It would be an understatement to say that the recent changes to the rules of Magic the Gathering have been merely controversial. Forums, blogs and twitters have been ablaze with fervent opinions ranging anywhere from staunch support to apathy to hopelessness. Indeed, with any evolving, complex game there comes the inevitable tweak from on high that alters, for better or worse, the very foundation of that pastime. Even the American shrine of baseball has been given a makeover once or twice. With these recent changes to our favorite game, there has been no shortage of verbiage. This explosion of words has inspired more than one conversation. The following is just a snapshot of one of those tete-a-tetes.
| “I suppose you’ve heard about the recent rule changes. Wizards is taking Magic down a dark path and I’m not planning on following.” |
 |
|
“I’m sorry to hear that, Bo. We’ve done a lot of great planeswalking together, you and I.“ |
| “I just can’t stand the new direction the game is taking. I’m all for bringing new players into the game. I absolutely loved planeswalkers, 2010’s return to fantasy-esque ideals and even the “here I rule” campaign. But when you start messing with the rules of the game. The nature of the game itself. Casting aside cornerstones in a vain effort to attract “casual players.” I can’t help but speculate that this might be wizard’s last grasp at keeping the game profitable at the competitive player’s expense.” |
|
|
“Let’s break this down a bit. What I’m hearing from you is that you’re fine with the flavor changes to “out of play” and “onto the battlefield” but have a problem with the rest, correct? So lets get right down to it: What about the rule changes alters the game fundamentally?” |
| “Correct. I am fine with renaming zones in an effort to have the game make more intuitive sense. What I have a problem with is the general direction wizard’s is taking the game. You have to admit. Combat damage on the stack requires much more skill and cunning then combat damage off the stack. Period. Its the general feeling of the “dumbing down” of a game made great by its infinite depth and infinite possibilities. Post 2010, I feel as though the game got a little bit shallower and I fear this is only the beginning. What happens when this strategy actually works and thousands more do come to the game? Is wizards going to “simplify” the game even more?” |
|
|
“Slippery slope arguments aside, you have to give WotC a bit more credit. They’ve kept this magical train rolling through thick and thin, longer then any other CCG in history. That being said, what you might call “dumbing down” I’d call “making sense”. You say you’re okay with making the game more tolkien-esque. Well, what makes a great fantasy universe great is the fact that everything in it flows intuitively and makes sense. What makes sense about being able to block with a Mogg Fanatic, sacrifice it, activate its ability and still have it deal combat damage to other creatures on the battlefield from the graveyard? I, for one, support the endeavor to have this game make sense not only to hardcore players who might have forgotten why these rules are how they are, but also to the outside observer. It makes the game cleaner, accessible and intellectually honest.” |
| “Oh, you want to talk about things “not making sense” in the magic universe, huh? How about a Bloodhall Ooze equipping Lightning Greaves? How about “two wizards play lightning bolt at the same time and the person who fires last wins out?” I’m not buying the whole “wizard’s just wants to keep the game logical” line. There are plenty of examples of fallacy in MTG and of course that’s expected in a game with 10K+ pieces. Why should combat damage on the stack be any different? Its not any more or less confusing then trying to counter a Demigod of Revenge without having its ability trigger. Thats part of what is great about Magic. You are rewarded for experience. The grizzled, veteran players have a distinct advantage because some things in the game you have to have experienced before you fully understand them. Leveling the playing field is one thing, taking away any advantage a seasoned player might possess is another.” |
|
|
“If there’s one thing I’m sure of, its that Magic will never be a “simple” game. Veteran players who are heavily involved in the game, read the blogs, flame the forums and twitter their game experiences will always, always, always have the advantage. As you said, if nothing else its a game with 10,000 different pieces and its to your advantage to understand not only what those pieces do, but how they interact with one another, making the possibilities theoretically infinite. You, my friend, will eternally have the upper hand. Magic is still a game of loopholes and clever tricks. The game is bound by rules but is full of cards that bend and alter those rules each and every game. When a card like Skullclamp slips out of the R&D department, players exploit that loophole and change the way a normal game of Magic is played. If you think about it, the game changes and evolves with each and every card that is released. Combat damage being on the stack was just one of those loopholes. It has now been closed just as the Skullclamp loophole was back in the Mirrodin days. But with these changes (and with each release!) come new technicalities for you to exploit. Take a second look at deathtouch, for example. An entire multicolored block is now in standard: that changes the game fundamentally. Wrath of God may or may not be printed in 2010: that changes the game fundamentally. It is the same ebb and flow of opportunity that has always washed over the game.” |
| “I just can’t help but feel as though, we, the players who stuck with the game all these years are being set on the back burner. I’ve spent literally thousands of dollars on Magic over the years and now, not only are many of the cards I own completely useless, I feel like casual players who haven’t spent a dime or minute on this game yet are being favored over people like us. Not to mention the fact that I had fun playing cards like Mogg Fanatic. It added another layer to the game and made otherwise useless cards viable.” |
|
|
“Cards come and cards go. That is the nature of a CCG that rotates card legality. While a card like Mogg might be out, other cards are helped by these changes. You’ll no longer have to worry about mana burn when tapping lands that have Overgrowth on them or some other 2-for-1 mana deal. Wake Thrasher just got 2X better as you can tap all of your lands at the end of an opponent’s turn without fear of burn. Theres also something to be said for choosing the correct blockers and attackers now that both players understand that CD is going to happen off the stack. There are so many facets to this game and new cards are released so frequently now that you’ll have no problem finding those gems in the rough. Yes, MF lost a bit of its shimmer (okay, ALL of its shimmer) but its up to you as that “grizzled, veteran player” you were talking about to find the next Mogg within the new rule archetype before your fellow wizards do. WotC hasn’t chosen new players OVER you, they’ve simply found a rule that they felt needed to be tweaked. I’ll concede that they never would have changed the rule if they weren’t out looking for ways to simplify the game for newer players, but that isn’t the main thrust of the change. I’d like to think they did it first because it made sense and second because it made the game more inviting for noobs.” |
| “Look, I’m not one of those people who are just afraid of change. I lived through the 6th edition mess and I’m still around. The difference here is that, while 6th was more of a “clean up” session, this is more of a paradigm shift, with the focus being on new players. Much like Nintendo has done with the Wii. Or what they’ve done with Star Trek, for example. Marketing for the masses. The risk is there for a total dilution of what makes Magic great. Its not a slippery slope argument to say that Wizard’s might take further steps in that direction and that’s what really scares me. Of course combat damage on the stack doesn’t make or break the game, but it does call into question the motives of it’s designers as well as the direction of the game in the future. What ever happened to “Future Sight”? Split Second, Delve, Dredge, THATS the direction I want to move in. A game where a (for lack of a better term) level 60 Planeswalkers get to do level 60 things. Not a dumbed down version of magic where you play a creature, I play a creature and we see whose has more toughness. I want a game that IS a little bit intimidating for new players. Thats part of the challenge, the aura of the game. Of course, we have to cater to new blood, my Magic buying habits can’t support the whole game, but not at the expense of master planeswalkers like you and I, Reinhart.” |
|
|
“Part of the problem here is that this is all coming at a time where standard is so rich, so full of possibilities that any deviation from that seems like a step backwards for advanced players. We’re also moving into the first new Core Set in two years. Swaths of beloved cards are about to be rotated out of standard. The new cards all seem to be on the simplistic side (as they often are in the Core Sets). And all of this mixed with a 6th edition-esque rule amendment. This is a lot for any loyal CCG player to take in all at once (including me). The pendulum is swinging hard and fast back towards the basics – the color wheel, creature combat, and player identity. Since the last core set we’ve seen a game changing new card type, a multicolor bonanza and countless powerfully complicated cards take the stage. The game cannot get perpetually more and more complicated with each expansion. At some point, the game must catch its breath. Think of it as an opportunity to expand the game, revisit the basics, and enjoy the new cards along with everyone else.” |
| “While core sets are usually thought of as great places to enter the game, I am forced to consider it as an exit point. But I have poured far too much love and treasure into this magnificent game to simply abandon it before the changes I so oppose even take place. There may come a day, and that day might even come sooner then either of us know…. but there may come a day when this old wizard puts down his wand and makes way for the next generation of planeswalkers. But… unluckily for you, my old friend, today is not that day.” |
|
|
“That will be a sad day indeed, Bo. I do not look forward to it. Your concern for the game and it’s future is shared by many and I hope you continue to voice your opinions. The game needs players like you if it hopes to weather the gathering storms of economy, change and apathy. |
*Editor’s note:
Reinhart’s spark was triggered 10 years ago, he has been planeswalking off and on since that time. He currently resides in Seattle, WA with his fiance and two (non-magical) cats.
Bo Levar was a smuggler whose latent planeswalker’s spark was triggered by the Sylex Blast on Argoth. Before he ascended he was known as Crucias. He was recruited by Urza as one of the Nine Titans and placed one of the soul bombs on Phyrexia. After their return to Dominaria he discovered that Commodore Guff already knew how the Phyrexian Invasion would end and convinced him to change destiny. Levar died protecting a small colony of merfolk from Yawgmoth’s death cloud.
Loading ...
Like this article? Try these:
- Magic 2010 Rules Changes – Reactions & Analysis
- The Rule of Five
- Protection from the Rules
- Magic 2010 Predictions (Post-Spoiler Retrospective)
- Multiplayer Madness in Magic 2010
I am retarded exclude my last post.
I know I’m in the minority here, but even with the combat stack rules change being the more important one, I for one anm a bit more annoyed about the mana burn elimination. I for one thought it was an interesting layer to the rules, and I loved being able to use things like Valleymaker and Spectral Searchlight to make my opponent choke on their extra mana. Also, it makes it that much easier for new players to ignore the mana they tapped. The pain helped new players adjust to not tapping unless they needed to! So sad…
I played the pre-relase today. Combat not using the stack really isn’t that big a deal at all. All the guys who sit at the top tables were there as usual. All the stuff you would have done with damage on the stack you simply do now before damage step. I won 20 packs today and magic was just as fun as it has always been. The game is not ruined one bit, in fact I believe it is a bit better.
John
I think I could almost accept these changes, almost, if they didn’t have one factor: Loxodon Warhammer. Yes, that single card is the turning point on which my opinion hinges. Why? Because I ate up Mirrodin like it was sugar-laden junk food. It was the first books I read, and the first set I got excited about. Darksteel Colossus and Platinum Angel were so unbelievably cool, but I digress. Due to my massive indulgence in Mirrodin packs, I acquired quite a collection of Warhammers, and came to realize that they were a very worthwhile and powerful card after one of my friends mentioned their effect stacks. With the new rules, Lifelink wouldn’t stack, BUT WAIT! Warhammer was printed before keywording lifelink, so it’s okay, right? WRONG! Wizards decided to take a card that was well balanced, and screw it. And why did they do that, “…because that’s the way it was most recently printed…”…you’re kidding, right? Doesn’t that sound so arbitrary. Like, “Eh, we paid the attention to other cards to revert them to pre-lifelink status, but you know what, I just don’t feel like changing this one.” What the hell?! Anyway, I was reading the list of changes, and I felt pretty iffy about them, but I could take it, really I could, none had irrevocably altered my decks, but this one simple piece of arbitrary decision making tipped the scales for me.
So while I’m at it, how is “damage on the stack, sacrifice for effect” counter-intuitive? It’s easy enough to imagine this scenario: Your Mogg (the running example) is up against an elf with two toughness, and they do battle, the mogg bites the elf, and elf sticks your mogg, but with his dying breath the mogg explodes on the elf for an extra damage point. (If you want to justify the mogg hitting something else in pla- oops, I mean “on the battlefield”, then you can easily enough imagine the planeswalker turning his carcass into essence and hurling it somewhere). All it takes is for the next version to have new artwork that invokes that feeling, and suddenly everyone is on board. You can easily replace the mogg’s kamikaze with a quick rescue by unsummon or similar bounce, and damage prevention made sense all along, so I still hold Wizards accountable for a better reason than “intuitiveness”.
Oh my, I had to get up for a moment while typing and completely forgot to mention my issue with mana burn. Mana burn is a wonderful thing, because me and my friends ignored the rule preventing death from burn, so we could always exit the game with a samurai’s grace by tapping everything and going out in a conflagration of glory. Also, it made for interesting tactics when you wanted you life low, and allowed resource increasing cards to be double-edged, strategy-laden, give and take. Now they’re just freebies, and clever decks built around tricking your opponent into utilizing a mutually beneficial card like upwelling and then destroying it are worthless (I had one such deck in the works).
In short, when you prune whole entire strategies from the game, it is bad. You may modify them, present counters to them, even improve or mutate them, but ripping them out by the root is just wrong.
Umm, i don’t believe there WAS a rule preventing death from mana burning. It was sort of an unwritten “if you do something that stupid in a tournament they’ll let you take it back” sort of thing…
Everyone needs to stop with the “I’m going to quite b/c these rules suck” crap. Yeah, I agree that blocking, stacking, and mana burn should not have been changed, but if you play with these rules you will find that it doesn’t matter that much. Mogg has always been one of my favorites because you get so much for 1R, but how often have you got a 2for1 against a seasoned player? How many times against a noob? I understand why they made the change. If you are a good player then you will usually beat the noob anyway. We don’t need tricks like this to do so. You can still declare him a blocker and sac for damage. Mana burn RARELY becomes an issue. I have never run into a problem with this so whats the big deal? The blocking changes is the only completely retarded change, but again it doesn’t affect that much. I think people should be more upset with the new rotation schedule for the core sets. Now I have to drop $200 on new lands that suck a$$ unless I want to run mono red/or white. I will not quite because of this. Magic is as fun as ever, and we should ALL atleast attempt to play with the new rules.
(UW is the nuts in limited)
Why is it that everyone thinks that the Mogg Fanatic is out there to only kill two blockers that the Noob double blocked with. The Mogg Fanatic is/was the swiss army knife of the mono red or R/G aggro deck. For 1 mana, it can attack into and kill an X/2, attacks and is allowed thru in because of its ability in the early game, blocks and kills an X/2, keeps your opponent’s multiple X/1 creatures at bay – fearing to lose 2 for 1. Or my favorite, chump and sac – dealing a damage to your dome so I buy time to draw instant burns while dwindling your life. I have never in hundreds of online mtg games had 1 opponent double block my fanatic with 2 X/1 creatures.
I personally don’t like the rules (mostly because it hurts a few of my current decks) but I will keep playing. Just give the Mogg Fanatic some respect.
RIP Mogg Fanatic
ps. I do like the idea of the Fanatic Mogg
R – 1/1. Fanatic Mogg may be sacrificed at any time.
Remove Fanatic Mogg from the graveyard, Fanatic Mogg deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
i do hate the changes.for the feel of WotC dumbing down the game, and it has led me to quit. However, i’m not one to quit simply due to the new rule changes and how the game is played, i just feel that magic has lost a lot of it’s identity for me. It has gotten so far away from it’s fantasy backbone, it’s representation of it’s colors. i started in urza’s and through the oddysey block and onslaught block, there was arguably the best story behind it, it was more than just playing a card game, and more like you were actually a part of that multiverse. and the colors were definative, each color had it’s own unique mechanics, i just feel they have gotten so far away from that with the multicolor focused sets, planar chaos, etc. it has a feel of just, becoming so shallow, and just another card game. The new things coming out have no sense of origin, i look at a legend now-a-days and find myself asking “Why?” its gotten so far away from its storyline, in my opinion. it used to be, Akroma was Akroma. You knew why, you didn’t ask questions, you just kind of sat there and looked at it in awe. or even Ixidor, certainly not the best but, you were inspired by the story behind it as to how you played the game, rather than everything just having this bland feel of min-maxing. I know it’s always been that way at the “Pro” level and always will, but it’s just like an erie sickness or disease spreading down into the very core of the player base, where people still believe in things like “Creativity” and “Original Concepts” and Heavens forbid “Fun”. i could be alone in my opinions and if so then oh well, i’m not trying to convince anyone of anything that is just my take on the matter. i shall still play casually i suppose from time to time but certainly not as consistently, maybe Magic will find itself again one day but until that day comes i don’t intend to continue with it as a consumer.
-Sincerely,
Nine
I don’t mind combat damage being off the stack. I also thought sacrificing creatures after blocking and still dealing combat damage was stupid. I do agree, however, that it doesn’t make sense to have a battle between 2 prodigal sorcerors’ abilities come down to simply who did it second. I think my prodigal sorceror should be able to tap to do a damage to my opponent’s without my opponent being able to simply tap his and say “no, I’ll kill yours instead.” Finally, I don’t like mana burn leaving. I don’t see a reason for it to go. Besides, I used to like to use Spectral Searchlights (tap to give one mana of any color to any player) as damage to opponents at the end of their turn. I’d tap it after their second main phase and give them mana, which would have to burn them since their main phase is over. If they couldn’t cast an instant, it was free damage. Have a couple of those out, and you’re gold. Now they’re really only good for team games. Sad.
I guess I should keep in mind, though, that I’m not a tournament player. I play casually with friends and family. We can keep mana burn if we want to.
I have to admit, I was one of those who decried the 6th edition rules changes when they came out. At the time, one my biggest gripes was that it made no sense for a creature to be able to block and deal its damage to the attacker(while theoretically trying to defend itself), and yet be able to use a special ability after that damage was on the stack. Now, I see dozens of players (most of them “noobs” at some point in the past when I was already a “seasoned” player), complaining about that fundamentally illogical concept finally being corrected. To all of these players (and retroactively to my reactionary self eight years ago), I say go back and re-read the post by Raumohir.
Go ahead. Take your time. I’ll wait.
Now, aren’t you glad at least one person has the imagination and foresight to see opportunities,(and yes, new strategic challenges as well) when they present themselves? Don’t you think it might just be a good idea to follow his (her?) lead, rather than threaten to quit something you claim to enjoy?
Just sayin’.
Coming from a semi-noob, doesn’t these sacrifice rule changes mostly alter (that is, nerf) black and red decks? I mean, seriously, I just started playing casual games with my golgari-style deck, look at the shambling shell for instance. What’s the point putting it in a deck anymore?
This change is far too radical, it mechanically ruins half the cards printed so far, especially red/black sacrifice.
I don’t feel the change is balanced at all. Also it makes me regret having recently invested in a few cards.
I think that most of the rule changes are relatively minor, and I am surprised at how many people it has driven into quitting. The only exception is Mana burn. Too many cards are based on this to make changing the rules a good idea here (Power Surge, Wake Thrasher, Toil to Renown, Spectral Searchlight, Soulbright Flamekin, Braid of Fire, etc). All these cards are now either much better or much worse with no apparent benefit to the game except maybe to prevent someone mana burning themselves against Higedzu’s Second Rite. This was a bad idea, but most of the other things weren’t all that big of a deal to adjust to.
One thing I forgot to ask, what is this “Skullclamp loophole” mentioned in the article? I know this card was banned for some reason, but I haven’t been able to figure out why. Can someone tell me?
I agree with the majority that the Combat damage change is irritating. Larger for me is the removal of mana burn which is an unnecessary change (Drain Power’s on the rise). The change I find most disturbing (mostly because I’m still unsure how greatly it will affect gameplay) is the “blocking order” being decided by the attacker during block declaration.
Having said all that, the most horrendous rule change ever enacted was one of the first…when Ante became optional!
Almost once a month since 1993, my friends and I have risked our cards using the old “shuffle, cut, ante” system that the game was MEANT to use!
The entire card economy wouldn’t be as absurd (and I know some people make their “living” buying and selling cards) as it is if you could lose that Black Lotus or Mox in your next game (I’ve won and lost some of both several times, but one player finally couldn’t resist the greed and sold them).
This Friday I’ll take my deck (spanning every edition ever made save Alpha/Beta) into battle, to win or lose my cards the way Richard Garfield intended.
[...] as a fan base was mixed to put it lightly. At the time we here at Gathering Magic actually defended these new rules as a step towards a more intuitive and cleaner game. Not to mention more fun. [...]