I attack with a 3/6, you block with 3 1/1s. I choose the order in which I'm going to assign damage. You play giant growth on the first 1/1 creature I chose to assign damage to. End result, all of your 1/1s survive instead of just one.
It's a small advantage, and it's really more apparent on creature pumping effects that add more toughness than power, but it's still significant.
I fail to see how this makes Giant Growth effects better. It seems it only makes them more susceptible to getting you 2 for 1'd.
I attack with Grey Ogre and you block with Grey Ogre. Before I could stack damage and then cast Giant Growth so that a Shock wouldn't 2 for 1 me. Now I have to cast the Giant Growth before damage and you can respond with Shock and I get 2 for 1'd.
Although the 'trust them, they know what they're doing' sounds a lot like some sort of famous last words. :)
I think that the changes will be better for lower ranked players and worse for higher ranked players which will, over time, make it a good change as those lower ranked players are able to win more.
I'm still not a fan of the change overall, as I really liked the power of 'damage on the stack' shenanigans. However, I do think that this will indeed make Magic a less complex game for new/inexperienced players.
I just assumed that Pyroclasm was an instant for some reason! I really gotta learn to check things before posting!
I still think the rule changes kill my goblins deck however. I liked being able to sac 'dead' goblins for profit. Not just Mogg Fanatic but also using Sledder and Prospector for benefits. Oh well, it was great while it lasted.
I'm sure they(WotC) know what they're doing. I'm sure that they tested this new system 10.000 times over and over and came to the conclusion that this new combat version is better. It is clear that we lost a good portion of our combat tricks. But I'm also sure that we gained a lot of new ones. Nothing will be as they used to be. Nevertheless this fact does not mean that things will get worse or unfun or whatnot.
I would personally wait and see. I think that it is a little bit too early to judge the new system. I'm sure WotC know what they're doing.
Pyroclasm is a sorcery so you have to cast it during either main 1 or main 2 phase, not during combat.
You COULD cast pyroclasm before combat (main 1 phase) and have all the creatures have 2 damage on them, then during combat you'd only have to assign 1 point to the first 3/3 to have "lethal" on it, letting you assign the other point to the other 3/3.
Of course if you did that, then I just wouldn't bother blocking with both creatures.
In the case of an instant spell, then that works. I attack with 2/6, you block with 2 3/3's, I cast an instant burn (volcanic fallout or something), then I assign 1 point to each of the 3/3's. But not for sorceries.
--
The main thing it really destroys are sacrifice effects (the new G/W 2/2 cat guy that sacs to destroy an artifact. normally I'd try to wait until he's going to die in combat anyway, if I could, before sacrificing him...now I can't) (or token generator decks - do damage then sac the token)
and damage prevention/redirection abilities as I can no longer use them after I know who's living and who's dieing. I have to use those abilities/spells blindly now.
--
Personally I know that everytime I play in a Te/St draft queue or play classic/100-CS/etc with anything containing an en-kor ability (0 the next 1 point of damage to this creature is assigned to a different creature you own)....I'm going to be activating that ability about 40 times every combat (since I have no idea how much damage you're going to assign to it) rather than like now with just the minimum times I need to after damage assignment to keep it alive...
"is there a chance for me to cast the pyroclasm BEFORE creatures do damage but AFTER the attackers/blockers are resolve"
No.
"To put it another way. With my 2/6 attacking and your two 3/3's blocking can I pyroclasm to put 2 damage on all creatures and then I could assign 1 damage to the first (because that is now lethal damage) and 1 to the second (killing them both and having the same effect as we would have now under existing rules)?????"
There is no way to do this as you stated as pyroclasm is a sorcery. You could, however, do this with Volcanic Fallout. After the blockers are declared and the order has been assigned you can play instants. Fallout would deal 2 to everything, meaning you'd only need to assign 1 damage to #1 and 1 damage to #2 to kill them both.
The big difference is that you can no longer split damage as you see fit, but instead must assign it to the creatures blocking you in the order they're blocking. This makes post-combat pyroclasm much weaker, but it makes giant growth effects in combat much stronger.
As for 'spell damage' that's remaining unchanged. Lightning Bolt still works exactly as it did before, once the spell resolves the damage is dealt (barring prevention, etc).
I had to recently retool my Mid Range Control deck to survive the current Meta in 100CS to the more popular Aggro Control style decks that have been floating around the top 8s.
This was after some rather convincing nudging from platipus10. This mainly revolved around the discussion of how counters are becoming less and less effective in the 100CS format.
Looking forward to the results of the upcoming PE to see if we can see a change in the deck listings. I will not be able to attend since it is on July 4th… I’ll be eating BBQ food yums heh and trying to make sure my gal doesn’t blow off her hand with fireworks.
I still do enjoy 100CS and hope that Wotc will make changes to their “Ban List” for the sake of allowing more decks to become viable and keeping the format fresh. Perhaps Cascade will bring back combo decks? Lets hope :)
But yah this has definitely come a fight Fire with Fire format haha.
To be honest I simply don't understand this 'simplified' version at all.
The example that confuses me is the one that involves pyroclasm or in your post example 1.
Lets assume we all understand how it works now. In the future is there a chance for me to cast the pyroclasm BEFORE creatures do damage but AFTER the attackers/blockers are resolved.
To put it another way. With my 2/6 attacking and your two 3/3's blocking can I pyroclasm to put 2 damage on all creatures and then I could assign 1 damage to the first (because that is now lethal damage) and 1 to the second (killing them both and having the same effect as we would have now under existing rules)?????
combat damage no longer uses the stack but what about spell damage? Does that still use the stack even if the damage is directed to creatures? I have so many things that just don't seem clear any more with these new 'simplified' rules?!?!?!?!?!?
I always enjoy reading your articles, Steve. I am curious how you feel about the new rules and how you may be able to exploit them with a casual deck. Personally, I'm not happy with the way combat damage is being handled.
Actually I think combat just got both dumbed down AND infinately more complex at the same time.
Sorcery burn just took a massive nerf. Damage prevention/redirection just became basically worthless.
Combat tricks took a massive hit. This just stinks....
1) Before: I attack with a 2/6, you block with a 3/3 and a 3/3. I assign 1 point to each. After combat I cast pyroclasm (or some other 2 damage to all sorcery). Your two guys die.
1a) After: I attack with a 2/6, you block with a 3/3 and a 3/3. I'm forced to assign both points to a single guy. After combat I cast the sorcery, only 1 guys dies.
2) Before: You attack, I block with several guys. After combat damage is assigned, I use (samite healer, some damage prevention spell, or the en-kor redirection abilities) to prevent enough damage to keep at some of my guys around.
2a) After: I have to use the damage prevention/redirection BEFORE I know how much damage you're actually assigning to my guys...so you just do an extra point or two to the guys who have the redirection on them and I STILL can't manage to save them.
(Before: you would of assigned 1 point to my 3/1 and 2 points to my 2/2, then I use samite healer to save whichever of them I wanted to save. After: I have to use the samite healer BEFORE damage is assigned. So saying I wanted to keep the 3/1, I use the samite on him - now you just assign 2 points to him and let the 2/1 live...in other words it went from MY choice who lived to YOUR choice).
And what about Banding? (yes he mentioned it, but didn't say if it's going to work like the new deathtouch rule (ie old style damage assignment) or the new rule...assigning minimum lethal to one guy, just that I get to decide who it is and not you).
Wow, just totally blows the mind that they think THIS is more intuitive.
Run Gaea's Blessing in self defense (in extended of course :)). People who complain about Mill probably also complain about Counters, Discard, Red Burn Decks, Land destruction (a personal fav) and just about anything else that severely hinders them playing the critters and applying the beats. Just my 2.5 cents.
First off...congrats to the top 10 and the finisher. Job well done.
Now onto this notion of Dr. T's. I agree that more explaination is somewhat in order from the judges. However it is their contest, that they (presumably) paid for (though I know some of the prizes at least were donated) and which they spent an enormous amount of time going over. I personally would have liked some comments on the various submissions that DIDN'T make the top 10 but we can't always get what we want.
I think if I were running such a contest (great contest idea by the way) my pride would ensure that every entrant got some comment even though this would eat up a lot of free time. It would be nice to know the thinking behind why each of the top 10 placed where it did by each of the judges. When I have run contests in RPGS (art and writing mostly) I have followed this path even though it meant the judging took a bit longer to complete.
As far as the whole thing being a ruse/sham...I highly doubt it. The lengths to which people go to cheat IS an issue sometimes but here it seems a clear cut case of everyone had a say. Perhaps not equally but that's the breaks. I understand your sense of being cheating because you did not win and thought you should have. However feeling entitled to something does not make it so. Also I think it pretty nervy to apologize in the same breath as you make this most foul accusation. If you don't want to be seen as foolish/harsh/etc ... don't say it.
RE: Judging in the Budget Category...huh? Apologize and then imply that further shenanigans are forthwith? Cease & Desist! lol.
The "point" made is that you have the trump strategy. You have Lightning Bolt, Firebolt, Incinerate for incidental damage at EoT or with little cost during your turn. Can cast both ends of Deep Analysis which is better than any of MUC card draw and can simply draw cards and burn until you have a chance to resolve torch. You are playing a MUC "mirror" in which one guy has Spire Golem, Piracy Charm, Remove Soul, Exclude, Fathom Seer, Think Twice and the other guy has Burn + Deep Analysis.
This deck doesn't beat MUC. My guess is it's not even close. Did you even test it?
Don't know why you think Torch+counter is a win.
A torch for 5 (which is barely above a straight bolt) + counter is 8 mana.
Why can't MUC have the 6 mana required to double counter, or even the 8 mana required to EOT counter and THEN double counter?
That's just one objection, but it's the only "point" you made in that matchup.
On a personal note my initial reaction to the rule changes is that the combat step just got dumbed down and as a player that likes to turn stuff sideways I'm sad.
I'm not going to go overboard and claim it will cause me to quit, like so many on the official forums, but I will stop buying product until I can play the new rules for a while and see if I like it.
I wonder if WotC thought about the potential lost revenue it will cost them? I will also be very interested to see the secondary market graphs for the next few weeks. I know WotC doesn't care what are collections are worth but a big shake up like this must effect them in some way.
I did notice in your board and sideboard. After looking over everything and with me being a sliver player. After board for the match up I add in +3 CoP Red +3 Relic of Progensis. Im not going to create a situational match up but just +1 relic could ruin game 2 and 3 for you. Seeing how your stratagy against slivers is resolve sandstorm. But now after board I would have +4 Strands +3 Relics that both negate the Sandstorm. Other then that it was a good article. But overall yes. I see it is a solid build and a great start of a deck. I just wish there was alittle more show as to board stratagy agaisnt a relic. Seeing how its litterly almost in everyones board and negates your boardswiper.
Good games there I actually vagualy remember that match up also. Yeah I actually replaced several stuff in the deck. So now its deff a modded sliver deck from that. And took out those god awful gemhides. But anyway see I found myself being useful for something and that was getting smacked around. *Goes crys in a corner* Anyway good article. Also good match
Did you read the post to which I was replying? DotP = Duel of the Planeswalkers, the new Magic-themed XBox 360 game, which tarmatog mentioned in his post.
All the Wishes (aside from Three Wishes) now can no longer grab a card from Exile Zone. That makes RFG/Exiling cards more potent in Classic formats. Tricks with Psychatog and Cunning Wish are nerfed.
the change in combat damage using the stack is CRAZY! I think they did it so that the game works like the Xbox duel of the planeswalkers.......................
yeah.. it'll be great news.. or rather bad news.. =(
I attack with a 3/6, you block with 3 1/1s. I choose the order in which I'm going to assign damage. You play giant growth on the first 1/1 creature I chose to assign damage to. End result, all of your 1/1s survive instead of just one.
It's a small advantage, and it's really more apparent on creature pumping effects that add more toughness than power, but it's still significant.
I fail to see how this makes Giant Growth effects better. It seems it only makes them more susceptible to getting you 2 for 1'd.
I attack with Grey Ogre and you block with Grey Ogre. Before I could stack damage and then cast Giant Growth so that a Shock wouldn't 2 for 1 me. Now I have to cast the Giant Growth before damage and you can respond with Shock and I get 2 for 1'd.
Thanks for the feedback man, I'll include a rundown of what I think of the rule changes in my next article.
I agree, mostly, LE. :)
Although the 'trust them, they know what they're doing' sounds a lot like some sort of famous last words. :)
I think that the changes will be better for lower ranked players and worse for higher ranked players which will, over time, make it a good change as those lower ranked players are able to win more.
I'm still not a fan of the change overall, as I really liked the power of 'damage on the stack' shenanigans. However, I do think that this will indeed make Magic a less complex game for new/inexperienced players.
Thanks for the explanation.
I just assumed that Pyroclasm was an instant for some reason! I really gotta learn to check things before posting!
I still think the rule changes kill my goblins deck however. I liked being able to sac 'dead' goblins for profit. Not just Mogg Fanatic but also using Sledder and Prospector for benefits. Oh well, it was great while it lasted.
I'm sure they(WotC) know what they're doing. I'm sure that they tested this new system 10.000 times over and over and came to the conclusion that this new combat version is better. It is clear that we lost a good portion of our combat tricks. But I'm also sure that we gained a lot of new ones. Nothing will be as they used to be. Nevertheless this fact does not mean that things will get worse or unfun or whatnot.
I would personally wait and see. I think that it is a little bit too early to judge the new system. I'm sure WotC know what they're doing.
LE
Oh and another thing:
I tend to "walk into" various combat tricks like this all the time, and now it's going to be much much harder for me to miss them.
So I actually stand to benefit from these changes, and I STILL think it's an incredibly stupid change.
Well, yes and no.
Pyroclasm is a sorcery so you have to cast it during either main 1 or main 2 phase, not during combat.
You COULD cast pyroclasm before combat (main 1 phase) and have all the creatures have 2 damage on them, then during combat you'd only have to assign 1 point to the first 3/3 to have "lethal" on it, letting you assign the other point to the other 3/3.
Of course if you did that, then I just wouldn't bother blocking with both creatures.
In the case of an instant spell, then that works. I attack with 2/6, you block with 2 3/3's, I cast an instant burn (volcanic fallout or something), then I assign 1 point to each of the 3/3's. But not for sorceries.
--
The main thing it really destroys are sacrifice effects (the new G/W 2/2 cat guy that sacs to destroy an artifact. normally I'd try to wait until he's going to die in combat anyway, if I could, before sacrificing him...now I can't) (or token generator decks - do damage then sac the token)
and damage prevention/redirection abilities as I can no longer use them after I know who's living and who's dieing. I have to use those abilities/spells blindly now.
--
Personally I know that everytime I play in a Te/St draft queue or play classic/100-CS/etc with anything containing an en-kor ability (0 the next 1 point of damage to this creature is assigned to a different creature you own)....I'm going to be activating that ability about 40 times every combat (since I have no idea how much damage you're going to assign to it) rather than like now with just the minimum times I need to after damage assignment to keep it alive...
"is there a chance for me to cast the pyroclasm BEFORE creatures do damage but AFTER the attackers/blockers are resolve"
No.
"To put it another way. With my 2/6 attacking and your two 3/3's blocking can I pyroclasm to put 2 damage on all creatures and then I could assign 1 damage to the first (because that is now lethal damage) and 1 to the second (killing them both and having the same effect as we would have now under existing rules)?????"
There is no way to do this as you stated as pyroclasm is a sorcery. You could, however, do this with Volcanic Fallout. After the blockers are declared and the order has been assigned you can play instants. Fallout would deal 2 to everything, meaning you'd only need to assign 1 damage to #1 and 1 damage to #2 to kill them both.
The big difference is that you can no longer split damage as you see fit, but instead must assign it to the creatures blocking you in the order they're blocking. This makes post-combat pyroclasm much weaker, but it makes giant growth effects in combat much stronger.
As for 'spell damage' that's remaining unchanged. Lightning Bolt still works exactly as it did before, once the spell resolves the damage is dealt (barring prevention, etc).
I had to recently retool my Mid Range Control deck to survive the current Meta in 100CS to the more popular Aggro Control style decks that have been floating around the top 8s.
This was after some rather convincing nudging from platipus10. This mainly revolved around the discussion of how counters are becoming less and less effective in the 100CS format.
Looking forward to the results of the upcoming PE to see if we can see a change in the deck listings. I will not be able to attend since it is on July 4th… I’ll be eating BBQ food yums heh and trying to make sure my gal doesn’t blow off her hand with fireworks.
I still do enjoy 100CS and hope that Wotc will make changes to their “Ban List” for the sake of allowing more decks to become viable and keeping the format fresh. Perhaps Cascade will bring back combo decks? Lets hope :)
But yah this has definitely come a fight Fire with Fire format haha.
Examples of the deck changes:
http://www.mymtgo.com/view_deck.php?did=629
http://www.mymtgo.com/view_deck.php?did=675
To be honest I simply don't understand this 'simplified' version at all.
The example that confuses me is the one that involves pyroclasm or in your post example 1.
Lets assume we all understand how it works now. In the future is there a chance for me to cast the pyroclasm BEFORE creatures do damage but AFTER the attackers/blockers are resolved.
To put it another way. With my 2/6 attacking and your two 3/3's blocking can I pyroclasm to put 2 damage on all creatures and then I could assign 1 damage to the first (because that is now lethal damage) and 1 to the second (killing them both and having the same effect as we would have now under existing rules)?????
combat damage no longer uses the stack but what about spell damage? Does that still use the stack even if the damage is directed to creatures? I have so many things that just don't seem clear any more with these new 'simplified' rules?!?!?!?!?!?
I always enjoy reading your articles, Steve. I am curious how you feel about the new rules and how you may be able to exploit them with a casual deck. Personally, I'm not happy with the way combat damage is being handled.
Actually I think combat just got both dumbed down AND infinately more complex at the same time.
Sorcery burn just took a massive nerf. Damage prevention/redirection just became basically worthless.
Combat tricks took a massive hit. This just stinks....
1) Before: I attack with a 2/6, you block with a 3/3 and a 3/3. I assign 1 point to each. After combat I cast pyroclasm (or some other 2 damage to all sorcery). Your two guys die.
1a) After: I attack with a 2/6, you block with a 3/3 and a 3/3. I'm forced to assign both points to a single guy. After combat I cast the sorcery, only 1 guys dies.
2) Before: You attack, I block with several guys. After combat damage is assigned, I use (samite healer, some damage prevention spell, or the en-kor redirection abilities) to prevent enough damage to keep at some of my guys around.
2a) After: I have to use the damage prevention/redirection BEFORE I know how much damage you're actually assigning to my guys...so you just do an extra point or two to the guys who have the redirection on them and I STILL can't manage to save them.
(Before: you would of assigned 1 point to my 3/1 and 2 points to my 2/2, then I use samite healer to save whichever of them I wanted to save. After: I have to use the samite healer BEFORE damage is assigned. So saying I wanted to keep the 3/1, I use the samite on him - now you just assign 2 points to him and let the 2/1 live...in other words it went from MY choice who lived to YOUR choice).
And what about Banding? (yes he mentioned it, but didn't say if it's going to work like the new deathtouch rule (ie old style damage assignment) or the new rule...assigning minimum lethal to one guy, just that I get to decide who it is and not you).
Wow, just totally blows the mind that they think THIS is more intuitive.
Run Gaea's Blessing in self defense (in extended of course :)). People who complain about Mill probably also complain about Counters, Discard, Red Burn Decks, Land destruction (a personal fav) and just about anything else that severely hinders them playing the critters and applying the beats. Just my 2.5 cents.
First off...congrats to the top 10 and the finisher. Job well done.
Now onto this notion of Dr. T's. I agree that more explaination is somewhat in order from the judges. However it is their contest, that they (presumably) paid for (though I know some of the prizes at least were donated) and which they spent an enormous amount of time going over. I personally would have liked some comments on the various submissions that DIDN'T make the top 10 but we can't always get what we want.
I think if I were running such a contest (great contest idea by the way) my pride would ensure that every entrant got some comment even though this would eat up a lot of free time. It would be nice to know the thinking behind why each of the top 10 placed where it did by each of the judges. When I have run contests in RPGS (art and writing mostly) I have followed this path even though it meant the judging took a bit longer to complete.
As far as the whole thing being a ruse/sham...I highly doubt it. The lengths to which people go to cheat IS an issue sometimes but here it seems a clear cut case of everyone had a say. Perhaps not equally but that's the breaks. I understand your sense of being cheating because you did not win and thought you should have. However feeling entitled to something does not make it so. Also I think it pretty nervy to apologize in the same breath as you make this most foul accusation. If you don't want to be seen as foolish/harsh/etc ... don't say it.
RE: Judging in the Budget Category...huh? Apologize and then imply that further shenanigans are forthwith? Cease & Desist! lol.
The "point" made is that you have the trump strategy. You have Lightning Bolt, Firebolt, Incinerate for incidental damage at EoT or with little cost during your turn. Can cast both ends of Deep Analysis which is better than any of MUC card draw and can simply draw cards and burn until you have a chance to resolve torch. You are playing a MUC "mirror" in which one guy has Spire Golem, Piracy Charm, Remove Soul, Exclude, Fathom Seer, Think Twice and the other guy has Burn + Deep Analysis.
This deck doesn't beat MUC. My guess is it's not even close. Did you even test it?
Don't know why you think Torch+counter is a win.
A torch for 5 (which is barely above a straight bolt) + counter is 8 mana.
Why can't MUC have the 6 mana required to double counter, or even the 8 mana required to EOT counter and THEN double counter?
That's just one objection, but it's the only "point" you made in that matchup.
Interesting stuff.....
On a personal note my initial reaction to the rule changes is that the combat step just got dumbed down and as a player that likes to turn stuff sideways I'm sad.
I'm not going to go overboard and claim it will cause me to quit, like so many on the official forums, but I will stop buying product until I can play the new rules for a while and see if I like it.
I wonder if WotC thought about the potential lost revenue it will cost them? I will also be very interested to see the secondary market graphs for the next few weeks. I know WotC doesn't care what are collections are worth but a big shake up like this must effect them in some way.
I did notice in your board and sideboard. After looking over everything and with me being a sliver player. After board for the match up I add in +3 CoP Red +3 Relic of Progensis. Im not going to create a situational match up but just +1 relic could ruin game 2 and 3 for you. Seeing how your stratagy against slivers is resolve sandstorm. But now after board I would have +4 Strands +3 Relics that both negate the Sandstorm. Other then that it was a good article. But overall yes. I see it is a solid build and a great start of a deck. I just wish there was alittle more show as to board stratagy agaisnt a relic. Seeing how its litterly almost in everyones board and negates your boardswiper.
Good games there I actually vagualy remember that match up also. Yeah I actually replaced several stuff in the deck. So now its deff a modded sliver deck from that. And took out those god awful gemhides. But anyway see I found myself being useful for something and that was getting smacked around. *Goes crys in a corner* Anyway good article. Also good match
Did you read the post to which I was replying? DotP = Duel of the Planeswalkers, the new Magic-themed XBox 360 game, which tarmatog mentioned in his post.
DotP..?
I'm not sure many players know which card this acronym stands for.
We hardly knew ye.
All the Wishes (aside from Three Wishes) now can no longer grab a card from Exile Zone. That makes RFG/Exiling cards more potent in Classic formats. Tricks with Psychatog and Cunning Wish are nerfed.
C'est la vie!
I'm told DotP was made like that knowing the rule change was coming. People just assumed it was a bug or DotP dumbing down the game.
the change in combat damage using the stack is CRAZY! I think they did it so that the game works like the Xbox duel of the planeswalkers.......................
yeah.. it'll be great news.. or rather bad news.. =(
/me is totally stunned.
I am hoping for replays too.