Facing up to change
June 1st 2009 06:10
Our Magic colleagues in France just received their first look at M10, thanks to Lotus Noir magazine. I’d post the scans, but I’m still waiting on a reliable translation for the Hive Queen’s flavor text, and you can probably find them on the internet anyway. I’d rather talk about the – sadly predictable – response to the article from some of the online fans. Apparently, the Hive Queen’s rules text involves the term “battlefield,” presumably as a replacement for “in play,” and the article alluded to “mana burn” (damage caused by leftover mana unused at the end of each phase) no longer being part of the comprehensive rules as of M10. Some of our online “friends” were quick to proclaim that the rules were being homogenized or dumbed down, right before they went back to their usual pastime: posting in the strategy forums, with deck ideas based around combos that don’t work or interactions that don’t exist.
The funniest part of all this is how repetitive it is. There’s nothing in those obnoxious threads over at Salvation that I didn’t hear back in 2003 when they changed the “legend rule.” Or, for that matter, when they deprecated the interrupt card type in 1999, or when they removed the distinction between Mono and Poly artifacts in 1994.
Not only did the game survive each of those changes, it became better. It became more elegant. It became (slightly) easier to play. It became less inaccessible to people who’d never played it before. It became more attractive to more people, more of the casual players who are the game’s heart and soul (did you know that, according to Wizards of the Coast, nearly 70% of people who have ever bought Magic cards have never played in a sanctioned tournament?).
The most enduring games, from chess to poker to baseball, are those which you can just pick up and play without referring to a dictionary-sized rulebook every two minutes. While Magic is probably not going anywhere anytime soon, it will never reach that kind of scale until its rules allow that kind of play. If you care about this sort of thing, you should be not only welcoming the change to "mana burn" - a rule that has, at this point in the game, scarcely the status of corner case - but pushing for them to change other things too.
Appendix: Answer key, or, three reasons why this game is still too hard
Scenario 1: The key here is to realize that the first time your opponent has priority to cast spells is still before the declare blockers step. Until blockers are actually declared, your creature cannot be considered unblocked – even if no creature is currently blocking it. Perhaps it’s in some intermediate state, like some kind of Schrodinger’s Magic card. At least until Condemn resolves.
Scenario 2: There is a handy mnemonic to help you play with protection: DEBT, for Damage, Enchant, Block, Target, the four things that anything with a particular characteristic cannot do to a creature with protection from that characteristic. But Everlasting Torment says “Damage can’t be prevented.” That means it shuts off the D in DEBT, and the Colossus is doomed. Note that it does not affect the E, the B, or the T, meaning that if your opponent had attacked you instead, your creature would have been unable to even fight the Colossus.
If you got this one wrong, don’t feel too bad – a lot of people at the Grand Prix in Barcelona didn’t know this either!
Scenario 3: As soon as Opalescence is in play, its ability makes Humility become a 4/4 creature. But now that it's a creature, it's affected by its own text. So now it becomes 1/1 and loses all its abilities . . . but its abilities are what caused it to lose its abilities. Intuitively, this should cause a paradox that would destroy the entire universe, but we get around it by saying that the effect continues as long as Humility remains in play, and it doesn't "loop" back. Even though this is the opposite of how some other things work.
This is just one reason why judges like to joke about Humility being banned even though it’s not.
You think you know everything about this game and its (current) rules set? Prove it. Scenario 1: You attack your opponent with a creature. The first time he has a chance to cast spells, he throws Condemn at it. Can you save it by using Ninja of the Deep Hours’ ability?
The funniest part of all this is how repetitive it is. There’s nothing in those obnoxious threads over at Salvation that I didn’t hear back in 2003 when they changed the “legend rule.” Or, for that matter, when they deprecated the interrupt card type in 1999, or when they removed the distinction between Mono and Poly artifacts in 1994.
Scenario 2: You cast Everlasting Torment and attack with a 5/5 black creature. Your opponent blocks with Chameleon Colossus. Does the Colossus survive combat?
Not only did the game survive each of those changes, it became better. It became more elegant. It became (slightly) easier to play. It became less inaccessible to people who’d never played it before. It became more attractive to more people, more of the casual players who are the game’s heart and soul (did you know that, according to Wizards of the Coast, nearly 70% of people who have ever bought Magic cards have never played in a sanctioned tournament?).
Scenario 3: You control Humility. You cast Opalescence. Is Humility a creature? What abilities does it have?
The most enduring games, from chess to poker to baseball, are those which you can just pick up and play without referring to a dictionary-sized rulebook every two minutes. While Magic is probably not going anywhere anytime soon, it will never reach that kind of scale until its rules allow that kind of play. If you care about this sort of thing, you should be not only welcoming the change to "mana burn" - a rule that has, at this point in the game, scarcely the status of corner case - but pushing for them to change other things too.
Appendix: Answer key, or, three reasons why this game is still too hard
Scenario 1: The key here is to realize that the first time your opponent has priority to cast spells is still before the declare blockers step. Until blockers are actually declared, your creature cannot be considered unblocked – even if no creature is currently blocking it. Perhaps it’s in some intermediate state, like some kind of Schrodinger’s Magic card. At least until Condemn resolves.
Scenario 2: There is a handy mnemonic to help you play with protection: DEBT, for Damage, Enchant, Block, Target, the four things that anything with a particular characteristic cannot do to a creature with protection from that characteristic. But Everlasting Torment says “Damage can’t be prevented.” That means it shuts off the D in DEBT, and the Colossus is doomed. Note that it does not affect the E, the B, or the T, meaning that if your opponent had attacked you instead, your creature would have been unable to even fight the Colossus.
If you got this one wrong, don’t feel too bad – a lot of people at the Grand Prix in Barcelona didn’t know this either!
Scenario 3: As soon as Opalescence is in play, its ability makes Humility become a 4/4 creature. But now that it's a creature, it's affected by its own text. So now it becomes 1/1 and loses all its abilities . . . but its abilities are what caused it to lose its abilities. Intuitively, this should cause a paradox that would destroy the entire universe, but we get around it by saying that the effect continues as long as Humility remains in play, and it doesn't "loop" back. Even though this is the opposite of how some other things work.
This is just one reason why judges like to joke about Humility being banned even though it’s not.
| 53 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
