|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:13AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2008
|
I wasn't going to wade into this conversation but I guess I can't help myself... Everyone is pointing out that this vastly reduces combat tricks, and it does. What people are forgetting is its not just combat tricks that get dialed back. Being forced to assign "lethal damage" can disrupt any number of potentially advantageous situations.
Quick example:
I attack with [Fusion Elemental].
They block with [Wilt-Leaf Liege], [Scattershot Archer], and [Scattershot Archer].
In the old rules I could assign damage in such a way that after combat all of the defending creatures would die...
If I'm understanding correctly... Under the new rules I would only be able to kill two of the three. I would be forced to send 4 to the liege, 3 to archer#one, and 1 to archer#two.
There are countless other scenarios where things like this will/do happen. Its not just combat tricks that get hosed here.
This came from the first thread before it was closed. It's a great example of why having to assign lethal damage in sequential order is so stupid - no tricks or anything, just good old math with a lord involved. If I assign lethal damage to a lord (or any pumping creature - slivers, anyone?), the actual damage required to kill everything else has gone down, but the new rule forces you to waste damage by double assigning it. How is that intuitive? Or fun?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:13AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2005
|
If I know that Im being backed up by the dude with the giant fireball, then of course I would hit one once and the other once and then let that fireball finish them off.
Fights between many people and one person dont actually happen like they do in action movies.
The way these rules changes randomly nerfs thousands of cards is just silly.
Also, its no more intuitive OR simple. So why the change?
I'm hoping maro has some better explanations on monday. The weak explanation given by Mago and Forsythe do not come close to explaining the need for a change this massive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:15AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2007
|
I really hate the new rules listing, specifically combat damage!
but I can probably get used to it.
What I have a problem with is death touch.
I like that death touch no longer stacks, but it's ignorant that you can divide the damage up however you choose!
you JUST gave us new rules stating that you choose the order in which creatures block and that you must kill them in that order.
but during the same release of rules, you state that even WIZARDS OF THE COAST does not like this rule when applied to death touch! With death touch you can divide the damage however you choose? wtf? why? The death touch creature should have to follow the new combat rules just like everyone else!
if you don't like it, then DON'T change combat! It's FINE the way it is currently!!!!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:15AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2007
|
Blocking order:
Now lets say I pick a fight with two guys. What is NOT going to happen is me saying "He you wait over there for a second while I beat up your friend. Once I am done I will come after you." No, that's some nonsensical crap.
The point you're missing is that the damage isn't sequential. While you're busy fighting guy A, guy B is still pounding on you with his fists. It's not orderly, which is exactly why you can't deal pinpoint amounts of damage to each guy you're fighting.
Ugh, I can't believe I'm arguing flavor. The fact remains that you can visualize your battles being just as awesome or just as stupid as your imagination desires. If you think the flavor is bad, reinterpret it so it makes more sense.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:15AM
#25
|
|
|
But are you going to lightly punch each of them hoping that they'll just fall down long enough for a meteor to come out of the sky and finish them off, or are you going to focus on one of them until they are down and then turn to the next one?
That's how I think about it in terms of flavor.
Why would I turn my back on one to attack the other? Seems like I am asking for him to bash my head in. Would you really try to ignore one guy who is beating you on the back of the head in the hopes of beating up his friend?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:16AM
#26
|
|
|
That is not correct.
Damage is dealt when an object on the stack resolves. That object might be the Combat Damage Object (which holds the information about the assignment of combat damage), a spell such as Lightning Bolt  or an ability such as Pandemonium  's.
In all cases there is an object on the stack that, when it resolves, deals damage. While the object is on the stack, players may play spells and abilities to modify the damage.
In a month, combat damage becomes a special class of damage that cannot be responded to. It is assigned, then it happens. This has never, ever, been true before.
It's true that before April 1999 you couldn't respond to the assignment of combat damage, but you could still play damage-prevention spells and abilities after damage had been assigned and before your damaged creature died.
Now? You can't.
Sure you can. When blocks are declared, the attacker orders the blockers, which is indicative of the damage they will receive. Does it change the way you can save your creatures? yes. Do I like it? no. WIll it create new and interesting combat scenarios? Hopefully!
But its not fair to say you can't play combat tricks to save your creatures. We're all just gonna have to reevalute the combat phase.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:19AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2006
|
but those alternate damage SOURCES use the stack, so one can argue all damage does use the stack in some way. Why shouldn't combat damage? and in what was was the old way inconsistent and unintuitive? It was a simple process. Combat concluded, damage went on the stack, each player gained priority in turn to respond to the damage on the stack, whether that be by activating abilities or playing a spell to save their creatures. I don't see how this was inconsistent. Seems consistent to me. The whole reason they are eliminating combat damage from the stack is because young players complain about experienced players using the stack to pull off combat tricks when they could take the five minutes it takes to learn how the stack works and use it themselves. Its a simple concept. Really, it is. For those who say its against the flavor of the game to sac a creature with damage on the stack, take a look at the picture of Mogg Fanatic  . It looks like he's carrying a powder bomb. How is it not with the flavor of the game for him to do some damage, realize he's outmatched, then set off the bomb to finish off his opponent? Seems to me that fits the flavor of a Mogg FANATIC pretty well. If they plan on going through with this change to combat, they at least need to leave it open to revision after a couple tournaments to see how much they screw with everything. It would also be a good thing if they actually tested these rules with tournament decks in tournament conditions before putting them into effect. My whole opinion is that I can live with the changes except for combat damage. Sure, losing lifelink stacking sucks, but I can suck it up and deal. The combat damage, though, is going to do serious damage to competitive magic. An entire class of cards has just been rendered nearly worthless. Qasali Pridemage Mogg Fanatic Dauntless Escort and a host of others These changes are going to take a lot of the skill out of magic. If you don't think that eliminating the stack from combat damage is a big deal, ask any player who's ever used a Mogg fanatic to 2 for 1, or a Qasali Pridemage to pop a bitterblossom against tokens when its combo-blocked, or the dauntless escort player when he blocks that 4/3 and then saves his buddies. This is a major deal. You casual players won't notice much, but we tournament players will. If you and your playgroup want to play without the stack for combat damge and with the blocker ordering, that's fine. Its called "House Rules". Leave the combat system the way it is. It matters in tournament play. As a side note, Mark Rosewater, according to his twitter, is looking for feedback on the new rules. Go over to his column, click email reply, and tell him what you think. I think my link to his email is on page 26 of the old thread.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:19AM
#28
|
|
|
This came from the first thread before it was closed. It's a great example of why having to assign lethal damage in sequential order is so stupid - no tricks or anything, just good old math with a lord involved. If I assign lethal damage to a lord (or any pumping creature - slivers, anyone?), the actual damage required to kill everything else has gone down, but the new rule forces you to waste damage by double assigning it. How is that intuitive? Or fun?
Its intuitive, and its fun. The Lord was there and saved the other dudes. Its fun if you play with the Lord.
The Status Quo has been changed in certain situations is all.
Though I will dearly miss the three for 1's that you can get from old combat.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:20AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:21AM
#30
|
|
|
The point you're missing is that the damage isn't sequential. While you're busy fighting guy A, guy B is still pounding on you with his fists. It's not orderly, which is exactly why you can't deal pinpoint amounts of damage to each guy you're fighting.
Ugh, I can't believe I'm arguing flavor. The fact remains that you can visualize your battles being just as awesome or just as stupid as your imagination desires. If you think the flavor is bad, reinterpret it so it makes more sense.
But why would I be completely focused on guy A if guy B was hitting me? Sure I can, but realistically I wont. The point is that I have a choice on what to do, instead of having a choice forced upon me.
On being able to assign specific points of damage, when you use numbers you must USE numbers.
|
|
|
