Community

Fallingman wrote:

Combat damage has ALWAYS been an exception under sixth edition rules. No other step of combat uses the stack. Players who have been taught about the stack during combat still get confused when they try to "respond" to blocking declarations by tapping creatures or making creatures unblockable and find out that there's no priority in between assigning blockers and creatures actually becoming blocked. They can play abilities in between assigning damage and dealing it, so why isn't this handled the same way?

Under the new rules everything's clearly divided. Spells, activated abilities and triggered abilities use the stack, and game actions caused by the progression of steps and phases don't use the stack.

You're thinking about the stack in terms of phases; 'damage dealing is a step in combat phase, no other step in combat phase uses the stack, therefore damage dealing is an exception.' I cannot find a logical fault in this argument based on your viewpoint.

To be honest, I do agree that declaring attackers and blockers should be placed on the stack (especially the latter, since I have to be very careful about when I declare instants and stuff due to timing, but that is a nuance). But this is a digression.

However, the 'damage' (object of combat step) is more analogous to a spell or an ability. I'm going to argue that when people learn MTG and see 'power' as well as 'damage from abilities and spells,' that connection is intrinsically stronger than the difference between main phase and combat phase; I don't really want to get into why this reasoning is there but I'll try and give an example.

Meals are the 'same' but different. You are differentiating 'lunch' from 'dinner.' I am arguing that the connection between 'lunch' and 'dinner' (food) is a stronger connection than the difference between 'lunch' and 'dinner' and that 'how one eats' is much stronger than both. Something like that.

From a teaching perspective, it makes more sense to teach the stack (how to eat), then the phases (the meals) and finally, the food (the cards themselves). This is because the stack is essentially the gameplay under current rules.

However, in the new rules, one would have to teach two ways essentially, on how to eat which varies according to the meals (and somewhat according to the food). This is counterintuitive to players who use this line of reasoning and thus, imo, counterintuitive to a large majority of competitive MTG players and to many players taught by such players. Because of this reasoning, I argue that while there is nothing logically 'wrong' about your point, the changes are a detriment because this demonstrated way of understanding the game makes up a large percentage of MTG players.

Simply put, I feel my 'answer' is better than your 'answer' when applied to everyone.

I edited this 4 times, mostly to be more conciliatory and clear. *sigh*

miss_bun wrote:

Shut up, no one likes you.

"Dobby likes me!"
"DOBBY?? Dobby's a ****ing ****!!!"

I like you, Fallingman.

Snake_Servant wrote:

Under the new rules, I have to assign 5 damage to my opponent's first creature, leaving only 1 for the second. Meanwhile, my ball lightning dies, and I'm open to death on the next turn by a 5/5 coming at my face. The new rules just lost me the game.

First, remember you could be on the other side of the play, you could could be the one who lives instead of the one who dies thanks to the rule changes, its not like they change just for you.

More to the point, as an example of how little most specific board situations will be changed by the new rules, in the situation you outlined to show how they effect game results under both the new and old rules rules , all you have to do is fallout pre-combat. Your opponent will still have to block with both 5/5s or die this turn and thanks to the already applied damage, you can now kill both with your ball lightning leaving the board in exactly the same state as before.

What you lose as the attacker is the ability to hold the Fallout until after combat to avoid wasting it if the defender has a pump/bounce/instant answer of his own so the play isn't as solid (for the attacker) as it was before. However, even under the current rules, the defender could (and usually should) hold his answers till you cast Fallout anyway, so you still die if they had an answer under either set of rules.

The difference in the two sets of rules is that the attacker must commit to his plays earlier under the new rules. The reduces the amount of 'fog of war' for both sides when it comes time to play combat 'tricks' since some things that could have been done post-damage must now be committed to, and possibly responded to, pre-damage. Very few of the tricks to be played are gone, they just have to be committed to earlier in the combat step than before.

The exception is the pump toughness post-damage on the stack which was a guaranteed 'save' before but now, because it has to be done pre-damage, can be responded to.

Jaysintalent wrote:

Has anyone from either side of this discussion gone through the threads and counted the number of posters, not just multiple posts by the the same people, and found out how many stand on each side of the issue so far?

yep, this is a re-post from earlier.


incidentally. have been doing some time consuming research in the hopes that figures speak louder than the 5019 posts in this forum.

after looking at 800 or so posts so far (excluding double ups from same people) approximately 91% of players dont like the combat change.

4% are in out and out support of it.

5% Dont neccessarily like it but dont care either.

THAT HAS TO SAY SOMETHING?!

Though i suppose these results will be discounted on the fact that

"there's probably many players out there who like the rules but arent saying so. Only the disgruntled ones can be bothered."

also, i'm crashing, i've gone cross-eyed trying to accomplish that.