M2010

JMG021283 · Post by **JMG021283** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:25 am

"I am prepared to defend all of these decisions and can say with a straight face, a clear conscience, and months of firsthand experience that Magic will be improved as a result of them. "
...........sigh..................

What's everyone think?
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/A ... eature/42a

ende73 · Post by **ende73** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:54 am

Selling 4 Mana Drains at $200 each.

notsofasteddie · Post by **notsofasteddie** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:15 pm

Was I asleep when they eliminated white bordered cards?

l0qii · Post by **l0qii** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:32 pm

notsofasteddie wrote:Was I asleep when they eliminated white bordered cards?

10th

aleksandr · Post by **aleksandr** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:22 pm

For those of us who regularly followed the speculation and rumour boards, like Salvation, most of these changes were known months ago. However, I'm quite taken aback by the change where combat damage no longer uses the stack.

Holy cow, talk about major changes. Staple cards like Mogg Fanatic are considerably worse now! I'm trying not to think about the effect to things like the Ravager Affinity deck (a deck which I play regularly in Extended and Legacy). You can no longer block with creatures and then after damage is on the stack sacrifice the blockers to the ravager!

All in all, though, I have to agree with the tone of the article--people said Magic would die out after the sixth edition changes, yet the game is still alive and strong 10 years later. Magic will continue to live on, maybe with a few less established players, but so be it.

Tha_Gunslinga · Post by **Tha_Gunslinga** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:44 pm

ende73 wrote:Selling 4 Mana Drains at $200 each.

Why would it go up? It's not like the card wasn't busted ridiculously before?

random · Post by **random** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:21 pm

people said Magic would die out after the sixth edition changes

I think those changes were needed. Stuff like combo decks going into negative life bugged me. I think the changes worked overall though.

I dislike the new combat phase.

Mogg Fanatic are considerably worse now!

Fanatic was too good to begin with.

Manaburn was a viable casual strategy since E Vineyard and whatnot. I have experienced a lot of MTGO games though where people inadvertently tap lands thinking they had moved into another phase of the game and taken burn needlessly.

I like the lifelink thing in that most newbies don't understand that the current spirit link creature can still kill them if it does enough lethal damage.

ende73 · Post by **ende73** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:22 pm

Tha_Gunslinga wrote:
ende73 wrote:Selling 4 Mana Drains at $200 each.
Why would it go up? It's not like the card wasn't busted ridiculously before?

Absolutely right, I was clearly openly exaggerating.

It's just that the Mana Burn removal surprised me, even though everybody's saying it's irrelevant $:-\$

I do recall some games where I had like 3 instants and 2 lands in my hand and where I'd think twice about countering that Siege-Gang Commander or Juzam Djinn and possibly take 4-5 damage next turn... having a counterspell that gives extra mana if you need it, and has no additional drawbacks, is cool imho.

Magic61983 · Post by **Magic61983** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:44 pm

The combat change is going to confuse a lot of people.

NeRo · Post by **NeRo** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:42 pm

i don't like the new combat step and i don't like that there is no manaburn anymore ...
both really really bad changes - declared as making the game easier ...
but imo stuff like the layer system is much harder to understand for beginners ...

all the other things are fashion and not really worth mentioning ...

regards $:-\$

notsofasteddie wrote:Was I asleep when they eliminated white bordered cards?

seems like u slept for a longer time

aleksandr · Post by **aleksandr** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:54 pm

When I first read the changes this morning I had mixed feelings. Resignation over the change of names to the Yu-Gi-Oh sounding Battlefield, minor sadness over the end of mana burn, and anger over the combat damage changes.

Now that I think about it more, I'm mostly ambivalent to all of the changes :)

I like how the game is trying to be closer to its roots. As someone who has been playing since Revised, I miss the relative simplicity of those early days.

I can understand that cards like Mogg Fanatic do not currently function the way they were intended to. A 1/1 like the Mogg should not be able to block and kill a 2/2. The Sakura tribe-elder should not be able to block and kill a 1/1 AND get a land. Its just been this way for so long that it makes me somewhat sad.

Oh well. It is what it is. Magic will live on and we will get used to the changes.

Volcanon · Post by **Volcanon** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:08 pm

The rule changes are bad. Since I said so, obviously they should change it back. Why cater to people too lazy to learn the rules?

Magic61983 · Post by **Magic61983** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:34 pm

I feel these rule changes are trying to pull in younger players.

ouallada · Post by **ouallada** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:53 pm

I have no problem with the rule changes except the combat phases changes, a sentiment I am sure is sufficiently echoed by people who have played for some time. Taking out mana burn seems a little counter-intuitive, but fine. Removing the stack in combat is simply appealing to the lowest common denominator. The reason that research on the player base was conducted and supports the removal of the combat stack shows pretty clearly that they are going after the casual players and younger card gamers too. The problem is that it makes little more sense than using cyclists as a sample when conducting research on racing cars.

The changes won't kill the game, but the way it has been handled has left a bad taste in my mouth. It has killed off entire decks (eg FeB), and weakened decks using combat tricks (sligh, berserk stompy, affinity), and all for nothing. If it makes no sense to have creatures that leave play still do damage, wouldn't the more elegant solution be to have a clause stating that creatures need to be in play to deal damage at resolution?

@ Volcanon. I agree. Obviously, the game needs to make certain concessions to grow and expand, but I think a better compromise could have been found. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse in any legal framework. Why should it be aided and even rewarded in this case?

NeRo · Post by **NeRo** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:32 am

you got to play berserk before the combat damage step anyway, so why the change in rules weakens the deck in your opinion ?
you can go for invigorate, growth, whatever + berserk after blockers are declared.

btw agree @ feb + affinity (+ sligh)
no mogg is not the end of sligh decks, but not being able to use ravanger and shapeshifter properly seems like the end of those 2 decks ...

The Magic Librarities

M2010

M2010

Who is online