rules in there as well, so long as you're not playing by the actual rules of the game.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
No, this adds strategy. Here's I posted this a while back.
1.) Damage no longer uses the stack: This is really bad idea... it makes so many creatures useless. I think from now on we will see far less creatures with sacrifice a ability seeing any play, unless their ability is just that good. Also, I hate the fact that it removes so many combat tricks from the game. Many combat tricks revolved off of the words "Damage on the stack", the loss of it takes away alot of skill that separated a good aggressive deck player from another less skilled player due to the ability to think out well planned combat tricks.
Also, it makes many creatures, somewhat new and old, far weaker then they should be. Some examples are Mogg Fanatic, Putrid Leach, ECT.
2.) The new Damage Assignment Rule (IE, deal lethal to one before dealing any to the next.): Another bad idea, it again takes away so many skilled decisions. Also, how does this work with deathtouch? If I have a 3/3 creature with deathtouch and it gets triple blocked by three 3/3s, can I deal one to each or do I have to deal all to one? If it is the second that is just terrible.
I'm sure I could rant more, but thats just the main idea of my rant.
They haven't removed any strategic depth at all. Now you have to make the decision to have the tribe-elder deal it's one damage OR fetch a land. Instead of it always doing both. More decisions = more "depth" weather it makes the cards a little less powerful or not.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
the fact that the majority of mtg players understood the combat dmg rules perfectly fine, AND the fact that this change affects hundreds of cards only compounds the problem.
while i plan to continue to play magic and adapt to the changes... i don't have to like them.
bottom line is: change was not needed... especially change that (on the surface level) seems to simplify the game AND alter the functionality of so many cards that have already been printed.
Yes, I know. Perhaps my example was confusing but what I mean is, before, your opponent would probably assign 3 to the 3/3 and 2 to the 2/2, at which point you could Might the 3/3 and have it survive. This way, though, to use your Might of Alara you have to use it before your opponent has chosen any damage assignments, so he gets to plan accordingly once you've used your trick (which, I think, defeats the entire purpose of calling it a trick... now it's more of a buff...).
If they were changing the rules to have a player pick out "Blocker #1" and "Blocker #2" why couldn't they have just changed the rules to have a player pick out "3 damage to this guy" and "2 damage to this guy" (now damage is NOT on the stack, there's just the concept that when damage is dealt that's the amount that will be dealt) and then give players a chance to use Giant Growth or Healing Salve or whatever else. It's essentially the same as using the stack, but Mogg Fanatic and stuff will still have to function the same way... if you want him to deal the 1 damage you've chosen to assign, you can't sacrifice him. If you do, the damage you've chosen to assign dissapears (much like mana in the pool at the end of a step). This change would seem the best of both worlds, to me, but perhaps there is something I'm missing.
I would imagine it would get confusing once there's massive blocks going on to remember "okay so 2 to that guy 1 to that guy 3 to that guy 2 to that guy" etc. etc. but I'd imagine it's not a whole lot more confusing than blockers 1 through 4, or how combat is done already via assigning damage and then putting it on the stack....
A lot of people are complaining about these rules changes because they make certain cards worse... remember that throughout Magic history all the time cards that were considered a certain strength before are being reevaluated. As we're talking about in respect to the new duals... right now basics suck, so these duals seem a bit on the weak side. In a realm where basics are excellent (or simply one where nonbasics are not that good or there simply aren't that many to choose from) these new duals are great! Another example... how good would Seismic Assault's inclusion in 10th have been without Swans of Brynn Argol in Shadowmoor? The same way in Magic's past, creatures were worthless because in general non-creature spells and permanents were way stronger. These days, creature is probably the most important permanent type (format depending, of course...). This time certain cards have to be reevaluated based on a rules change rather than only because new cards are being introduced, but ultimately that's what we do every time a new set is released anyway!
Any changes they would make to combat would likely affect banding as well, so this isn't surprising to me. I doubt they're bringing back banding, just keeping ol' banding in line with the relevant features of the game.
My LinkedIn profile... thing (I have one of those now!).
My research team's webpage.
The mtg-rnn repo and the mtg-encode repo.
deathtouch gets to use the old rules (assign the damage wherever you want)... you know, cuz, like, that was too confusing for players except in cases where deathtouch was involved, or something. i think. huh?
Yeah, two new card types in the last 3 blocks disagrees with you. Each new block has WAY more new mechanics than the older sets to boot.
For instance, Tempest block had Kor, Slivers, Shadow, Buyback, Spikes, Licids and overpowered enchantments. It took away multicolor (very few multicolor cards in the cycle, aside from slivers).
Mirage block had banding, flanking, phasing, cumulative upkeep and rampage.
Alara had colored artifacts, creatures-over-power-5-matter, unearth, bombs-matter, devour, domain, hybrid and exalted.
Lorwyn-Shadowmoor had wither, +1/+1 counters matter, tribal, reinforce, tribal cards, planeswalkers, champion, changeling, clash, evoke, hideaway, kinship, prowl, conspire, persist, retrace, chroma and untapping.
Planechase shows wizards is finally opening up to variant formats again (poor vanguard was so ahead of its time). Promos of chase rare planeswalkers show that wizards doesn't want it to be a "rich man wins" game as much as it could be.
Custom Set: Pokemon: Generation 1
My mind numbing DC-10 stack!
putting foil promos in boxed sets = a marketting tool. please don't kid yourself into thinking wotc isn't about the bottom line of selling as much product as possible. (i'm not saying i'm not glad they do it... but i can tell you i wouldn't buy any of those products if they didn't include some special foils)
Probably... Until they playtested it.
But think about every other time you've said "Damage on" and done somthing...I don't know, I can't think of anything off of the top of my head (I have been ill for a few days so forgive my inability to debate). I just feel it was so unneeded.
Still, it's not like arguing will do anything to change these, so whatever.
serious question:
do you feel that the changes truly IMPROVE the game?
or
do you feel the changes are tolerable and we will all adapt?
because a week ago nobody (including you guys defending this change) was saying "combat damage on the stack" needs to be changed!
Your bullet analogy (and ditto for the arrow explanation I read earlier in this thread) fails for every creature who's not capable of attacking at long-range, which is to say, it fails for most creatures.
Me, and millions of other Magic players, I assure you.
Where did you get the idea that any of the changes being discussed in this thread were made just for the sake of change? Did you even read the article linked to in the opening post? If you had, you'd have read the rationale behind each change. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with it, but you're ignoring it instead.
I agree. Sacrificing Mogg Fanatic or Ravenous Baloth after blocking, and still dealing damage with it, is completely illogical and arbitrary. People cling to it as if it makes perfect sense only because of nostalgia: that's the way they learned to play the game, and so they are deeply suspect and sensitive to any signifiant changes.
I don't remember ever mentioning card types or any previous WotC decisions.
Without a doubt in my mind, yes.
I think some players who have played this game for years will rediscover a feel to the game that they didn't even know was missing.
I think newer players will be taught more easily.
I think some other players will be indifferent.
wow just wow, Savannah lions is a bad creature now? And sure the Savannah lions controller still has to think. does he want to lose his lions? Will the defender kill his lions or go for land? The attacker really has the same dilema as before if he was going to attack into a tribe elder before this change he will still do it and if he wasn't going to attack into the tribe elder before for fear of losing his creature he still won't. The change is now the defender has a dilema, get the land or get rid of the terribad creature no more automatic two-for one... thus more strategy added.
(Northeastern PA Vintage)
"You may assign combat damage dealt to an attacking or blocking band. Creatures with banding may attack or block in a band. Only one non-banding creature may be a part of an attacking band. If one creature in a band in blocked, all creatures in the band are blocked."
Wordy? Yes. Confusing? Not really. Its actually really simple: it only gets confusing when trample is involved or when players cheat by lying and claiming keywords are somehow shared or that banding modifies how their damage is done.
Personally I hope they change how poison counters are done in preparation for the Zendalkar block. Specifically, using Poisonous instead of all the variations of it.
Then again, I also hope some day Vampiric will be keyworded...
Custom Set: Pokemon: Generation 1
My mind numbing DC-10 stack!
honestly, that's good to hear and i hope i feel the same way as you do in a few weeks. i've been playing since antiquities, and i've tested the new changes a bit while playing apprentice with a friend... so far i find it far from nostalgic and far from intuitive.
but i'll adapt. i'm not sure i'll ever like it though.
Now this....
Wizards you are loseing your mind (and likely soon your loyal customers)
you had me ok until you screwed with combat damage... I could tolerate battlefeild.... cast, the lifelink,deathtouch (though thoughs ones were harder) but basicly now I am just going to be playing in my play group who will play "True Magic" the correct way. Without Wizards telling me what is or is not better for the game.
Yeah, your saying that WotC is making the game less tactical. But really they are removing some tactics while adding others.
Claming Magic is any less complex now than immediately after 6th edition is a lie. Even if you just look at standard, the game has way more tactics now then it did in Urza's or even Mercadia block.
Of course, people love feeling superior to others by going "When I played magic, things were better."
Custom Set: Pokemon: Generation 1
My mind numbing DC-10 stack!
There is a group you should look into. They refuse to play with any cards printed after Fallen Empires and play pre-sixth edition rules.
As for 4th, the big difference there is 4th is really wizard's first DnD game. d20/3.0 wasn't their baby. They just got a good portion of the rights to it. This is our first real look into a 100% WotC RPG. It kinda sucks...but it is easier to DM/judge/play with strangers. Which is Wizards primary concern with both Magic and DnD: can it be made into a massively organized game with refs/judges?
Custom Set: Pokemon: Generation 1
My mind numbing DC-10 stack!
6Ed stack rules: some cards worse, many cards better.
M10 combat rules: many many many many cards worse, very few cards better
Try again, bub.