hamtastic's picture
By: hamtastic, Erik Friborg
Jun 03 2009 1:04am
5
Login to post comments
3500 views


You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

MP3 Download

MTGO News:

Big changes coming in M10 ?
Confirmed via Cards: "in play" to "Battlefield"
Confirmed via Cards: "Play" to "Cast"
Still Rumored: "RFG" to "Exile"
Still Rumored: removal of mana burn?

All that is going to be a lot of work to keep up on for paper Magic... however, this illustrates some of the best best parts of MTGO: Instant Errata! 

New 'lotus' rumored.  Thanks MTGSalvation!

MTGO Events:

MOCS Season Two Championships are over!

Jund Dominates, Naya is all but gone for now.  Huge metagame shift from Naya being 5/8'ths of every top 8 to being completely blown out by Jund.  32 of 32 (Bloodbraid Elf')s were played maindeck.

MOCS2 Top 8 - Jund-a-palooza!

Overall MOCS Coverage for those interested in what all happened for the event.

You can also check the MOCS2 Standings to see the end results of the 9 (10, 11, 12) round swiss event.

Upcoming Nix-Tix:
LRW-MOR      June 3 - 10

Weekend PE's:
June 6th - Alara Reborn Champs
June 7th Alara block sealed Champs
MD5 II Qualifiers

MTGO Prices:
Mostly ARB is falling, except, of course, Maelstrom Pulse.  Sorry Sebs.

PureMTGO News:
VOTING TIME!!!  Cast your vote for your favorite KScope deck!

Favorite Article of the Week:
Erik: Blogging the MOCS event.
Sebastian: Whiffy's Lunch Box 20- Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.

Contact Us:
Email Addresses:
hamtastic@puremtgo.com
runeliger@puremtgo.com

22 Comments

good job guys by whiffy at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 04:56
whiffy's picture
5

Hey oh I enjoyed the podcast.
1. Dont cut it down I enjoy listening to an article while playing or surfing keep it as long as you guys like.

2. I really enjoyed the block stuff and I gotta say that while jund is redonck ther has got to be a way to beat it. My money says that next week we will see 5c control featuring ajani, nicol bolas and obelisk in the finals of the PT. There are so many tools and for me just getting into the format its like a wet dream trying to figure out the puzzle of the meta same as classic will be in 2 weeks.

3. Small nit pick but i put elspeth in the top 8 and 9th place of 2 classic pes back in december the week tempest was released, in a standstill build with humility and elspeth. Also weird factoid is that i have gotten elspeth's ultimate off in block once while in classic its at a whopping 5 times! I have played her equally in each format if not more in block. Classic is ripe for planeswalkers including elspeth, jace, and garruk to come sauntering in. You just need to figure out how you want to play them and then build your deck with them in mind.

Thanks for the kind words by hamtastic at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 11:53
hamtastic's picture

Thanks for the kind words whiffy! We are still trying to find the right balance between 'too much commentary' and 'just enough commentary'. :) I think we're getting closer to the sweet spot each week.

Also, thanks for the details on the Planeswalkers in Classic. They are a solid card type when the game doesn't end on turn 2 (I'm looking at YOU Necro decks). I expect that we'll see some of them sneak back in after the necro decks are hobbled again.

To be honest the M10 rule by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 05:06
Anonymous's picture

To be honest the M10 rule changes upset me. I like the change from play to cast, but the other three disappoint. No more mana burn can help with mtgo misclicks, but it seems rather unnecessary. The other 2 name changes just sound dumb.

battlefield and exile si so by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 11:00
Anonymous's picture

battlefield and exile si so stupid, i'd like to know what these guys were smkoking when they took this decision. If they really want to make this game playable for 10 years and younger, yes this is the right decision but if they claim this is an adult strategy game like chess, poker, etc this is ridicilous.

re: M10 name changes by hamtastic at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 11:58
hamtastic's picture

I can see where some people think that the names are 'bad' or juvenile or what have you. But really, this game is still a game that is targeted to the 13+ market, grabbing a new generation of young players is probably a good thing in the long run.

I think that Magic has matured over the years, along with a lot of its player base. However, a lot of its playerbase started at the young age that WotC is now once again targeting with these changes.

After reading a lot of the feedback on the official mtg.com forums, it seems like a lot of today's players started playing young. But now we need new young players, and we need to grab them with things they think make sense or that they can wrap their heads around.

All in all, the changes are aimed at bringing in fresh, young players. Something that benefits all of us for a good long while.

Just a different perspective for those who feel that youth-ifying the game is a bad thing. It's actually a way to keep the game alive and growing for the future. I expect that it will go through a similar maturity cycle over the next 10 years again.

At first, I was skeptical of by enkogneto at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 12:26
enkogneto's picture

At first, I was skeptical of the new name changes. After reading your reply though, I started thinking about it different and I totally agree. Most adults are into fantasy and role-playing... most kids are. If Wizards tries to rope in adults to learn their game and spend their check on cards, Magic will die. Now talking a kid into spending his/her allowance on something like Magic... totally different. If different words appeal to a new crowd, who cares?!? It's still the same game. Let Wizards do their maketing thing. I'm sure they pay people good money that really know about marketing (and hopefully have knowledge of the game) to come up with these ideas.

My one bone though is that I feel like they have too many key-words these days. I mean, it's dandy on the core set but I think they should put certain restraints on certain key-word mechanics. As hard as it is for a veteran of Magic to imagine, most people would need to carry around a pocket-dictionary to memorize all of Wizard's key-words.

And what ever happened to the little books they put in starters? Those were a great idea. Even if they don't want to put them in all starters, they need to have a little more literacy aimed at newer players than just the fold-up paper they give you. I mean, who wants to pull out a freakin road map every time you get confused about tapping? It's inconvinient and embarassing for the newer players. Nobody wants a giant target on them shouting "HEY! I'm a new guy!"

I've been playing since sixth by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 12:23
Anonymous's picture

I've been playing since sixth edition and never been one to think the sky is falling but I think mana burn is crucial. If you played md5 you know that mana burn can actually win you the game

I totally agree with this by enkogneto at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 12:29
enkogneto's picture

I totally agree with this guy. Mana burn is crucial and to be honest, I really think this is just a rumor. Surely Wizards knows how important mana-burn is. That's like taking away summoning sickness to make the game faster.

ArchGenius's picture

There is no doubt that getting rid of mana burn will change the game. I'm not sure that it will be for the worse.

The 6th edition rules drastically changed how combat damage and the stack operated, and I think that change turned out pretty well. Sure, some cards played differently after the 6th edition rules and people grumbled and complained about that, but things are a lot easier to understand now. I don't really see too much of a difference between that situation and the mana burn situation.

I partially agree with you by enkogneto at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 13:10
enkogneto's picture

I partially agree with you and maybe you're right. Time will tell. It won't drastically change the game to the extent the stacking rules changed the game, nor would it have the same effect of removing summoning sickness. That was an exaggeration on my part. But comparing it to the stacking rules is a similar exaggeration.

Stacking drastically changed the game as well as drastically simplifying an overly complicated combat phase. It was a much needed change that made the game better. But how does removing mana burn simplify the game?

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp (the differences between land, mana, the manapool, and manaburn), but it is relavent to the game. There should be some set back for tapping a land that produces 2 mana and only using one of them. Saying that the mana just dissappears from your manapool when you don't use it makes the concept harder to grasp IMO.

How many times have you tried to teach somebody Magic and they struggle so hard with the land concept? I've always explained to players that land is like a store you own that produces you money. Mana is the money. And the manapool is like your imaginary wallet. Maybe it could be simplified if you just had one phase where you burn instead of burning at the end of each phase but mana just "going away" would be hard to explain to a noob. I can see it now, players trying to use their mana three turns after they should've burned.

But who knows. Wizards has all the control and time will tell.

Instant Errata by theintangiblefatman at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 12:23
theintangiblefatman's picture

I would hardly consider instant errata a good thing. I'm going to cringe every time I see a Phyrexian Dreadnought that reads "When Phyrexian Dreadnought enters the battlefield..." or a Swords to Plowshares that reads "Exile target creature...". Paper players get the option to simply ignore the changes while online players have them forced down their throat.

Consider beyond the current game by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 13:08
Anonymous's picture

This may be off base but I haven't heard anyone else speculate yet so I'll chime in... While my knee-jerk reaction to the new "phrases" for M10 isn't positive, I can't help but wonder if the changes are setting up some significant changes to Magic down the road.

I think the "Play" vs "Cast" is a good example. My first thought after reading the preview "SILENCE" was "what other ways are there to play spells then?". I quickly realized that Cycling was one way now and that wizards may be inventing new ways in the future that are similar to being resurrected/persisted from the graveyard, suspended/exiled spells, cascaded spells, storm spells. What if Cascade is the tip of the iceberg and soon multiple spells will be chained off one another with the first spell being the only "casted" spell?

"Battlefield" may also be setting up a variety of alternate "game zones". What if you could attack through the graveyard? Or if planeswalkers don't exist on the "battlefield" but would be damaged/destroyed in the new zone?

I just think people should consider the possibilities beyond the impact to the flavor of the game as it exists today.

Finally I disagree with the removal of Mana Burn as there have been many challenging moments where that 1 or two points of burn have made the difference. I've actually be stuck at 1 life with a Pila-Pila enchanted with the Power of Fire aura and not be able to machine gun my land due to the mana burn. It's not fun but it's a challenging part of the game you have to consider.

HOWEVER, considering the subject of my post, what if the excess mana can be stored for future turns to help power out bigger spells? I never thought a 7 casting cost spell with 3 different colors would ever be useful but look at Cruel Ultimatum! Who knows what the future sets will bring and what fundamental changes may be coming in the next 5-10 years.

Lotus thought by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 16:00
Anonymous's picture

The lotus land could make the game an instant win with banefire or even help martial coup to even greater effect. Combine it with countryside crusher and/or knight of the reliquary to good effect.

you know it really bugs me by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 16:55
Anonymous's picture

they make all of these drastic changes to the game... but i still can't see what i type when i draft, it's been like that for about 10 years. if they are so focused on changing keywords for no reason, maybe they should use a little more focus on magic online. i mean they waste time putting out an xbox game that will FLOP (its the same thing as magic, you are just restricted to the cards they give you) when they should have paid that company to make magic online an actual useful program. i mean someone was saying wow to the fact that there were like 3 or 4 thousand players on magic online at once (someone wrote an article about it a few weeks ago). That is god awful. this game has always been way bigger than asheron's call (at least the paper version of magic), and i remember that game back in the day would have 8 servers with that many people playing on them. that was a 3d mmorpg and it wasnt even 10% as glitchy as magic online. magic doesn't even have graphics for god's sake. and oh yea, fix it so i can submit my deck twice. actually no wait, just invent keywords like battlefield and get rid of mana burn instead. real awesome choices.

forgot my point by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 17:02
Anonymous's picture

my point is that they would make more money if modo was a reliable program than they will ever make releasing a game on xbox.

Magic exists outside of MTGO. by bubba0077 at Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:01
bubba0077's picture

Magic exists outside of MTGO. This comes from R&D and other people not worried solely about MTGO and with no direct responsibility for MTGO. Not every new thing is an excuse to bitch about the current state of the client.

... and you started with a bug that isn't even important and is a minor side effect of an intended restriction.

6th edition rules and the changes in M10 by mattlewis at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 17:03
mattlewis's picture

This is going to date me, but anyone remember 6th edition? No? Well, there was a big change in the rules back then too. There use to be spells called interrupts, and spells called instants. Interrupts were 'faster' than instants. Counterspell was an interrupt, Lightning Bolt was an instant. Also, tapped blockers did not deal damage in combat (what the heck?!?!), hello Icy Manipulator! With the introduction of 6th edition, they consolidated the timing of spells into what we now call 'the stack'. No more interrupts, every 'fast' spell became an instant. And tapped blockers? Now they deal damage.

These were big changes. The biggest changes to the rules in the history of Magic at the time. There was probably some whining about how much simpler 'the stack' made magic, and some minor grumbling about dumbing down of combat, but all in all the changes made Magic a better game, and you didn't have to be an expert on some strange rules to work out how a game played out.

Here again, if mana burn is going to be on the way out, then the people who 'lose' are the ones who are the most technically proficient at the game, the ones that are good at tapping mana and announcing spells. Is that what we want the difference in a match to come down to? I don't think so. Everyone outside of the best mana tappers will have a better time and enjoy their games more. Stumbling over the rules is the biggest hurdle a new player can face. Anything that makes the game more accessible, while not altering the core dynamics of the game, will only help to grow and maintain the player base.

Matt

omg omg omg by whiffy at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 17:59
whiffy's picture

White Lightning for the win!.

When they changed the rules in 6th, interaction we take for granted now were just being discovered like the at end of turn phrase on cards.
for Example Waylay was a pretty innocent instant for 2W that put 3 2/2 first strikers into play and then bury them at eot. This was intended to be purely blocking but with the new rules you could cast waylay in your opponents eot step and the trigger on waylay would not check till your eot step. This effectivly gave you a white ball lightning, and took std by storm for the 2-3 week window it was allowed to run rampant.

Maybe you're right Matt, and by enkogneto at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 19:15
enkogneto's picture

Maybe you're right Matt, and that is a good perspective. But you have to keep a couple things in mind. While minor rules changes may seem insignificant in a casual environment, it has a major effect on the higher level tournaments.

If I'm playing in a casual game and my opponent draws a card before he untaps his land, am I going to make him take mana burn? No! That's ridiculous, it was a simple/common mistake. Now on the other hand, if I'm playing in a HUGE tourney and a butt load of money is on the line, that's a different story. Especially when you have to consider the fact that you can only get so good at magic before it comes down to pure luck and the most seemingly insignificant rules of the game. Once you learn how to pilot a deck, and you figure out what is the most "statisticly" proper choice you are supossed to make in a given situation, then the rest is up to luck. That, and my personal favorite... the rouge deck. But that is a totally different arguement altogether.

And land-tapping shouldn't be a skill. Anyone who has the skill "great land-tapper" should be a Pokemon player.

Rules Enforcement by mattlewis at Thu, 06/04/2009 - 02:49
mattlewis's picture

I believe, even at the highest rules enforcement levels (ie Pro Tours), that if you draw a card before untapping your lands, no one takes mana burn, and there's no way to force someone to take mana burn. You might get a caution or a warning from a judge and the game is reset to your untap phase. Repeated offenses might lead to a game loss at that level.

Correct me if I am wrong on that, please.

When I began playing competitive magic, I got burned numerous times by bad declarations and mana tapping (not to mention biased judging). I learned and got better, but only through the school of hard knocks. Minimizing the knocks, while keeping the lessons, improves the playing experience for new players.

Whats in a name? letters by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 18:25
Anonymous's picture

I like the new names lol

See you on the battlefield! too bad we lost "summon", is a good word. summon morgue toad to the battlefield.

LadyV's tips for the next name changes... graveyard to become mausoleum, library to spellbook, and most likely player to something else... they seem to be giving everything a fantasy feel, and then have "player". im lobbying for it to be Goddess. Fireball deals x damage to target goddess

names schnames by Anonymous at Wed, 06/03/2009 - 21:23
Anonymous's picture

OTL

those are gonna take some getting used to. *sigh*