Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35465 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
21035 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7566 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
4293 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3770 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2286 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2709 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2396 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2646 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3178 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
2075 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3828 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2738 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2502 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2401 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2620 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about collectible card here.

magic 2010 rules changes

More
12 Jun 2009 09:39 #31963 by ChristopherMD
dragonstout wrote:

I'm not sure I'm fully grasping the Combat rule change. Let's say a 1/1 creature attacks and is blocked by another 1/1 creature that has "B: Regenerate". How would this go down exactly? Then the same scenario except the blocker has "Tap: discard to draw a card" instead of regenerate.


Neither of those things will change at *all*. Here's how I've been summing up the rules change to friends who don't know the nitty-gritty Magic rules:

Now, in order for a creature to do combat damage, it has to still BE there.

Basically, that's what the rule says.

So no Boomeranging the creature back to your hand after damage is already assigned, or sacrificing your Mogg Fanatic after damage is assigned. You've got a choice to make now: Boomerang your creature and save it, or have it do its damage? Have your Mogg Fanatic do its combat damage, or sacrifice it?

OH: unless you mean "tap: sacrifice this to draw a card" instead of what you wrote, which was "tap: discard a card to draw a card". In which case yes, you'd either have to sacrifice it for the card before damage is dealt (so it won't hurt the attacker) or not sacrifice it so it can do its damage to the attacker.



Thanks, that's what I thought. And yeah I did mean to write sacrifice. Good catch.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jun 2009 11:56 #31975 by dragonstout
sydo wrote:

I always liked the concept of Manaburn. The very idea of drawing too much power that it melts your face was awesome. But I don't even know how todays cards look like, I stopped playing when they announced the new design which I didn't like and by that time I couldn't find enough time to keep on the tournament level.

Btw anyone likes the "new" design? I was pretty dissapointed as I was when they redesigned Jyhad. But maybe I am just being anachronic.


The new design is easier to read, but the old design had so much more flavor and feel to it, I agree. Bubbly black, wooden green...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Jun 2009 12:26 #31984 by jeb
Replied by jeb on topic Re:magic 2010 rules changes
Citadel wrote:

I found it funny that they state that there goal is to make the game more accessible.

We opened up everything about how we make Magic cards to scrutiny in an attempt to make that set, and the game as a whole, more accessible.


Which them leads them to rewrite the text of a card to say something like this.

Rakdos Guildmage's second ability: : Put a 2/1 red Goblin creature token with haste onto the battlefield. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step.


They have added so much jargon to the game and now they are taking the basics and giving them jargon names to make the game more accessible.

That ability as printed says: "Put a 2/1 red Goblin creature token with haste into play. Remove it from the game at end of turn."
So, the first change (into play --> onto the battlefield) is largely thematic, and actually could make the game more accessible if you had something like a playmat with a big "battlefield" on it--The "play zone" is not as sexy.
The rules about "remove it from the game" are convoluted to say the least. I'm all for "exile" here, as I noted earlier in the thread. It's jargon, but it's jargon you can look up and grasp easily. As noted in TFA, "at end of turn," is a garbage term that lets rules lawyers prey on the less savvy. These are good moves.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 Jun 2009 22:51 - 17 Jun 2009 23:54 #32399 by ubarose
Replied by ubarose on topic M:TG Wank
The discussion in the Wizards Community has gone to a batshit insane 6,000+ replies. They have had to close 3 of the threads and start new ones because forum apps can't deal with threads with more than 1000 replies.

2010 Rules Change Thread 1




ETA: The discussion is now in multiple specific threads, which means the wank is everywhere.
Last edit: 17 Jun 2009 23:54 by ubarose.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 02:10 #32402 by TheDukester
Replied by TheDukester on topic Re:M:TG Wank
ubarose wrote:

ETA: The discussion is now in multiple specific threads, which means the wank is everywhere.

I would sooner scoop my eyes out with rusty forks than read any of that shit.

I have almost no tolerance for Nerd Rage as it is. But Nerd Rage from Magic players? Forget it; I'd put my arm through my monitor up to about the elbow.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 10:52 #32424 by ubarose
Replied by ubarose on topic Re:M:TG Wank
TheDukester wrote:

I would sooner scoop my eyes out with rusty forks than read any of that shit.


But them you miss such bons mots as most people and women are dense. I guess some magic players don't consider women to be people, which explains a great deal.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 11:33 #32431 by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:M:TG Wank
My opinions:


1. Change in terminology--don't give a rat's ass. Simplify, if need be. But they're just terms.

2. Mana burn--SUCKS that this is gone. Used to love making decks that forced opponents to mana burn themselves while having outlets of your own to dump excess mana. There were also decks that would deliberately mana burn themselves to accomplish some goal, like Mirror Universe decks. Less cool stuff to play around with = sucks.

3. Damage on the stack--hated this fucking rule since they implemented it. Never made an ounce of sense and led to all kinds of gamey, nonsensical bullshit. Good riddance.



All that's left for them to fix is the "tapped creatures deal no damage" rule. I really liked that rule as it led to strategic decisions. Now? "Screw it, tap him for his ability and still deal damage."


I am so old school, baby.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 11:44 - 18 Jun 2009 11:45 #32433 by Aarontu
Replied by Aarontu on topic Re:M:TG Wank
So, yesterday I played Magic with someone for the first time in years, using a 2-player draft with a box of commons with some uncommons. It was a lot of fun, and after the game I thought about how these rule changes will affect things.

I don't really care either way about most of them, but I'm really looking forward to the combat changes. I was refreshing my brother on the basics of the game, and went over the "stack" concept briefly: "You can respond with instants and abilities to any spell or ability... and to combat damage. It's last in, last out, like you remember... but combat damage is 'locked-in' once it is dealt, and it can't be changed even if you respond to it by pumping up creatures or removing them from play. The actual damage dealt in the end will remain the same."

Ugh. I have hated this rule ever since it was first brought in and I'm glad to see it go.

I think I'll miss mana burn, though. Not because it ever came into play, but because the simple fact that mana burn existed made mana seem... more powerful or something. Like it was something to be handled carefully.
Last edit: 18 Jun 2009 11:45 by Aarontu.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 11:50 #32435 by Black Barney
Replied by Black Barney on topic Re:M:TG Wank
M:TG just came out yesterday on XBLArcade. It's actually way better than I was expecting. It's the first Magic game I've played in 15 years. Good fun. I might buy it.

Or I might sleep with Bayonetta. Whichever comes first.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 13:48 #32454 by Citadel
Replied by Citadel on topic Re:M:TG Wank
Black Barney wrote:

M:TG just came out yesterday on XBLArcade. It's actually way better than I was expecting. It's the first Magic game I've played in 15 years. Good fun. I might buy it.

Or I might sleep with Bayonetta. Whichever comes first.


That Magic game looks great. I loved the old Microprose game. It is a pity that they have gotten rid of the wandering the planes encountering roaming monsters (who force you to play a game of Magic). I have been thinking about getting it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 14:32 #32463 by Black Barney
Replied by Black Barney on topic Re:M:TG Wank
Yeah, you should get it and we can compare notes on this site.

That microprose game sounds like fun. I like the idea of random encounters. It's only Starter decks though in the XBLArcade version (you can't tweak decks at all. You can add cards (I THINK) but you can't remove anything, nor can you add any extra land.

omg, the preset white deck SUCKS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 15:47 #32487 by jeb
Replied by jeb on topic Re:M:TG Wank
Ken B. wrote:

All that's left for them to fix is the "tapped creatures deal no damage" rule. I really liked that rule as it led to strategic decisions. Now? "Screw it, tap him for his ability and still deal damage."
I am so old school, baby.

You've got rose-colored, uh, mind glasses. Of memory. In your brain. WHATEVER, you misremember this. The rule was that tapped ATTACKERS dealt damage, but tapped BLOCKERS didn't, because, you know... the rules. This was as shitty and gamey as "damage on the stack" tricks, if not even worse.

If you still think Mirror Universe decks are cool, you haven't played in a while. There is some craaaaaazy shit out there in Type 1 (Classic? Vintage?) land nowadays. MU nostalgia is for potzers.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 16:01 #32493 by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:M:TG Wank
Okay, I obviously meant tapped defenders, because that would be stupid for tapped attackers to not deal damage. Brain fart on my wording.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jun 2009 16:59 - 18 Jun 2009 17:00 #32501 by jeb
Replied by jeb on topic Re:M:TG Wank
Ken B. wrote:

Okay, I obviously meant tapped defenders, because that would be stupid for tapped attackers to not deal damage. Brain fart on my wording.

I understand--but that still doesn't speak the why someone would yearn for the days when tapped creatures that were attacking dealt damage, but tapped blockers didn't; beyond some sense of pure nostalgia for Ye Olden Tymes. Creatures in combat should deal damage. If you think of the game that way, the current rules change makes sense.
Magic 2010: Got a creature there? It deals damage.
Sixth Ed: Did you have a creature there at a particular moment in the recent past? It deals damage.
Jurassic era: Got a creature there? Is it tapped? Is it blocking or attacking? Attacking? It deals damage.
Last edit: 18 Jun 2009 17:00 by jeb.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
27 Jun 2009 11:54 #33228 by sirkerry
sydo wrote:

Btw anyone likes the "new" design? I was pretty dissapointed as I was when they redesigned Jyhad. But maybe I am just being anachronic.


Yes. I like it a lot better then the older design, I find it much easier to read (I hated the font they used on the old design).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.213 seconds