M10 LOL

[Mare]

Potpisao ajmo ljudi za GRAND,hehe, http://www.pro-dots.com/

[Galovic]

jbt procitao sam sve izmene i sve je manje vise ok ali je ovo sa stekom bas lose.... cak mozda ne lose sustinski jer ne mogu dovoljno da skontam kako će izgledati igra nakon ovoga.... ako prilagode novom sistemu mozda ce i biti kul...
ali jbt stek je tako jedna mega bitna stvar u danasnjem magicu ... jbt ... jako radikalna promena i uopste mi se ne svidja...

bedak....,...

[Snake]

Gledam ovaj mtgboards i jbt, ljudi su bash bash postali aktivni oko ovoga, hvala Bogu da im se ukljuchilo pile, ali mi je ubedljivo najbolji deo kad kreativno opisuju kako mogg fanatic ubija dve kreature xD A za sada najkreativniji post koji se tiche besmisla promena za combat damage :D

Dear Players With the release of the latest Chess Boards we plan to be revising some old rules that we felt were unintuitive and that newer players did not understand.

1) CASTLING

The Reality: Many newer players cannot grasp the fact that under some conditions you are allowed to not only move two pieces in a single turn but also to move your King more than 1 space.

The Fix: Players are no longer allowed to castle

The Details: Not much more to say here, this move is no longer valid. We feel that this will make learning the game much easier for new players.


2) EN PASSANT

The Reality: We never really liked this move to begin with, it was the least intuitive move on the chess board. New and Veteran players alike have had issues grasping when they can make this move and why they are able ot take a piece without even landing on the square it was on.

The Fix: Players are no longer allowed to perform an En Passant

The Details: Not much more to say here, this move is no longer valid. We feel that this will make learning the game much easier for new players.

3) PROMOTION

The Reality: The feel behind a player able to upgrade their Pawn to another piece by reaching the other end of the board is very unintuitive. We feel that this capability does not make any sense and has no actually flavor, just by making a long journey should not allow a pawn to become Queen. THis is highly unflavorful and unintuitive.

The Fix: When a players Pawn reaches the other end of the board they are stuck, the piece is no longer allowed to move because there are not more valid moves for this piece to take. The player should have thought out their move more before making such a pointless move.

The Details: Promotion of pieces no longer works, Pawns have been devalued.

4) KNIGHT MOVEMENT

The Reality: We feel that is is unintuitive for a Knight to be able to jump over another piece. Teaching this movement pattern to new players when no other pieces are able to move past another piece makes this hard to explain and grasp.

The Fix: Knight no longer are able to move OVER another piece, you must be able to show the L shape that the Knight will be moving in to its destination in unimpeded by any pieces or the move is not valid.

The Details: To show the movement path of the Knight players must line up small disks on the chess board , each in a valid movement location for the knight to demonstrate the path the Knight will be taking to its final destination. If you cannot construct a valid movement path for your Knight, your turn will be forfeited.

5) QUEEN RETREAT

The Reality: Players who lose their Queen early in the game are at a severe disadvantage to others. We feel to help with the flavor of the game that the Queen should be able to retreat back into safeety whenever it is needed.

The Fix: A player may now swap any piece on the chess board with their Queen as their movement for the turn.

The Details: Instead of making a normal chess move, you are allowed to announce a Queen Retreat, at this point you must choose any other piece you control on the board. Once that piece is choose, swap this piece with the Queen. Your turn is now over.

Thank you for reading our improvements to the Game of Chess, if you would like to leave any feedback please discuss it on the Boards.

[MTG gamer]

Gledam ovaj mtgboards i jbt, ljudi su bash bash postali aktivni oko ovoga, hvala Bogu da im se ukljuchilo pile, ali mi je ubedljivo najbolji deo kad kreativno opisuju kako mogg fanatic ubija dve kreature xD A za sada najkreativniji post koji se tiche besmisla promena za combat damage :D

Dear Players With the release of the latest Chess Boards we plan to be revising some old rules that we felt were unintuitive and that newer players did not understand.

1) CASTLING

The Reality: Many newer players cannot grasp the fact that under some conditions you are allowed to not only move two pieces in a single turn but also to move your King more than 1 space.

The Fix: Players are no longer allowed to castle

The Details: Not much more to say here, this move is no longer valid. We feel that this will make learning the game much easier for new players.


2) EN PASSANT

The Reality: We never really liked this move to begin with, it was the least intuitive move on the chess board. New and Veteran players alike have had issues grasping when they can make this move and why they are able ot take a piece without even landing on the square it was on.

The Fix: Players are no longer allowed to perform an En Passant

The Details: Not much more to say here, this move is no longer valid. We feel that this will make learning the game much easier for new players.

3) PROMOTION

The Reality: The feel behind a player able to upgrade their Pawn to another piece by reaching the other end of the board is very unintuitive. We feel that this capability does not make any sense and has no actually flavor, just by making a long journey should not allow a pawn to become Queen. THis is highly unflavorful and unintuitive.

The Fix: When a players Pawn reaches the other end of the board they are stuck, the piece is no longer allowed to move because there are not more valid moves for this piece to take. The player should have thought out their move more before making such a pointless move.

The Details: Promotion of pieces no longer works, Pawns have been devalued.

4) KNIGHT MOVEMENT

The Reality: We feel that is is unintuitive for a Knight to be able to jump over another piece. Teaching this movement pattern to new players when no other pieces are able to move past another piece makes this hard to explain and grasp.

The Fix: Knight no longer are able to move OVER another piece, you must be able to show the L shape that the Knight will be moving in to its destination in unimpeded by any pieces or the move is not valid.

The Details: To show the movement path of the Knight players must line up small disks on the chess board , each in a valid movement location for the knight to demonstrate the path the Knight will be taking to its final destination. If you cannot construct a valid movement path for your Knight, your turn will be forfeited.

5) QUEEN RETREAT

The Reality: Players who lose their Queen early in the game are at a severe disadvantage to others. We feel to help with the flavor of the game that the Queen should be able to retreat back into safeety whenever it is needed.

The Fix: A player may now swap any piece on the chess board with their Queen as their movement for the turn.

The Details: Instead of making a normal chess move, you are allowed to announce a Queen Retreat, at this point you must choose any other piece you control on the board. Once that piece is choose, swap this piece with the Queen. Your turn is now over.

Thank you for reading our improvements to the Game of Chess, if you would like to leave any feedback please discuss it on the Boards.

LOL

[Bugi]

jbt procitao sam sve izmene i sve je manje vise ok ali je ovo sa stekom bas lose.... cak mozda ne lose sustinski jer ne mogu dovoljno da skontam kako će izgledati igra nakon ovoga.... ako prilagode novom sistemu mozda ce i biti kul...
ali jbt stek je tako jedna mega bitna stvar u danasnjem magicu ... jbt ... jako radikalna promena i uopste mi se ne svidja...

bedak....,...

brate Galovicu =))
nisu ok,
uopshte,
ni izbacivanje mana burna i floata, ni kontrola tokena, a pogotovo ne DMG stack i reatardirana deklaracija blokera i deljenje dmg!
ni deathtouch i lifelink koji su sada static nisu ok...
onda i flanking i bushido i sva ostala sranja koja se trigeruju treba da budu static... a to je jebeno retardirano =))
jedino shto je ok i shto ima smisla je muligan, ubrzava igru realno.
chak je i promena texta mogla da bude bolja i inovativnija al ni to ne smeta.
i nema poente menjati pravila i samu igru za novajlije i casual igrache
kada smo svi mogli da ih nauchimo i skapiramo mogu i oni.
i drugo pravila menjash da bi neshto popravio, sredio, poboljshao ako nadjesh neku rupu koju igrachi exploatishu na ne fer nachin itd.
a ne da bi degradirao i usrao igru...
i dao sam novim pravilima shansu na mwsu, igraju ljudi...
jako je jebeno retardirano i glupo...
t2 i blok koliko toliko... mada je i to loshe onako bash...
a extended i legacy... katastrofa

[master brka]

Nadam se da smo svi potpisali te peticije pa sta bude bude...da je retardirano retardirano je...cela fama je oko para...ljudi se pale na pare k'o cigani na bugarsku pozlatu tako da nam ostaje samo da se nadamo da ta njihova ideja nece biti sprovedena. Ako su wizardsi napipali keš od novih igrača, klinaca i sl onda smo se svi sjebali.
Ja igram magic od skora, mozda nekih godinu i par meseci, svi ste mi pomogli da shvatim sva pravila i stvarno je totalno bad sto se sve drastično menja.
Iskreno, meni nije bilo previse tesko da skontam igru.

[Snake]

Bugi sine, nisi u pravu za dosta stvari

1. Mulligan je ok, ionako skoro niko nije pratio pravilan redosled i sa starim pravilima
2. Ova promena imena su relativno ok, lakshe njima da prave nove karte, end of turn step je pametnije odradjen, lakshe kapiraju ljudi koji nisu pre kapirali bla bla, nishta posebno, osim smanjivanja vrednosti wishe-va, research/developmenta etc. ali sve u svemu nije neka OMFG promena
3. Floatovanje mane je ok promena, jer deluje nekako pravedno, dok sa druge strane gubljenje mana burna je jednostavno bzvz. Mana burn je uvek bio shlag na torti igranja, uvek si mogao da se burnujesh do smrti chisto da te protivnik ne dobije, da radish sa i protiv pulseva itd. To je jednostavno bila jedna od onih stvari sa kojima nauchish da rukujesh posle nekog vremena i uzhivash... Mada deder, ni to nije toliko strashno, osim mozhda za Vintage playere
4. Token ownership - isto ok stvar
5.Combat damage - jedina, jedina stvar koju stvarno ne razumem, niko se nije bunio, niko nije ni spomenuo, i sada tje zbog casual igracha, koji ionako ne prate pravila i ne znaju ni polovinu da promene pravila za nas, turnirske igrache, kojima je zapravo stalo da imaju stackovan combat damage...
6. & 7. To shto su postali static ability je ok, sad nema vishe nelogichnog stackovanja lifelinka kao kod belog genju-a, verovatno tje i flanking i bushido postati u jednom trenutku static, overall dobra promena...

Samo mi neshto deluje kao teorija zavere - prvo smanje broj pro-tourova, onda pochnu da menjaju pravila da bi kao bila bolje orijentisana ka novim igrachima... Da li oni to zhele da totalno sjebu ozbiljnu turnirsku scenu i da sve gurnu u casual vode? Sve mi nekako deluje kao da je Hasbro glavni krivac shto se magic zaglupljuje, misletji da tje time privutji vetji broj igracha i zaraditi vishe kinte... Just my 2 cents :D

[valhalla]

3. Floatovanje mane je ok promena, jer deluje nekako pravedno, dok sa druge strane gubljenje mana burna je jednostavno bzvz. Mana burn je uvek bio shlag na torti igranja, uvek si mogao da se burnujesh do smrti chisto da te protivnik ne dobije, da radish sa i protiv pulseva itd. To je jednostavno bila jedna od onih stvari sa kojima nauchish da rukujesh posle nekog vremena i uzhivash... Mada deder, ni to nije toliko strashno, osim mozhda za Vintage playere

Ah,dobra stara vremena...

player1: EOT pulse of the forge u tebe
player2: Rispons - burnam se za 3

:lol: :lol:

[Micko]

Ah,dobra stara vremena...

player1: EOT pulse of the forge u tebe
player2: Rispons - burnam se za 3

:lol: :lol:

Vidim da se to "dobra stara vremena " odnosilo na vreme kada su igraci varali druge igrace na nepoznavanje pravila

Mana burn se desava na kraju faze tako da je gore opisana situacija nelegalna

Odnosno legalna je, ali mana u mana poolu nece uticati na to da li ce protivniku da se vrati puls u ruku vec samo na to da ces da se burnujes za 3 posto mu se puls vrati i posto se krug zavrsi :P

[master brka]

Vidim da se to "dobra stara vremena " odnosilo na vreme kada su igraci varali druge igrace na nepoznavanje pravila

Mana burn se desava na kraju faze tako da je gore opisana situacija nelegalna

Odnosno legalna je, ali mana u mana poolu nece uticati na to da li ce protivniku da se vrati puls u ruku vec samo na to da ces da se burnujes za 3 posto mu se puls vrati i posto se krug zavrsi :P

Mićko, zašto ljudima rušiš sneška ?

[valhalla]

Ah,dobra stara vremena...

player1: EOT pulse of the forge u tebe
player2: Rispons - burnam se za 3

:lol: :lol:

Vidim da se to "dobra stara vremena " odnosilo na vreme kada su igraci varali druge igrace na nepoznavanje pravila

Mana burn se desava na kraju faze tako da je gore opisana situacija nelegalna

Odnosno legalna je, ali mana u mana poolu nece uticati na to da li ce protivniku da se vrati puls u ruku vec samo na to da ces da se burnujes za 3 posto mu se puls vrati i posto se krug zavrsi :P

Ignorance is bliss...

Regionalsi 2004, jedan lik je nesto slicno uradio Findy-ju (findy je igrao beli puls a ovaj lik gobose). Ja stojao pored...
Ja sam u to vreme imao tek nesto vise od pola godine igrackog staza i secam se da smo neko vreme posle toga Vojvoda i ja pricali i konstatovali da to ne moze tako

[Nikola]

Ignorance is bliss...

Regionalsi 2004, jedan lik je nesto slicno uradio Findy-ju (findy je igrao beli puls a ovaj lik gobose). Ja stojao pored...
Ja sam u to vreme imao tek nesto vise od pola godine igrackog staza i secam se da smo neko vreme posle toga Vojvoda i ja pricali i konstatovali da to ne moze tako

Zvuchi neverovatno da je Findy dopustio neshto ovako...

[kosta105]

First off, I think that the rules changes are a good thing, and not just for acquiring new players or making the game somewhat more intuitive to people (though I think it does accomplish these things).

A lot of people are quick to bash Wizards for this move, like every other, but this is most definitely a change like 10th Edition being black-bordered more than a “cutting a Pro Tour” type of change. It is not popular to suggest patience and trying the new rules before judging them, but I am of the opinion that Wizards R&D is full of really smart people who have spent a lot of time and energy determining what they think is in the best interest of the game, both in the short term and the long term. I am not saying that we should blindly agree with everything they do, but it would do us good to remember that they have dedicated their lives to making this game the best game it can be, and have a vested interest in seeing the game succeed. It may be easy to sit back and talk about Hasbro demanding profits and ordering Wizards to sell out Magic or some such nonsense, but I assure you, Hasbro wants the game to live and to thrive. In addition, making the “corporate boogeyman” the bad guy every time something happens that you don’t like is unhealthy, and doesn’t lead to realistic improvement.

Hasbro is a corporation, but that doesn’t make them bad. It is easy to use them as scapegoats, but just remember they would not have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Magic if they did not believe in the game and want to see the game succeed.

Of course, the M10 changes should not be given a free pass just because it is useful to give Hasbro or Wizards the benefit of the doubt. Rather, the changes should be weighed on their own merit, as well as what history has taught us about major rules changes.

First, major rules changes don’t end the world nearly as often as people predict. Second, everyone always argues that they are “dumbing down” Magic, and generally they are wrong. Third, if one particular card or another is weaker, so what? Every card that gets weaker makes another stronger. If you think that Wizards should sit around “preserving” the value of the cards you bought, you are confused about what Magic is. Wizards should most definitely not be a bunch of cowards sitting around trying to figure out how to suck up to some vassal that they would leech off. They should continue to make the best game they can, and let whoever wants to play enjoy it.

There are always going to be countless people who will claim the sky is falling every time there is any change in any aspect of life, Magic or otherwise, but I would suggest that it may be wise to slow for a moment and not get caught up on the bandwagon that is bashing Wizards for ruining Magic. Do you think this is the first time people have thought that? How do you think it turned out every other time ever? Try to understand the motives of the people making the decisions that you may agree or disagree with. Do you think Wizards is changing for change’s sake? To spice it up and make things more interesting? Why would they do this? If your logic requires that Wizards behaves foolishly because they are supposedly a bunch of idiots, perhaps you should check your premise. I know a lot of Wizards R&D people, and I assure you, these are some of the smartest people I have ever met. This doesn’t mean they are infallible, but to suggest a theory that is predicated on them all being fools seems suspect at best.

I have tried to express to a variety of people in a variety of forums and emails my perspective, but posterity’s sake, I will present the crux of my position here, with thanks to Patrick Sullivan, Sam Black, Sean McKeown, and everyone else contributing the voice of reason.

“Some people are just so unreasonable, it is unreasonable…”

First of all, just about every new rule but one is clearly superior to the old system. Battlefield and Exile are fine names for zones that need names. Regardless of if you like the names and flavor or not, you must admit that it is silly to have a RFG zone and a “in play” zone. You are playing with a Library and a Graveyard. What is the problem again? If you are embarrassed to play Magic because of names like battlefield, perhaps you should look inside to examine the real insecurity. Do you think the producers of Transformers or X-Men sat around and second guessed if people would think they are nerds for liking a story about robots that transform into cards or mutants with super powers? Cast is similarly fine and actually clarifies confusion (as it is absurd that “play” means four different things).

Resolving mulligans at the same time is obviously good for tournament play. Why would one not applaud Wizards for this? The change to token ownership is obviously a strict upgrade as well.

Mana pools clearing and mana burn being erased is at least debatable, but honestly, mana pools clearing is more logical. Mana burn was an interesting aspect from a strategic standpoint, but the complexity contributed little compared to what it cost the game from a design standpoint and from a tracking information standpoint. If your problem comes from cards being ruined, like Power Surge, take comfort in knowing that new cards will be born that never could have existed before. if your problem is the loss of strategic depth, be aware that the game can only handle so much complexity, and mana burn offers little compared to what it costs the game.

As I said elsewhere, think of it like this: what would you prefer to exist, Planeswalkers or Mana Burn? There can only be so much complexity, and mana burn is not worth what it costs. Even if you disagree, which is fine, it would behoove you to remember the wisdom of trying the new system before passing judgment. It is going to be really funny in 18 months if people look back to these conversations. What do you think it was like when they introduced 6th Edition rules? I bet 80% of the people reading this article can’t even imagine playing Magic under the old rules… Old rules, let alone the original rules. Do you realize that when Magic first came out, Power Sink used the window, as did tapping lands, but once you started a stack, you had to finish it? Try to imagine paying for Power Sink. The point is, the game is continuing to evolve, and we are lucky to have the R&D members that have spent months testing out this new system, a system that is not being introduced for change’s sake, but rather to improve the intuitive grasp of the game as well as push the game in more sustainable direction that operates under the best structure possible, reaching the most players, providing the most fun, and being a part of the best game it can be.

It would seem that very few reasonable arguments can be brought forward for any rules change beyond the new combat system. I also agree that Rule 5 is drastic, and a little scary. I even admit that my initial reaction towards this combat was one of anxiety. My fear was that there would be a loss of strategic depth when it came to attacking, as demonstrated by a lured Trained Armadon attacking and my opponent blocking with three Hill Giants. If I have an Infest, why can’t I kill them?!

However, upon further examination, I realized that while there is loss of strategic depth in some areas, there is actually an increase in strategic depth in others. For instance, an attacker than can correctly determine what "trick" the defender is up to is at an advantage when ordering blockers. Similarly, a blocker than can correctly anticipate the ordering of blockers the attacker will choose is at an advantage, let alone the possibilities increasing for bluffing actually impacting combat regularly.

For instance, let’s say my opponent attacks with a 5/5 Enlisted Wurm. I want to block with a Rhox Charger and two Dragon Fodder Tokens. This is a pretty realistic scenario. Now, how does my opponent order the blockers? The battle of wits has begun.

If they place the 3/3 first, they get blown out by a Constricting Tendrils. That’s right, combat tricks are not strictly worse. In this case, the spell saves the 3/3 AND the tokens.

So what if they place the 3/3 last? Well, now they stand to get blown out by Naya Sojourners. In this scenario, a Naya Sojourner leaves me with a 4/4 Rhox, on account of the poor assignment by the attacker.

Perhaps then you suggest the 3/3 in the middle? Well, now what if I have Jund Charm? See, obviously I can’t have everything, but the point is, the attacker is rewarded for correctly identifying the trick that I do have. Under the old rules, if they have it, there is generally nothing you can do, as you are going to get blown out. Under the new rules, if you can anticipate what “it” is, you have a different sort of way to play around “it.”

On the flip side, if you are defending, the order that your opponent arranges your blockers can reveal information to you. Perhaps them ordering one way suggests Magma Spray, whereas another way suggests Sigil Blessing. In addition to the information from this, as well as the opportunities to meaningfully interact, there is also the fact that a defender that can correctly anticipate the ordering the attacker will choose gains an advantage. Let’s not even delve into the games within games that will take place when I order the attackers in such a way so as to indicate that I have a Giant Growth, because I KNOW that you will realize this and behave as I anticipate, so clearly I cannot choose the goblet in front of you. Of course, you must have known that I would know, and that I would use this information against you, so clearly I cannot choose the goblet in front of me…

As far as damage on the stack goes, just remember all of the people who cried out when Wizards first suggested putting damage on the stack. People who are mad that Mogg Fanatic doesn’t bend the rules anymore need to remember, when it was designed, that was not how it was supposed to work anyhow. Sure, Sakura-Tribe Elder was, but really it is much more interesting this way. Think about it:

Under the old system, when a Savannah Lion attacks and I have a Sakura-Tribe Elder, there is only really one play. Block, damage on stack, sac. This is the same play that every “trick” revolves around. The correct play is 99.9% damage on the stack, do the trick. That is not strategic depth! You are not a good player because you know that you should always put damage on the stack then do the trick. You could teach a four-year old that!

Now there will be some tension. Do you kill the Lion or get the extra land? It may be an easy decision most of the time, but before the change it was never really a decision at all. If you are imaging all of the times you won’t be able to damage on the stack and sac anymore, just remember, your opponents will be in the same boat. The ADDED strategic depth will probably favor you because, if you are the type of player that reads StarCityGames.com, you are probably going to be favored in games that require real decision making. If you are imagining being the guy with the Sakura in this example, imagine it from the perspective of the guy with the Lion. Before, you could not attack. Now, you actually have a realistic option.

The new system is more intuitive, no question, but it is not at the expense of game play. The cards can be designed under either system, so just have faith that the cards to come will be costed taking into consideration the new rules. The changes will take a little getting used to, but the theory behind them is good.

At the core, what it comes down to is that these rules changes are healthy for the longevity and expansion of the game and improve a rules structure that by its very growth every 3 months is always at risk of growing out of control. Change is always hard for some people and some will claim that the loss of strategic depth is a major downside. I agree it would be if not for the increase in strategic depth in other areas.

For real, try the new rules before being so quick to insult the men and women who spend their lives making this great game we love. Do you really think they would make these changes so recklessly?

The sky isn’t falling. Wizards aren’t idiots. Give the new rules a chance.

If you are one of the people going wild, complaining about the new rules to anyone that will listen, I challenge you to copy/paste everything you are saying into a word document and reprint it 18 months. Combining this with an honest assessment as to the accuracy of your statements will probably provide some interesting food for thought.

Personally, I am looking forward to my December 13th, 2010 article. We will see what time has to say on the subject.

Wizards got rid of interrupts, and somehow to worked out.

Wizards got rid of the draw on the first turn, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards changed the mulligan rule, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards invented Standard, making some cards “banned” for good, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards got rid of ante, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards “forced” people to start drafting, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards got rid of classics like Counterspell / Dark Ritual / Lightning Bolt / duals, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards changed the frames, the borders, the expansion and tap symbols, and somehow it worked out.

Wizards invented foils and mythics, and somehow it worked out.

Do you even know what batches and bubbles were? People thought they would never be able to live without them. What do you think the phases of the turn were in 1993?

The point is, sometimes the changes don't work out that well and Wizards adjusts them again at some point (rotating out Serra and Sengir) but most of the time, however, everything works out fine and the game continues to improve. In fact the majority of the time, 18 months later, the majority of people have trouble imagining the game being any way other than what it has become.

Wizards is not selling out Magic or Magic players. They are doing this because they honestly believe that it is in the best interest of the game. They are certainly not infallible, but this particular change was tested for a long time, and they are smart people who have a highly vested interest in doing this right. Might it turn out to be “less good?” It is possible. I for one am seeing more and more, however, that it is probably a very good thing for the game, and I am certainly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I cannot say for sure how the new combat will pan out in the long run, but I can say that the arguments presented by the opponents of Rule 5 sound oddly similar to the arguments of those that proclaimed that Wizards was ruining Magic by removing interrupts, introducing Standard, Paris Mulligans, or putting damage on the stack in the first place.

I guess all I can say is that it might be wise to reserve judgment until you have had a chance to try the system and understand it before the spitting hateful venom with little reason or logic. Think about it. What are you trying to accomplish? The only reasonable motive behind such venom and hatred is to try to change the rules. First of all, if you advocate changing the rules, why not these? If you are arguing to change them, don’t you think it would be wise to TRY them first? And I mean more than a night or two of drafting with friends. If you try them and 6 months from now still think they are bad, argue to change them then.

What is wrong with these anyway? Here, the only possible rational defense I see is loss of strategic depth, but I think it is fairly academic to demonstrate that there is much more strategic depth in other areas, as shown above. If you think that this combat purely simplifies and removes strategic depth, I think you will be pleased to discover that Magic is not as simple as you may suspect.

The depth is there, you just have to appreciate what is really going on.

Anyway, have faith, the sky isn't falling, R&D has smart people, and remember what history has taught us.

Patrick Chapin

[Chuck Norris]

Mozda neko ovo i procita

[Micko]

..............................

Anyway, have faith, the sky isn't falling, R&D has smart people, and remember what history has taught us.

Patrick Chapin

Jel gospodin Chapin na platnom spisku Wizarda/Hasbro-a?

[Andy]

Gospodin Chapin je debil, na stranu to što je odličan MTG igrač. Iskreno, čudi me da 1 Pro ima ovakvo mišljenje o degradiranju TCG-a u kom je on, inače, veoma uspešan. Možda i jeste na platnom spisku WotC... :D

[Whatevaaa]

on je radio za r&d

[Mare]

Ma Chapin je prodo!!

[Snake]

..............................

Anyway, have faith, the sky isn't falling, R&D has smart people, and remember what history has taught us.

Patrick Chapin

The history has thaught us that it always repeats itself - Skullclamp, Jitte, Affinity...

[Galovic]

ma čaplin je car.... ima čovek poverenje u vizarde... i lepo je suzdržan i neće da kenja dok ne vidi

vrlo je moguće da će magic biti bolji i složeniji... zanimljiviji...


iako meni bas i ne deluje tako...


al nemojte polivati toliko po čoveku ....

takav čovek a vi osuli ko da vam je kevu ...... ubio

ovo je jebeno najbolji smajli ikad.... i zamisli sad da mu stave gitaru umesto violine ... pa da im j....m mater ...... šalim se naravno....

[Mare]

LOL

[Luka]

Evo da se naguzim pa da kazem da se slazem sa vecinom stvari koju je u Chapin u gore citiranom clanku napisao. Ne mislim da je ijedna recenica izuzetno retardirana ili narocito netacna i jedna zamerka koju imam na clanak je da trebalo odvojiti vremena da se on sastavi kako treba: manje spina - vise cinjenica.

[SerbZmaj]

Ma sve je to lepo... samo sto nije citirao i njihovo objasnjenje... "Pogledali smo u srca svim fun igracima magica koje istinski vole i igraju magic kuci a kojima je tesko da shvate pravila"... DAJJJ
Sto oni lepo nisu napisali, ovako, onako... pravila, logika, taktika... nego videli smo da mnogo klinaca daje pare na ju-gi-oh pa zasto ne bi i mi napravili magic za njih. Nisam ja toliko dobar da mogu da procenim da li ce ova pravila doneti propast ili uspeh ali znam da mi bas deluju 'cudno'.

[Chuck Norris]

Ma sve je to lepo... samo sto nije citirao i njihovo objasnjenje... "Pogledali smo u srca svim fun igracima magica koje istinski vole i igraju magic kuci a kojima je tesko da shvate pravila"... DAJJJ
Sto oni lepo nisu napisali, ovako, onako... pravila, logika, taktika... nego videli smo da mnogo klinaca daje pare na ju-gi-oh pa zasto ne bi i mi napravili magic za njih. Nisam ja toliko dobar da mogu da procenim da li ce ova pravila doneti propast ili uspeh ali znam da mi bas deluju 'cudno'.

upravo tako, po meni je sve ovo jako debilan potez

[Boban]

Promene pravila nisu urađene radi poboljšanja MtG-a, već isključivo zbog više para u džepu Wizardsa. Jedina promena koja je ovde zaista značajna je ukidanje combat stack damage pravila. Većina igrača smatra da to degradira igru i da Wizardsi ovom promenom idu niz dlaku novim, mlađim (čitaj Yu-Gi-Oh) igračima, kako bi ih privukli. To je samo deo istine.

Bitnija stvar je da će nove edicije doneti karte čije će osobine biti prilagođene novim pravilima i koje će samim tim biti mnogo bolje od postojećih karata čija će cena na tržištu pasti. Rezultat - igrači koji žele da budu kompetitivni moraće da investiraju u nove karte. Posledica - više para u džepovima Wizardsa.

Mi možemo samo da prihvatimo ove promene ili da prestanemo da igramo MtG. Pro igrači su već napravili izbor - prihvatiće nova pravila jer od toga žive. Ostali će napuniti još par hiljada postova i nekoliko desetina peticija po raznim MtG forumima i to će biti to. U kapitalizmu je kapital vrhovni arbitar...

[Mare]

WE SHALL WIN THROUGH
NO MATTER THE COST!!

[master brka]

ovo je jebeno najbolji smajli ikad.... i zamisli sad da mu stave gitaru umesto violine ... pa da im j....m mater ...... šalim se naravno....

aha, i distorziju jos da mu priključe

[valhalla]

Para vrti gde burgija neće - jasno je da ovo ne rade zbog igrača. Džaba vam peticije i kuknjave, ne bi oni spremali ovo i objavljivali da bi posle mesec dana rekli "e ljudi zajebali smo se, sad ćemo sve da vratimo na staro".

Promena će biti, kome se ne sviđa može da pređe na nešto drugo (vampire, warhammer, kokain), ostali će se navići i za par meseci će zaboraviti da je promena i bilo...

[kosta105]

Evo jos malo stavova profesionalaca (tekst Olivier Ruel-a sa ssg):

When I got back home from Honolulu, I connected to my Facebook account and saw something weird. Many of my contacts had a strange status, of which “RIP Magic” and “Thanks a lot R&D” were the most polite.

I opened my Live Messenger, and before I actually found out what all this was about, three different people asked me if I was intending to quit Magic.

While it’s true that I’ve performed badly in my recent tournaments, and that I’m not a huge fan of most the decisions that have been made lately (including the reinforcement of the random part of the game represented by Cascade), and even though I’ve been enjoying less Magic lately, I was not thinking about going that far. So what exactly was this about?

In answer, I was sent this link.

For those of you who are too lazy to read, let me sum up the most important points:

- Mulligans are now simultaneous.
- Lots of words change to make the game clearer (“comes into play” becomes “enters the battlefield,” “removed from the game” is now “exiled,” etc.)
- Mana burn disappears, while our mana pools empty at the end of every step.
- A creature must deal lethal damage to another when able. For instance, a 2/2 fighting a 2/2 and a 3/3 can’t deal each creature one damage (such as when you have a Pyroclasm in hand and want to get rid of both).
- Lifelink is not cumulative anymore.
- Lifelink and Deathtouch are now static abilities.
- And of course, the big change: damage no longer go on the stack.

When I read about these changes I felt pretty depressed, but instead of just writing about how much those new changes would ruin the game, I tried to analyze them and not draw too quick a conclusion. It’s for that reason that I’ve contacted Shuhei Nakamura and Manuel Bucher so we could share our thoughts on the subject, and hopefully introduce some new strategic thinking with the new rules in mind

Simultaneous Mulligans

Oli: How do you guys feel about the new mulligan rule?
Manu: The rumor was already there that it would be used in Grand Prix: Rimini. The up and down sides are pretty obvious.
Shuhei: It’s okay, but it is a little disadvantageous for tournament players, as the current system seems fairer.
Manu: Playing last now has another small disadvantage, but the time-saving aspect is something I appreciate
Oli: I agree on that. I like to play control, and sometimes my games take a lot of time. If I can save one or two minutes per round in each tournament, it makes me happy enough to compensate for the fact that it is gives a little more advantage to the player going first.

Most people think it is an advantage to know how many mulligans your opponent will take before you actually do. I actually think it is irrelevant 95% of the time. Many players tend to use their opponents’ mulligans to justify keeping bad hands, when this actually increases their chances of losing the game. Only the impact of discard spells changes depending on how many cards your opponent starts with… For example, Hymn to Tourach will be fantastic versus a double mulligan, while Duress has pretty good chance to miss in the same situation. Therefore, no matter what people say, I don’t think it will make a difference.

Terminology Changes

Manu: It’s something that will be awkward in the beginning, but it doesn’t make any difference as far as strategy is concerned, so I don’t really care about it. And we’ll get used to it pretty fast anyway.
Shuhei: I actually think it makes a big difference, because all players are confusing the words such as” play,” “comes into play,” ” when you play a spell,” “end of turn,” “until the end of turn,” etc. I think the new wording will save many misunderstandings in International events.

Mana Burn

Oli: What about the mana burn? I feel like I am the only one who’ll miss that.
Manu: First of all, R.I.P. Spectral Searchlight. Then again, I don’t think it has a big impact, as I think neither me nor an opponent of mine has taken mana burn in a year.
Shuhei:I feel sad about it… I like tap to opponent’s lands outside their main phases.
Oli: It’s true that if your opponent is free to take any mana in response to a land tapping - through Mistbind Clique, Opposition, or even to an Upheaval - those cards will be less efficient. And there are many other cards (Pulse of the Fields, Mana Drain) with power levels that change a lot. Also, once in a while I tap too much mana on purpose when casting a spell versus Blue decks. This way, they can pay the wrong mana for Broken Ambitions or Condescend, or even play Mana Leak when I can pay. That play has won me a lot of games online, even though I have almost never done it in real life, as I think it’s pretty lame and doesn’t help to form a clear understanding of the game for both players. But at least, if the opponent did realize what I was doing, or if he didn’t have the counter, I would take burn. It was just a gamble. Now I fear everyone will take extra mana on purpose when playing spells.
Manu: Yeah… you will always have to ask: "how much mana in your pool?"
Oli: If you must ask this on every spell, it's gonna take forever.
Manu: True, true, true…

Deathtouch And Lifelink

Oli: Now here is another interesting change, which concerns deathtouch and lifelink.
Shuhei: I’m glad about the lifelink change, as double or triple lifelink made for some quite rude games. Concerning deathtouch, I think the change only makes it more confusing.
Oli: Agreed. Most of the new rules are not necessarily good, but they are at least simpler for new players, and more intuitive. However, I don’t really get why trample would change the way the ability works.

Lifelink is an ability that should, in theory, be defensive. However, cards like Rhox War Monk were mostly used to attack, as the ability was triggered. With the new rules, you can be on 3 life and be attacked by three 2/2 creatures. If Rhox War Monk blocks one you’ll go to 2 and not to -1 anymore. It means the ability, and therefore cards such as Behemoth Sledge and the 3/4, get better. However, Battlegrace Angel, now that Lifelink isn’t cumulative, gets worse in the meantime.

Concerning Deathtouch, one tech could be to sideboard cards such as Bant Battlemage against it. Let’s say your opponent attacks with Kederekt Creeper and your board is Cylian Elf , Matca Rioters (2/2), and Bant Battlemage. You should in theory lose two guys, but if you double-block with the Rioters and the Elf, and use your Battlemage to give his guy Trample, it will automatically have to deal lethal damage to one of your guys and let the other survive. It may not be very intuitive, but at least is it a new tricky type of play. [Gonna need confirmation on this one... - Craig.]

Let’s talk about the big deal…

Damage On The Stack

Manu: It takes away lots of good plays in the game. Cards like Mogg Fanatic or Siege-Gang Commander get worse.
Oli: The alterations we’ve discussed so far will change the face of the game a little, but they only are minor changes as they will modify our perception of the cards more than the way we will play them. However, the stack change is the only one that will affect both the quality of the cards and the way you will have to play them.
Manu: It doesn’t change Constructed that much. However, the impact on Limited is huge.
Oli: As a matter of fact, I fear it makes most of the games less skill intensive.
Manu: Yeah, I completely agree. You just have far fewer options.
Shuhei: Players are familiar with using the “before damage on the stack” or “after damage on the stack” indicator; it’s a pretty bad change for me.
Oli: I've always liked Limited more than Constructed, even though it's a little more random format (such as your mana draws, booster pulls, etc), because it requests that you battle with highest level of skills needed in the game. One of the most fascinating aspects about Limited is how you can neutralize the opponents’ top cards with cards they’ve passed once or twice in the draft. Those cards are usually tricks. Even though they were getting less numerous and less powerful lately, seeing them becoming plain bad really saddens me. They will now have to be played before damage, so any removal will mean two-for-ones against you.

In order to try and avoid that, you’ll have to play a little differently. For instance, when your 3/2 fights their 2/2, don’t even try to save it. Just let it die, and keep your Giant Growth for a better opportunity (such as saving a guy from Red removal, or to kill a bigger guy, or to finish the opponent off). Concerning prevention spells: the problem is even more annoying as they are just pointless if you hold them, as they are less flexible than pump spells. Just don’t play them anymore, unless they are amazing.

What if you have Dawnray Archers and your opponent attacks you with a pair of Nacatl Savages? You can assume he has a pump spell, so instead of pinging one of them before damage and taking 3 or 4 more damage, just wait for damage to resolve and, finally, at the end of combat, shoot one of their guys.

Unfortunately, as combat tricks globally get a lot worse, I feel like Constructed will be the best format in Magic… and as I am not a huge fan of Constructed, this is a very bad news to me.

Shuhei: I agree. I like Limited more, and I really hope R&D is making more interesting cards to go along with the new rules.
Manu: If they could avoid an all Gold expansion, or a reprint of the Cascade mechanic, that would be fine by me.
Oli: At least I’m glad Cascade didn’t appear in Kamigawa Block. Umezawa’s Jitte would probably have had it.

More seriously, I think they will make cards that make mana burn less important (no more Pulse of the Fields or Spectral Searchlight anymore). Concerning damage on the stack, every time damage will resolve, I will think to myself "it was better before". Also, I think, and hope, the trick cards are going to change a lot from now on. In the form they are at the moment, they are not that great anymore. However, they can become efficient again if they evolve. For instance, Healing Salve is pretty bad at the moment, but a card like Gallantry would compensate for the risks of making a one-for-two trade by making a two-for-one just as often. If trick cards can get to another level (just like they could in the Invasion block, for instance), the stack damage suppression may be not that bad.

Overall Feelings On The Announcement

Manu: I am not a huge fan. Maybe I am wrong, but the game seems to move more towards a luck based, than a skill based.
Oli: I fear I must agree on that. I fear “simpler” doesn’t necessarily mean “better.” I mean, the game is complicated anyway, the stack damage is just one of the hundred things you must learn in order to understand how it works. This is all quite confusing…

The global idea of making Magic the Game more intuitive is pretty good, but the damage on the stack thing is different. Yes, it will make the game easier to understand, but it won’t make that much of a difference for people who are only aiming at having fun with the game, while it seems quite disastrous for the competitive players.

It’s pretty obvious that Wizards’s main concern at the moment is selling booster packs and acquiring new players over making improvements to Organized Play, but the last few months (as far as tournaments of all levels, non-communication, and Cascade are concerned) have pushed away so many existing players that I can hardly believe such changes will make the number of players increase.

Manu: For beginners, simple is better… However, it doesn’t apply to the players that actually try to have as skillful a game as possible.
Shuhei: The stack system looks still okay. I hope somehow this change will have a good influence for Magic in general, and stirs a crop of new players into action.
Oli: You sure are one optimistic man! I guess it’s the right attitude. As we don’t have much else to say, let’s just hope and pray these changes don’t affect the game half as much as I think it will. As I loved the game before 6th edition, I guess I’ll learn to love it again when I get used to it. Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your time.
Manu: You’re welcome!
Shuhei: It is always a pleasure!

Until next time…

Oli (and Manu and Shuhei)

[BB]

meni će da prija promena...

[Galovic]

jasno.... kad si loš pa ti je to jedina sansa dorane

[Snake]

Bah, sad me je ovaj Olivier Ruel malo smirio xD Mada josh uvek pizdim zbog promene... Mada me u sushtini sad i zabole, samo tju da uzmem da igram kombo dekove i ne moram ni da brinem oko kombat faze xD

[SerbZmaj]

Koje kombo dekove? :lol:

[MTG gamer]

Labuda??

A i ne znam sto se ljudi bune za nova pravila.... Kada se kod nas jedva igralo i po starim

[Chuck Norris]

Labuda??

A i ne znam sto se ljudi bune za nova pravila.... Kada se kod nas jedva igralo i po starim

Koji ce da ispadne realno

objasnjenje u jednoj recenici celoj mtg zajednici

[Andy]

Jasno je i da je vecina Pro igraca (izuzev preplacenih izdajnika poput Chapina ) izuzetno nezadovoljna damage stack promenom, bez obzira na to koliko se trude da ostanu optimisticki raspolozeni u vezi buducih edicija. Ispostavilo se da je R&D pokazao da Cascade nije njihov najdebilniji potez u zadnjih godinu dana, mogu i gore... Jedino sto moze pozitivno da izadje iz svega ovoga su karte koje ce biti prilagodjene novom sistemu i pravilima. Opet, sve je to navlakusa za klince da potrose jos novca na karte ali, ipak treba sacekati i videti kako ce sve to da izgleda. Sudeci po potezima koji su vuceni u zadnjem periodu, samo mazohiste mogu da ostanu optimisti. :D

[Snake]

Bio bi fazon da naprave do jaja jake karte, i onda vrate pravila kroz neko vreme na ovo staro xD Shta znamo, mozhda im je to i bio dugorochni plan xD

[Pera-Beast]

huh ?

Ovo je najveci debilitet koji sam procitao u zivotu.

RIP MAGIC

[Bugi]

Bio bi fazon da naprave do jaja jake karte, i onda vrate pravila kroz neko vreme na ovo staro xD Shta znamo, mozhda im je to i bio dugorochni plan xD

nisu jake ali vracaju lepe

*Lightning Bolt r
Instant Common
Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
Illus. Christopher Moeller

*Ball Lightning rrr
Creature - Elemental Rare
Trample, haste
At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice Ball Lightning.
#123/249 6/1

*The Rack 1
Artifact Uncommon
As The Rack enters the battlefield, choose an opponent.
At the beginning of the chosen player's upkeep, The Rack deals X damage to that player, where X is 3 minus the number of cards in his or her hand.

hehe lightning bolt i ball lightning =)))
sexy

[valhalla]

siege gang commander je u m10


Bio bi ovo odlican core set da nije glupih pravila