That makes no sense. All it means is some other card will become the de facto four of comparator spell. Lightning bolt is an iconic staple and should be in every core set.
Actually it presents design problems which have been discussed at length over the years. The only other thing they can do at 1 mana is a "deal 2 damage, sometimes four" which they have done in the last two years with Bolt around. And two-mana 3-damage spell design is impacted as well.
This is not a surprise because that very point was brought up last summer when they announced that Bolt would be back for "one more year."
Really? You mean I can still buy packs of MED1 and MED2 and get Forces and Moat and Duals?!
Actually...I can't. WotC discontinued releasing those packs, so what exists in MTGO now is all that exists except when WotC occasionally releases packs of older sets on MTGO for prices (like when they reward IPA packs for winning events years after IPA was pulled from the online shelves).
MTGO does not have a literal infinite supply to meet demand. They only difference between MTGO and MTG is that cards in MTGO aren't lost to wear and tear.
And some cards are ridiculously expensive in MTGO - namely IPA rares. And Exodus rares, from what I've been told, are pretty ridiculous also due to few people buying and drafting it.
If supply gets low, Worth can put more into the system with special drafts and prizes. This is something that the paper overlords cannot do. Ever.
Of course supply isn't actually an issue at the moment. But if it was, the MTGO team is empowered to handle it.
IPA rares are a notable exception to the rule that cards are far, far cheaper online than in paper (Force of Will is another).
Looking forward to a new update, although I won't be buying any more Magic cards for a while. I'll test as much as I can. On the subject of the Farrelite Priest, you might want to look at all your files with apostrophes in the name if you haven't already. Pretty much anything I have with an apostrophe in the name is incorrect art if it is in a set with similar names (Zur's, Farrell's, Thelon's, etc).
On another note, I am trying (with no luck) to import a collection from MTGO 3. I can get the csv without an issue but there is no way to select "physical" because as you know that no longer exists. There may be other issues with the resulting CSV. I can send you a current one if you like. I am wondering if there is a way I can modify the existing CSV's to create something your program will import. I would prefer to look at my online collection with your program if possible.
No problems to report with Windows 7 RTM. I uninstalled the previous version and added the new one. That process is really smooth now, especially compared to earlier Betas. I will let you know if I find something out as I add the Zendikar cards to my collection. Thanks again for making a great program and looking forward to the new verison!
Fact: people whined when 6th ed rules came out and damage on the stack was added to the game.
Fact: people whined when "the old players got their way" years later and it was reverted similarly to the old combat rules without some of the more inane combat rules of pre-6th.
It is funny how much people oppose change no matter what it is I bet if they kept it this way for 5 years. Then they switched back to combat damage on the stack with some minor modifications people would cry about it again.
So basically anytime they change something you get this crap even if its a change for the good. Now I am just playing devils advocate here I am not commenting directly on this change but does anyone else see the ridiculousness of the people crying about this when they cried when it was changed in the first place?
I assume most people indifferent to this change as I am have probably been playing this game long enough to realize changes will happen deal with it PERIOD.
I don't know that the two groups are the same, really. I have spoken with a few players from very old playgroups of mine, and only one other person ever really came back to the game at all (I play him online). Everyone, including him, has said "it's about time they fixed that." We were very upset over Sixth Edition changes, and most of the old players are content to be ex-players. But while this is the next big change since then, it is, at MOST, Sixth Edition, Jr. It's not nearly the upheaval that players think it is.
I can see people being less than happy over losing certain card interactions. After all, Sixth Edition destroyed entire decks for me (things weren't merely worse, but actually no longer possible) so I have empathy. Looking back at the irrational claims and insults thrown my way on the main forums by people who didn't even understand why they had combat damage use the stack in the first place, I let a few too many people slide because they were basically venting. But we're two sets in now and people are still confused over why it was added ten years ago, why it was removed now, and what it did or did not add to the game in terms of overall difficulty. (Point of interest: we said in 1999 that allowing creatures to deal their damage even after removing them from combat rewarded players that were too lazy to learn the rules of the game.) At some point, maybe it really is players upset about change simply because it is change. I can be honest and say that this was a clear issue with me back then.
Thanks as always Wafry. There are a number of great spoiler layouts but I like yours the best.
I am noticing now that some of the jpegs are not showing. I can't tell if it is just me, but I have refreshed multiple times. Paralyzing Trap, Gyser Slider, Indestructability (?It's next to Geyser Slider), Kazuul Warlord, Vines of the Vastwood and Trailblazer Boots are the cards I see as Red X's. I assume they are all there otherwise
Actually, we're all quite well aware of how it works, and has worked.
The contention is: Regeneration is far more confusing than damage on the stack.
-The word Regeneration, by every accepted definition and interpretation, is the rapid healing of a wound. This requires a wound, which a creature does not have pre-combat. So Pre-regenerating is actually the exact opposite of what any new player would rationally expect. This is far, far, more a point of confusion than "Damage goes on the stack just like spells" ever was.
At best, it would have been "as" confusing as combat damage using the stack, not more so, considering the concept of pre-regeneration was introduced at the same time, and for the same reason, as combat damage using the stack, yet somehow has only really come up as an issue when a few people started trying to make an example of it three months ago. It is much easier to explain that a player needs to get his regeneration and healing spells cast before the offending spell/effect kills the creature, then explaining how it makes any sense for a creature to start to swing an axe, somehow cast an effect that often removes it from play entirely, and still have the axe hit its target even though it is no longer in existence. What you clearly want is the return of the Damage Prevention step, not the return of combat damage using the stack.
-As has been proven numerous times, not only by people trying to regenerate as damage is dealt, but people trying to regenerate after damage has been dealt, and occasionally trying to regenerate after it's in the graveyard.
Okay, so we can prove that no matter what the rules are, people will get them wrong. Ever watch someone try to play a sorcery during combat? Underpay for something? Forget to draw a card?
Generally, the point is, Regeneration makes it clear that WOTC's goal was not to clear up the rules for new players. If WOTC's goal had actually been to clear up the rules for new players, at points where they become most confused and make errors, Regeneration would've been errata'd to "If this creature has taken lethal damage, you may pay (cost) to remove all damage from this creature and then tap it". That would clear up the regeneration confusion completely, making it function exactly as the word implies and as most new players try to play it.
Again, the old Damage Prevention step is not coming back.
They didn't do this. Which implies that their intention was not to clean up the rules for new players. As such, we have to revisit their public commentary and look for another reason.
The reason Wizards did not change a whole bunch of rules is because they found they only needed to change some of them. If you honestly think all of a sudden a bunch of newbies are going to beat pros (or that people at WOTC actually think this) then you don't actually understand the meaning, or at least the intended meaning, of the changes themselves.
The only people I have seen complain about regeneration are the ones who consider it to be pre-regenerating, not realizing that we've been doing that since the last rules change in 1999. There is no change from then to now so I think the issue has to be one of perception. An exception to that would be gang-blocking a deathtouch creature with multiple regenerators and only having the mana to save one. But that's a change with Deathtouch, not regeneration.
You still can. That's the Declare Blockers step. Blockers are declared, and the attacker orders them (sometimes the defender does ordering as well but these are not very comon cases), then after that priority gets passed around. This is the last time players can do anything before damage is assigned. The reason for ordering the blockers is so players know which creatures need to be healed, pumped or regenerated. (In fact, that's the reason combat damage started using the stack at all in Sixth Edition.)
Yeah, spelled it wrong. The place is good, but it's still a ways in Friday night traffic
You're not the only one getting that wrong - WOTC's own site can't get it right
I have heard mixed reviews of AWOC when it comes to tournaments. The guys there were the first Magic-related people I met when I mnoved here from Detroit many years ago so I have always had a good rapport with them.
And living in Everett myself...traffic is indeed terrible getting there in rush hour But I think it is the most serious level you can get without drifting much further south. As a more casual player (who is currently on a short break from the game anyway) I am fine in the more local places. I have done pack wars with one of the guys in the Evertt Comic Stop and I used to play weekly on casual night in a place in Mukeltio called Phoenix Games, which is full of cool people of varying skill level and does have weekly tournaments, but they are not geared toward serious players as much as trying to be inviting to all players. There is something to be said for that, of course, but ultimately it is probably not what you are looking to do.
I don't like this either, but they need to keep the hype up I guess, especially seeing as they are killing their own momentum by having their boards down during what appears to be an uptick in sales. But they are using this too much either way. Sorin should have been the one and only card spoiled this way.
Obviously if the blinking is happening in response to removal spells it isn't happening during combat. I thought that was pretty clear.
There would probably have to be more games with the deck and more situations to be conclusive overall. In some games the red zone is going to matter more.
And again you use the two creatures that lost the least for your examples. But note how they had the chance to "uber"-ify poor Nantuko Husk which got a really bad hit and they didn't. No, change of creature type doesn't count. Also, knowing that the rules would change almost immediately, they printed in ARB one of the worse sacrifice enablers in Magic history, Dragon Appeasement. It was hilariously bad even with DoS. Now it's just too sad to contemplate.
First, Dragon Appeasement would have been bad and unplayable except for casual Johnnies either way. Second, Qasali Pridemage was also printed in that set, and it is still a great card now even after the change.
Yes, a lot of cards lost power. If people here were interested I would tell you all stories of complete deck designed that were rendered not only bad, but actually impossible, with the rules changes in 1999. On other forums I have done just that. People will need to make decisions about what to include in their decks and they may find that a few pet ideas just are not as strong as they were prior to the change (I don't think any deck design is truly impossible outside of winning through mana burn, but I am certainly willing to be corrected).
When Sixth Edition came out I was using decks designed to levereage Fifth Edition rules and having a bad time with the game. Now it is someone else's turn to make the same mistakes before realizing you can't go back to Ixtlan after all, just like I can't go back to Ravnica/Time Spiral Standard, the format du jour upon my return to the game, or pre-Mirage Type 2, my most thoroughly enjoyed period of Magic.
All this will shake itself out in time like it did before, but it does require a slight rethinking by players. If this is a good enough reason to quit, then quit. I left for years, and no one I used to play with came back with me. That's unavoidable in this game. But I think people need to realize that we actually have gone through this before, and the prior changes were far more sweeping. Cards and strategies were rendered weaker then, too. And DOTS as a concept was hardly a slam-dunk then. I hated it for years and had to come to terms with it just to return to the game in 2006. I always thought that they should have just kept the damage prevention step if this was the best they could do. The ordered-blockers system is not particularly elegant, but it is as easy to teach as dividing your power any way you want; in fact, it might actually be easier to teach. But no longer having to explain to new players removes a barrier and that's ultimately a positive thing.
Actually it presents design problems which have been discussed at length over the years. The only other thing they can do at 1 mana is a "deal 2 damage, sometimes four" which they have done in the last two years with Bolt around. And two-mana 3-damage spell design is impacted as well.
This is not a surprise because that very point was brought up last summer when they announced that Bolt would be back for "one more year."
If supply gets low, Worth can put more into the system with special drafts and prizes. This is something that the paper overlords cannot do. Ever.
Of course supply isn't actually an issue at the moment. But if it was, the MTGO team is empowered to handle it.
IPA rares are a notable exception to the rule that cards are far, far cheaper online than in paper (Force of Will is another).
On another note, I am trying (with no luck) to import a collection from MTGO 3. I can get the csv without an issue but there is no way to select "physical" because as you know that no longer exists. There may be other issues with the resulting CSV. I can send you a current one if you like. I am wondering if there is a way I can modify the existing CSV's to create something your program will import. I would prefer to look at my online collection with your program if possible.
I don't know that the two groups are the same, really. I have spoken with a few players from very old playgroups of mine, and only one other person ever really came back to the game at all (I play him online). Everyone, including him, has said "it's about time they fixed that." We were very upset over Sixth Edition changes, and most of the old players are content to be ex-players. But while this is the next big change since then, it is, at MOST, Sixth Edition, Jr. It's not nearly the upheaval that players think it is.
I can see people being less than happy over losing certain card interactions. After all, Sixth Edition destroyed entire decks for me (things weren't merely worse, but actually no longer possible) so I have empathy. Looking back at the irrational claims and insults thrown my way on the main forums by people who didn't even understand why they had combat damage use the stack in the first place, I let a few too many people slide because they were basically venting. But we're two sets in now and people are still confused over why it was added ten years ago, why it was removed now, and what it did or did not add to the game in terms of overall difficulty. (Point of interest: we said in 1999 that allowing creatures to deal their damage even after removing them from combat rewarded players that were too lazy to learn the rules of the game.) At some point, maybe it really is players upset about change simply because it is change. I can be honest and say that this was a clear issue with me back then.
I am noticing now that some of the jpegs are not showing. I can't tell if it is just me, but I have refreshed multiple times. Paralyzing Trap, Gyser Slider, Indestructability (?It's next to Geyser Slider), Kazuul Warlord, Vines of the Vastwood and Trailblazer Boots are the cards I see as Red X's. I assume they are all there otherwise
At best, it would have been "as" confusing as combat damage using the stack, not more so, considering the concept of pre-regeneration was introduced at the same time, and for the same reason, as combat damage using the stack, yet somehow has only really come up as an issue when a few people started trying to make an example of it three months ago. It is much easier to explain that a player needs to get his regeneration and healing spells cast before the offending spell/effect kills the creature, then explaining how it makes any sense for a creature to start to swing an axe, somehow cast an effect that often removes it from play entirely, and still have the axe hit its target even though it is no longer in existence. What you clearly want is the return of the Damage Prevention step, not the return of combat damage using the stack.
Okay, so we can prove that no matter what the rules are, people will get them wrong. Ever watch someone try to play a sorcery during combat? Underpay for something? Forget to draw a card?
Again, the old Damage Prevention step is not coming back.
The reason Wizards did not change a whole bunch of rules is because they found they only needed to change some of them. If you honestly think all of a sudden a bunch of newbies are going to beat pros (or that people at WOTC actually think this) then you don't actually understand the meaning, or at least the intended meaning, of the changes themselves.
Is this just a flame, or do you have some substance behind it? I have had no issues with Everett whatsoever in the time I have lived here.
You're not the only one getting that wrong - WOTC's own site can't get it right
I have heard mixed reviews of AWOC when it comes to tournaments. The guys there were the first Magic-related people I met when I mnoved here from Detroit many years ago so I have always had a good rapport with them.
And living in Everett myself...traffic is indeed terrible getting there in rush hour But I think it is the most serious level you can get without drifting much further south. As a more casual player (who is currently on a short break from the game anyway) I am fine in the more local places. I have done pack wars with one of the guys in the Evertt Comic Stop and I used to play weekly on casual night in a place in Mukeltio called Phoenix Games, which is full of cool people of varying skill level and does have weekly tournaments, but they are not geared toward serious players as much as trying to be inviting to all players. There is something to be said for that, of course, but ultimately it is probably not what you are looking to do.
There would probably have to be more games with the deck and more situations to be conclusive overall. In some games the red zone is going to matter more.
First, Dragon Appeasement would have been bad and unplayable except for casual Johnnies either way. Second, Qasali Pridemage was also printed in that set, and it is still a great card now even after the change.
Yes, a lot of cards lost power. If people here were interested I would tell you all stories of complete deck designed that were rendered not only bad, but actually impossible, with the rules changes in 1999. On other forums I have done just that. People will need to make decisions about what to include in their decks and they may find that a few pet ideas just are not as strong as they were prior to the change (I don't think any deck design is truly impossible outside of winning through mana burn, but I am certainly willing to be corrected).
When Sixth Edition came out I was using decks designed to levereage Fifth Edition rules and having a bad time with the game. Now it is someone else's turn to make the same mistakes before realizing you can't go back to Ixtlan after all, just like I can't go back to Ravnica/Time Spiral Standard, the format du jour upon my return to the game, or pre-Mirage Type 2, my most thoroughly enjoyed period of Magic.
All this will shake itself out in time like it did before, but it does require a slight rethinking by players. If this is a good enough reason to quit, then quit. I left for years, and no one I used to play with came back with me. That's unavoidable in this game. But I think people need to realize that we actually have gone through this before, and the prior changes were far more sweeping. Cards and strategies were rendered weaker then, too. And DOTS as a concept was hardly a slam-dunk then. I hated it for years and had to come to terms with it just to return to the game in 2006. I always thought that they should have just kept the damage prevention step if this was the best they could do. The ordered-blockers system is not particularly elegant, but it is as easy to teach as dividing your power any way you want; in fact, it might actually be easier to teach. But no longer having to explain to new players removes a barrier and that's ultimately a positive thing.