This change just nerfs combat tricks so bad which means now they're going to have to power creep combat trick instants even more..... Instant: +5/+5 and Trample for single G coming up. 🤣
Banding allows you to play music during the attack and negotiate the type of positive or negative effect that particular band's music had on the genre as a whole.
Damage assignment with banding works like it did originally (sans "damage on the stack") and is now more consistent with non-banding damage assignment but just flips who makes the decision. The controller of the band decides how the opposing creatures distribute damage to the creatures in the band. For example, if I have an attacking band of 2/4 Icatian Phalanx and 2/1 Savannah Lions and you block with a 3/3 Hill Giant, I can choose to assign all 3 of your Giant damage to my Phalanx. Conversely if your Hill Giant attacks into my defensive band of the Phalax and Savannah Lions, I also can choose to assign all 3 of your Giant damage to my Phalanx.
If you say Judge three times in a row in front of a mirror, there is a chance he'll appear It's only a chance though ; if it doesn't work for you, it could just be poor luck
I agree with simplifying the game a bit, but I really enjoyed that post declared blockers mini game. I've been waiting for the prof to speak on these changes, I know he likes his well produced videos, but this video took so long to come out and you didn't even bring up Deathtouch or Trample with the new rules, which I think are as big an impact as the rest of this video.
@@GunmanJag deathtouch and trample would interact to the extent that with trample and deathtouch the creature only needs to deal a single point of damage, then that creature is dead, then they trample into the next creature and deal a single point of damage, killing creature 2, then you trample to the next one. So the death touch trample card could effectively kill 1 creature for every point of attack. a 5/5 trample death touch could kill 5 3/3 creatures because it only needs to deal 1 point to each before trampling through.
Oops. I always used to play the new way.. we never did "blocker order", we always just assigned damage however the attacker felt... Whelp! Good to know everyone I ever played with has always been ahead of the curve!
combat tricks are probably my favorite thing in all of magic and this change sorta bums me out. never got a feelsbad from someone blowing me out with a defensive combat trick, it was just a risk i assumed when attacking. not sure this change was necessary and it certainly makes combat tricks much worse, especially the not dead after all effects. i am very surprised at how many people are saying theyve never encountered this in games or thinking the old way was more complicated, though, as the assigning blockers stuff is some of the first stuff i learned in magic and some of the first stuff that really got me excited to "trick" people
I can see how the new way is more intuitive, but I don't think the old way was confusing at all. I don't hate the new change, just a little bummed as a defensive combat trick enthusiast.
Agreed. Any excuse of "for new players" is horse manure. This is a game of deception and bluffing. Combat tricks are an integral part of the game. New players may not like the initial challenge, but they soon come to appreciate it, because they get to use trickery too. This a change to line pockets, not make the game "for new players".
@@zoch9797 "its for new players" just means "hasbro needs more money" its why we have universes beyond taking over the game too. get non-magic players to buy a couple commander precons or a booster box because oh look its dr who i love dr who and then they get bored and move on a month or two later while hasbro gets its short-term revenue buoy and the game slowly dies.
Agree it was rewarding for clever gameplay and it never felt that bad because everybody had the same opportunity to do the same kind of combat tricks it was a godsend if you were falling behind in the match too
On the concept of it stopping feels bad moments, tons of cards are "feels bad" moments. Counterspells feel bad, tapping a creature before attackers feels bad, board wipeson your massive board feels bad. I stopped a mono red burn deck from entering combat by tapping his prowess attacker with my merfolk deck. The dude got really upset and started saying "attempting to move to combat" instead of "moving to combat". If their targeting this because of "feels bad" moments then why are they only targeting one specific kind of feels bad?
Making the game more accessible by virtue of being simpler may make it more fun for many, but with less opportunity for tricksy skill expression, it may make it less fun for those who derive their enjoyment from being able to leverage their knowledge of the mechanics.
A convoluted way to say "I'm smarter than everyone who swings at me, and I use my smart brain to make good decision because I don't attack like a big dumb monkey" okay bro
@ You’re probably right, but what’s your point? A subset of people definitely enjoyed the shenanigans that damage on the stack allowed and even if the game works “better” overall for more people without rules like that, that doesn’t mean that the people who enjoy it can’t be sad to see it go.
As a person who loves being a surprising, conniving little shit this reduces my enjoyment of magic by about 15%. Frankly a better change would have been a way to deal with poison counters
Thank you so much, Professor! I have been waiting for this because, for some reason, I could not fully understand it. I just started learning with Duskmourn, and now I am being told I need to learn the whole process in a different way. Talk about whiplash! As a newer player, I believe this is for the best! I have had so many "feels bad" moments, and I have noticed a slight change in that since the new rules' effect.
I'll say that it's a less interesting decision tree now then it was, because now the combat tricks and triggering feel bad moments are going to the stronger position, the attacker. There's less bluffing that can happen that can benefit the defender.
You can still cast the giant growth after attackers are declared and kill the attacking creature when the opponent didn't think you could, there is still space for decisions and tricks
@@w8ting4fri The whole point of almost all of the combat tricks was to keep things alive. Can't do that anymore on defense because this aspect of bluffing felt bad for some. Now the tricks to keep things alive is better spent on attacking instead of having a decision to save it for an attack or a defense.
@@leadpaintchips9461 you can pick which thing you want to live, you just can't completely steal someone's attacking creature for a single giant growth.
outside of rare exceptions defender has always had the advantage; Summoning sickness, the ability to multi-block, not having to tap in order to block, and for the time this rule was in effect combat tricks to turn the tides. That is outside of the situation of Defender advantage compared to other games where the defender can choose "just not to block"
I will agree that its less interesting and that I too enjoyed the little puzzle of trying to figure out how to block to maximize the efficiency of my board. But it is what it is. If it makes things nicer for people, i suppose thats good. I will absolutely forget about this rule every single time i play magic from here on out though, rip my defending creatures.
I wrote a long comment explaining this to somebody complaining about it, pretty much said everything the prof said and that it was basically a limited only change and as mostly a limited player I was very happy for the change. 100% agree
My main problem with it, is that it slows down the game. A lot of red aggro decks use combat tricks, and having to declare those “INSTANTS” and reveal the usage of them in combat before they’re used, nerfs those kind of decks. Also destroys the concept of “instants” which, in theory before this change, are playable ANYTIME. Anytime you had an instant, and had mana, you can play it. Not anymore Edit: I’m a casual with 15 decks. I play a tiny bit of standard, mostly Edh.
@@hiphop2u "reveal the usage of them in combat before they're used Friend... I don't know what you're even talking about, and I'm not sure you do either.
@@Zomburai45 with the new rule, if you want to do a combat trick, you have to do so before you declare attackers, or after damage is distributed. Hence, you have to reveal what you’re doing and can’t last minute use a surprise instant. Most of the time before rule change, you would wait until everyone decides what they’re doing, and then decide at instant speed to use your combat trick spell. I’m using the literal English term definition of “reveal,” not the mtg definition brother 😂
@@hiphop2uThis isn’t stopping you from pumping your own blocker in a 1v1 block scenario, or using a “not dead” card, it’s literally just affecting 1vMultiple block scenarios. I think you’re making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.
@@hiphop2uNo, you still get to wait until blocks occur. You just don't get to wait until damage is distributed. There is still the window to cast between blocks and damage.
I really do not like this change, especially for limited. Sure it's a little more clear for new players and I guess it eliminates "feels bad" moments for attackers, but this helps the snowballing player snowball. If you are attacking, typically that means you're in the position to attack as the aggressor. If you look at the statistics, winning the coin flip is a big deal in limited and this only widens that gap. Also, this just makes combat tricks flat-out worse. This means previous draft sets will have different pick orders and priorities due to this change. Pretty annoying, in my opinion.
My gut was to hate it, but I'm coming around to it being less of a big deal. Partially because combat tricks on defense is a bad strat 99% of the time, unless you are reacting to an opponents trick, which you can still do. There are a few reduced blowout opportunities, but I think the case now where the opponent can choose to still kill the creature that wasn't pumped, if you set it up to be a dinky 1/1 with an enters effect does it really matter? It'll come down to the set design team. If this is signaling against combat tricks on defense, maybe they will do more +X/+0 tricks or defensive abilities. Or they make defense specific tricks like a mass +0/+3 idk. If the sets are balanced around it then it should be fine. As for the older sets, rules changes affect old sets that's just how it goes. Personally I prefer an opportunity for fresh analysis over dusting off an old pick list.
I think the micro-specifics of this rule change, combat tricks/skill expression, can be debated if you want but it's a huge buff, relatively, for attacking based abilities: Trample, menace etc.
which didn't need a buff at all, this makes defensive combat tricks basically useless removing an entire layer of strategy to combat and gives the attacking player who is likely already ahead even more of an advantage
@@BusinessSkrub there's a lot more out there than giant growth and why shouldn't we have the option to use it that way when it can be useful? i don't think removing that utility helps anything.
As someone who actually likes to play around combat tricks, this is a set back, but I love it as there's gonna be less issues with teaching newer players and one less judge call from players who think they know better
I actually just taught a friend how to play Magic who had never played before, and after a week or two when we started to get more in depth to the nuts and bolts of the rules, I mentioned how the damage assignment order had just been changed with the Foundations set that we started playing with. After I went on to explain how damage assignment order used to work, he actually said that it sounded more interesting than the way it's currently done now.
I think it promotes attacking, which is good for the game. Instead of everyone too afraid to attack for fear they’ll lose their creature to something they can’t avoid. People can still perform combat tricks, just not the same way they used to, or to the detriment of the attacker.
Worst part about the change was rewiring our brains. i had a lot of players at my lgs not sure how the rule change affected tricks so this helps a lot. THANKS PROFESSOR !
I know it sounds like a feels bad for new players to get "blown out" by a trick, but it's one of the things that attracted me to the game again. The layers you can take the game to is what makes it great. Losing that complexity is truly a scary thing. Not in the sense that it needs to be a mess of complexity to be interesting, but it is great because there is ALWAYS something new you can find in it. Some new interaction or strategy you've never seen before. If we start down the road of removing those, we could lose one of the great pieces of the game (we've already lost the lore to an extent, and any time to breath and enjoy a set before the next)
The power and toughness and abilities of a creature are printed on the card, correct? As a player since 1993, I have been through numerous changes in combat, from the damage being put on the stack to no longer being on the stack (RIP Mogg Fanatic), to damage ordering being added and now removed again. Not to mention banding having been a prevalent thing once upon a time. To me this is a step in the right direction, where attacking with creatures is usually a good thing instead of only viable if your opponent doesn't have any creatures or cards in hand.
Not even a little bit..? You see a giant fireball barreling toward you, you'll want to counter it. You're on a rampage, you're not going to focus all of your attention on the guy who just turned into a giant tiger because you happened to look at him first. Flavor/narrative-wise, this way makes much more sense!
This “minor” update has actually made 2 of my combat focused decks a ton better. With my Indoraptor and having menace, I have guaranteed kills knowing his damage is enough. For my Rith deck, I can easily assign excess combat damage now to get my extra dragon token. It’s amped up the dragons I get in the deck and maybe not as much as I think, but it’s a lot less work on my end to make it happen and saves me other spells to do other stuff with. I haven’t played much of my mono red decks where damage doubling matters - but they can only be improved by this too. So, folks and wizards saying it was just a minor update and made it more fluid only isn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s greatly improved entire decks and general situations.
Slight but important comment about 5:40. The attacker didn't lose their creature "for nothing." They traded it for the combat trick. In the updated rules example, the attacker has a large advantage after the interaction because they lost 1 card and the blocker lost 2.
As a rules guy, I really appreciated the Prof covering this due to the reach his channel has. The video I made got only a fraction of views and can't help as many players. I do wish that he had covered damage Replacement Effects as that is one of the areas that got a massive boost from this rules change. Also to clarify how Trample damage assignment is still the same for players despite us no longer having to assign lethal damage to creatures.
I am not a Magic boomer, only been playing for a little over a couple of years. Your video really helped me to figure this out. Goad is really big in our meta, so combat blocks happen a lot, as do double blocks.
Feels like a dumbing down for no reason. Tricks were already pretty poor cards. I struggle to ever make room for them even in draft decks unless I just couldn't get enough removal and creatures (in general, there are exceptions). The fact that they are mostly played in draft where you make the best of what you have kind of shows that they were underpowered in the first place. Them still grabbing my worse creature instead of my best like they expected still results in a trade... not worth a card. But that is really what this comes down to, a boost for the attacker since they get to make the last call. From a 'feel bad' point of view... it felt good when I felt smart with a trick. I felt like a good player who just pulled a magical rabbit out of a hat. Now that is far lessened. I can't hide my cards in hand any longer as they get a chance to react again after I go. And that is really what this comes down to... who gets the last say. I can kind of see the new player angle, but at the table I never saw it that way. When double blocking was explained, how it worked was explained. Poor combat tricks, even less ability to shine now. They weren't making it into my decks except in the most powerful cases... so expect to now see them push the power of combat tricks to make them relevant again. Power creep is coming.
Yeah this change is stupid. How you gonna declare blockers and now it's your priority again right after... this makes zero sense to me. Why wizards always trying to fix shit that ain't broke. I ain't playing like this, and if that means I'm done with magic everywhere but at home then I guess that how it will be. Good job wotc at turning away another, well spending lifelong player.
@@themoops4006 Each new players only needs to learn the rules once (assuming they properly understand it the first time). But if we want the game to continue growing then new players are in fact forever.
I may be even more boomer, but I sometimes miss the even older mechanic of damage using the stack. I'm ok with the unordered blockers part, but I do think they're should be a point to cast instants and activate abilities after damage intentions are declared.
Yes, I agree with this. Removing the "ordering blockers" part is not a problem, most people were already playing like that, even long-time players I know didn't use to play that way and were confused by what exactly had changed. But the idea that you no longer can cast spells in response to damage being assigned is... quite frankly, kinda bad. There's no real reason for doing that, and removes a lot of legitimately fun times and mind games at the table.
The main problem with the old damage on the stack rules were the non-intuitive interactions like Mogg Fanatic being able to kill an attacking 2/2 all by itself. I wish they had kept damage on the stack but added a rule so that only creatures still on the board when damage resolved dealt their damage. That would have solved pretty much all the problems.
It's almost like they fixed the original issues with a rule that worked perfectly for years & years. This rule change is incredibly frustrating. I'll be rule 0ing the previous version with my friends and encourage others to do the same.
@drakegrandx5914 I think it's interesting that I see more mind game opportunities and you see less. Playing with damage on the stack is a concept that doesn't make a ton of sense. It's just a rule that existed without flavor that made the game more fun for some and less fun for others. Ordering blockers was introduced to keep some of the intricacies of damage on the stack without the baggage of "Why does the dead guy still kill something?" This new rule is how people intuitively understand damage, and it changes the balance of power, but defending has been easier than attacking in clogged board states. This helps balance that. If all it did was make attacking better I wouldn't expect the change to be good, but adding in the intuitive nature of how damage works now does push it to be a positive change.
@@cainampi I disagree. Damage on the stack makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is that you can Giant Growth in response to a Lightning Bolt, but you can't Giant Growth in response to a Hill Giant assigning combat damage. I agree that dead creatures still dealing damage was bad and unintuitive, but they could have just removed that part instead of removing the entire ability to respond after damage has been assigned. Removing the ability to interact dumbs down the game.
So here are the scenario(s): Attacker goes in vs 2 creatures without pump or removal, defender had to leave mana up (attacker got to untap): Defender has removal: version doesn't matter. Defender has pump: Then: Attacker loses attacker in exchange for pump spell. Maybe they should consider that in future. Now: Defender loses creature as well. Huh, guess we'll not just play this way at all. Seems like a net loss. But what if the attacker has pump or removal? (&defender removal). Well, that was the tension, wasn't it? Above scenario + attacker pump means 2 for 2, with possible 3 for 2 for attacker. Removal and it's a 3 for 1. Unless defender has removal. Etc. But there's next to no situation (p/t combination) where double blocking + pump doesn't leave you down 2 cards for the attacker's 1... so what reason does the attacker have to care about running/holding up removal? Just run in another haste creature instead.
The change makes the game more understandable and slightly nerfs a strat that hardly anyone used anyways. Also there is still room for combat tricks between attackers being declared and damage.
I really think this is a setback for the longevity of the game. One step down a road where the end result is us playing a game of checkers instead of chess. The beauty of magic is being a new player and learning hard lessons and then being able to use those lessons as a tool to defeat other players with ingenuity. I think it's not respectful of the intelligence of people trying to learn how to play a complicated game to assume that this rule is too complicated for them specifically (a rule which greatly alters a ton of cards in a way that benefits the player that's already at a presumed advantage.) If new players weren't able to understand the previous rule, it's due to poor teaching, not overcomplicated rules. "You choose attackers, I choose blockers, after each of those steps, we both have a chance to respond." Now I have to explain damage assignment in a way that doesn't match what the actual cards say. Reading the card no longer explains the card. I think removing options is a bad thing. Easy to learn, hard to master is what makes players stick around.
There are still PLENTY of opportunities to learn hard lessons in magic, this isn't even a lesson 90% of players run into. I think you're being over dramatic. Magic is more complicated than ever it will never be checkers
This a wild take to me considering one of the biggest complaints I hear both online and in person is that Magic is getting too complicated (due to all the paragraph of text cards).
I wouldn't really call this a partial rule reversal toward damage on the stack though there are some similarities. The intent and spirit of the change are very different. Back with damage on the stack while you could assign damage as you pleased as you can now. Then there was a period of time between when that damage would impact the creatures and both players having the opportunity to do things. This basic concept of combat was retained in the change to ordering blockers by removing damage on the stack(which was complex) but introducing an opportunity for the players to do things when they know where damage is going via declared ordering. This change removes that point where players have knowledge and choose to act. It is a fundamental change of spirit and concept from both the old rules. It makes combat tricks fail the basic bar of being tricky. Additionally, you should feel bad when you fall into a combat trick. You should feel bad when your opponent counters your spell, or hits you with a hexproof effect that fizzles your bolt, or when they hit your creature with removal in response to your aura spell, the point of counterplay is to make the opponent "feel bad" to stymie their plans and make them feel like "Darn!" Removing feels bad moments that are actually just counterplay just waters down the game.
I think something to keep in mind with this rule is actually how blockers used to work, back when damage went on the stack: Back then, the attacking player could distribute damage however they liked, and then once the damage was assigned, it went to the stack. At which point, players could cast spells and activate abilities before creatures dealt lethal damage actually died.
This was the final nail in the coffin for green instant buffs. Giant Growth was never the best card, but it sure was fun to surprise your enemy with it to turn a combat around, or leave your enemy who knew you decked it considering if you have it in your hand. Now they don't have a point. Maybe some players still have a use for the sorcery versions that's stronger, but I for one will miss the trickery that sometimes followed blocking in combat.
Yeah, because this change was nonsense. It has nothing to do with feel bad moments, nothing to do with simplicity, and everything to do with attempting to push the speed of games.
So we used to play our instants/flashes/activate abilities “before damage is dealt”, but I’m guessing we can’t do that anymore? Do we have to do it immediately “in response to blockers” now?
Yes, after blockers are declared, before you have any info on where damage is going, is when you need to play your combat tricks. Only really matters with multiple blockers, though.
It's done before any damage is assigned, so after blockers are assigned but before the damage step happens. That way, as the aggro player (which is the player WotC seems increasingly catering towards), you get to pick whichever creature the opponent chooses not to pump/protect so you don't have to think as much about your attack phase.
I wish it allowed you to cast/activate the instant speed THEN gave the attacker the option to reassign. But if i understand correctly, the attacker can avoid assigning lethal. That i do not like. I will be able to make the tricks work, but i think they are less "realistic" for lack of a better word. I view an attack as... Knight attack planeswalker. (Blocker) knight fights through blocker. (2+ blockers) Knight fights through number 1 then 2 then (so on). I can order the knight to focus on any one of them. The new way is me telling the knight punch that one then kick the other. Why then can i not just tell the knight to ignore the blockers and hit the planeswalker?
Thinking of a part in the rules change article where they specifically call out trample: “[Trampling creatures] must still inflict lethal damage on all blockers before assigning trample damage to a player”. Add deathtouch, which effect literally means “assigning 1 point of damage is enough to destroy a creature”, and you get a Ghalta inflicting about 9-10 points of damage to your opponents even when blocking with 3 or 2 creatures, respectively.
Definitely think this is dumb. Takes away from the idea of casting instants. They are instants. I should be able to use them whenever. Also, they have been ramping spell slinging but they slow combat damage down? Kinda weird to me.
soooo....this made the "when this creature dies" combat tricks pretty much useless? This seems like it makes the combat portion less fun? How does blocking with a cloaked/manifest creature work now? idk this is very weird to me.
And you needed a boardstate to block with and to leave the mana open and without creatures in play the trick is a dead card, I honestly don't feel like there was ANY unfairness in how it used to work.
@@gamerbear84 The only "unfair" thing about it is that aggro players don't want to think about attacking -- they just want to attack and be rewarded for it. WotC apparently agrees due to this change and other aspects of the game favoring near-thoughtless aggression.
@@gamerbear84 They've practically already done this as most new players gravitate towards Big Green Dudes and most of the modern examples can't be countered, have some kind of removal protection built-in, or otherwise replace themselves if something happens.
Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain the difference. I've only been playing since Kamigawa Neon Dynasty, but i think i like this rule change overall. I am a fan of combat keeping players honest, and thematically, it makes more sense that Atraxa Grand Unifer would be able to easily beat up 3 faerie tokens if she really wanted to. I feel like the whole trample-deathtouch debacle makes a lot more sense now too.
it does not change trample if understand the new rule well. if I attack with a 5/5 trample and am double blocked by a 4/4 and 2/2, i cannot allocate all my damage to the 2/2 to hit my opponent's life point as there is still a blocker alive. I could however deal one damage to the 2/2 and kill the 4/4 wihtout being at risk of combat trick. But this changes nothing to the trample mechanic. I could be wrong but this is how i understand it.
Trample isn't affected though. Trample allows you to assign any extra damage to the face/plainswalker (depending on which you declared attacks against), after blockers have been overcome. These changes don't affect that at all, as it only kicks in during the damage assigning phase. For example: A 3/1 deathtouch trample is blocked by two 0/8 indestructible (or protection from x) creatures. Deathtouch means any damage above 0 kills a creature. Indestructible means the target is not destroyed when dealt lethal damage (or affected by a destroy effect). They still take the damage, they just don't die (creatures with protection do not take the damage). So if you assign 1 damage to each of those creatures, you'd have overcome all toughness of the blockers and thus be able to assign the 1 trample damage to the face/plainswalker. You can also choose to assign all damage to one creature (even if it's more than its toughness) and do no trample damage.
7:52 The Prof giving the same explanation twice back to back is either a casual oversight or a hidden bait to masterfully make me write this comment. GG's Editor!
so tl;dr the attacker used to choose how damage is assigned (how blockers are ordered, which has the same effect) and then the blocker could do things, and now the blocker doesn’t get a window to react after damage is assigned
No, being able to do things after damage is assigned is how it worked when damage was on the stack. Back when damage was on the stack, you could Giant Growth your creature after damage was on the stack, and even if your opponent Giant Growth'd theirs, yours would not die, since it was too late to assign the extra damage. With the blocker order if both players cast Giant Growth it functions the same as if neither had (barring additional triggers or whatnot) any creature that would have died in the combat with no Giant Growths would still die if each player cast a Giant Growth, no matter when they were cast.
Im confused why they did this this way is not more intuitive to a new player either. All this rule change did was make it clear Wizards wants to favor attackers over defenders. Which is fine, but stating it is more intuitive is wrong. Assigning to one creature at a time till it is dead is just as intuitive as putting damage everywhere, especially in a physical card game where you have to track healths manually every time.
Honestly, I've been low-key hyped for this rule change. I didn't do a whole lot of play where opponents (Or myself for that matter) WOULD double-Block, so it didn't really impact me much, but now those newer players I fight can feel like every attack is worth SOMETHING which just makes people feel better about playing the game.
While I obviously admire the lengths to which you clarify how this change makes the possibility of legitimately less-fun moments much lesser, I also appreciate how often you repeat that it is also much more intuitive and easier to understand. I definitely agree, and as someone who really enjoys when new players get into the game, it cannot be understated how much this both makes it easier to learn how to assign multi-blocker damage *and* how it minimizes the chance that said new player feeling like they're making a powerful play suddenly feeling like they've been Uno-Reversed out of being aggressive. I'm sure a lot of long-time players either do not care, and I'm sure folks who enjoy the bamboozle of a defensive combat trick clearing enemy resources feel like being on the attack is now OP, but for brand new players, I imagine if they were conscious that this change was made at all, it would come across as kind of a blessing.
hot take: screw new players, magic doesn't need more new players, its been making record amounts of money and its why wotc is making half of all magic universes beyond from now on. new players only need to learn the rules once but this change is there making blocking worse and advantaging aggro forever, this is not a good reason to change the rules of the game.
@@ForeverLaxxI think they were referring to the fact that, previously, a, for example, 2/2 deathtouch creature blocked by two 1/2s wouldn't have been able to kill both creatures if the first blocker was suddenly pumped to a 2/2 or the deathtouch creature got to take 1 damage during the assignment step. (Of course, why would anyone block that way instead of only declaring 1 blocker and just buffing it is another matter, I was just making a hypothetical example) In particular, a creature with both menace _and_ deathtouch now is notably stronger, as it is guaranteed to kill at least 2 creatures if blocked, while previously there was a chance to kill it before it could kill the second blocker.
@@drakegrandx5914 What are you talking about? You clearly don't understand Deathtouch and how it worked with the old rules. Old rules stated that you had to assign enough damage to be lethal to a creature before you could assign damage to a different creature. A 2/2 with Deathtouch being blocked by two 1/2s was always able to assign 1 damage to each blocker (up to its total power in total damage dealt) because 1 damage is *lethal damage* from a source with Deathtouch. Using a pump spell on one of the 1/2s would never save it or its partner blocker unless that pump spell gave First Strike (and enough power to kill the 2/2 in this example). Please learn the game before trying to explain the game.
I don't like this change, as the attacking player is usually at the advantage anyway. This further empowers aggro strategies at the expense of the already disadvantaged player in a very "we'll nu-uh I actually meant to do X, neener neener neener" fashion. Removing options for strategies and interaction is never a healthy change for this game unless they create very unhealthy play patterns.
Why not apply this timing rule to the attacker's creatures? Letting a 2/2 pass to get pumped up to holy hell or get double blocked to just obliterate you anyway is also quite the feel bad. I say create transparent interactions upfront all around.
At my LGS, there was a guy who argued the old the "damage on the stack" rule for a few events, and people called him on it multiple times till the judge finally threatened to boot him. Schmuck was doing it on purpose to pull one over on opponents. I always think of that when on the damage topic, but I personally like this change.
I didn’t even know this change had been made so I really appreciate it prof! And I hope this upcoming week you and your family have a wonderful holiday season if you celebrate!
I agree! At least the part of banding where the attacker has the ability to assign damage to blockers. But maybe this new rule could be the first step towards bringing back banding! 🤩
That's because banding is from a time when this is how all damage was assigned and it kept it. This isn't a new rule so much as going back to how it used to be before blocker order came in after damage on the stack went away.
Did'nt banding allow the controller of the band to assign the damage? Hence, when you block with a band, you assign damage, and can spread it around to save your creatures?
As an older player, I'm excited to see this change as is more intuitive. The big thing I am bummed about is I still miss saying, "After damage is assigned, but before damage is dealt ..." and then buffing, or 'preventing the next x damage' type of interactions. The game has moved on a lot from that sort of player interaction and game design, but in the old days, there was always something to do with buffing, countering, preventing etc. We'll see what new cards come along to take advantage of the 'new' mechanics. Should be fun. :)
Facts! Dumb kids can go play button mashers, Magic was never was meant for everyone. And they can't magically make it happen. They're just confusing and pissing people off constantly.
I think it's just a question of does this complexity actively improve the game, or is it better to take it out here and then increase complexity elsewhere. E.g. the stack definitely improves the game, but imo order-blockers step doesn't.
Hi prof, sorry I didn't read all the comments before this but, i think the example in 10:43 do not correctly demonstrate how protection from a color works with multiple blockers, the first creature dosen't "eat" all the damage, the attacking creature has to deal "lethal damage" (2) and then it can deal the rest to the next creature (in your example the order of creatures well... is not the best jajaja) in this case 2 damage to welcoming vampire, then the game "prevent" the 2 damage to grand abolisher. But this is just a "visual" like problem for me (sorry editor of the video ) Greetings from Chile
Once you pointed out, that damage assignment actually used to work like this the change made a lot more sense... in one way I'm a bit sad that some of the blocker's advantage is taken away - but if that helps break stalemates more often I guess it's not that bad
I think this change will have the biggest impact on limited, where multiblocking AND combat tricks tend to be more common, which I guess is appropriate if it was a change meant to simplify the game for new players, who are more likely to be at limited events like prerelease.
I like it. Simpler, more intuitive, less gotcha moments for new players, makes the whole combat conversation in paper games smoother. I guess I don't love that it slightly benefits the attacker when limited formats have already been so aggressive lately, but honestly defensive combat tricks were already basically a desperation move and pretty likely to get blown out.
Deathtouch creatures could always do this because technically 1 damage is lethal damage so if the opponent blocks your 3/3 deathtouch with 3 0/4s you can kill all of them in the new and old system
Damage on the stack was good. You will never convince me otherwise. It just made sense, and enabled really simple but fun tricks that were easy to work out so as a new player you'd get how it worked and get to feel clever.
I mean, this only effects situations where you're using multiple blockers, have a preference on which one you want to survive AND have combat tricks to save that one. In nearly 30 years of Magic I don't remember this exact scenario actually happening. You can still declare single blockers and pump one after seeing WHAT blocked and apply tricks - this only matters when you have MULTIPLE blockers. It's amazingly niche.
Is menace a joke to you? :) I don't know any numbers and I get to play maybe once in two weeks or less, but there usually is a creature with menace in play. And actually, more often there just could be need to deal with a bulky creature by having multiple lean bois engage it, and those bois need the combat tricks. That said, I'm involved in kitchen table MTG so just caveat my comment.
As someone newer to magic. This change sounds very nice the old rules of double blocking and weird splitting of damage was confusing. Not to mention having a menace card and not killing a card because the first one gained indestructible and then not having enough damage to carry over and kill card #2
I think if I would have heard about this change without explanations like this I wouldn't have liked them. Now that I've seen examples play out, it makes a lot of sense. Great video, prof!
TBF it's kind of odd to define a culture by key moments in its history, especially since those are typically elite-driven rather than commoner-driven. Imagine perma-defining Japan based on WWII or the Tokugawa Shogunate? Culture changes, and culture is defined by the commons.
This is veey off topic but i didnt know you couldnt say "leaving a comment for the Algo..." youtube really flagged that statement to not be engagement? I think thats pretty screwed up.
Wow so they screwd over a huge amount of cards and a huge amount of decks. We all know you play merfok it dosent effect you in the slightest. Combat decks and commanders are now OBSOLETE and suck. Prowess is now in shambles and plenty of people will have alot to say. Backlash incoming again! Ban mana Crypt Backlash coming!! Thousands of decks are scred over because of this
Group blocking with pump spells was never intuitive and leaning into that just leads to board stalls because people won't attack at all.. Dissuading attacking slows the game down immensely, particularly when newer players are involved as they historically are already very hesitant about making a game action that could lead to them losing a creature.
I think I like the idea of being able to assign damage across blockers equal to toughness, but I don't like the attacking player getting to just change it again in response.
this change wouldnt be necessary if they focused on figuring out a better way to teach the game. seeing as that was one of the cited reasons that some people would do it this way any ways. just because something seems to be instinctive doesnt mean its right. it should have been an idicator that the rules need to be explained better along with providing ways to help experienced players teach new players. you know so we could bridge the gap between the too groups.
I think overall this is better. There are always some casualties to the rules change, and I don't just mean cards that are downgraded, but I mean situations that are a little more feel bad. Maybe that doesn't exist here, but I think with the persist/not dead stuff it can be a little rough to really use these best, but it's probably only niche situations. But I think you're right that this is for the good of the game and bringing in new people
this feels like somehow priority order switches from attacker to defender in mid combat. now the defender is forced to go first or pass' and the attacker has the freedom to respond , so any combat pump can be responded with removal, and ....
It also doesn’t change gameplay all that much. But aggro decks rely on combat tricks a lot. If I’m playing a red aggro deck of some kind, I want the old combat mechanics for obvious reasons.
I agree that it simplifies the game, I'm not sure it needed the streamlining, or that defensive tricks needed to be depowered, or attacking combat tricks needed to get better. Defending already tends to inherently put you at a disadvantage, since the attacker had the initiative and control of the action, ordering blockers counteracted it a bit by giving a form of control to the defending player. I'm also not sure about the "feel bad argument". Why does the Serge example count as a feel-bad and the Goblin Electromancer doesn't? I would feel worse in the second instance than in the first, if I attack I choose and I take a risk, if I'm attacked into I do not, so it feels like I'm punished for a decision I don't even get to make.
Am I crazy or is this a rule for quite a while... checked resources, assigning combat damage is there since the Magic 2010 rule set change. (I am wrong apparently - see the replies)
You're not crazy but you are wrong. like in the video, Prof explains that it sort of used to work the way it does now when damage used to be put onto the stack like spells
It are the following rules that confuse me now (rules from the M10 set) - Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack - There is no longer a time window between the assigning of damage and the damage being dealt in which activated abilities or instants could be played. Instead, damage is dealt as soon as the players have finished assigning it. - Multiple blockers are assigned damage in succession - If a creature is blocked by multiple creatures, the attacking players number the blockers in the order the attacking creature will deal damage to them. A creature can only assign damage to a blocking creature with a higher number if all creatures with numbers below that creature's number have been assigned lethal damage. Source MTGWiki
I'm seeing a lot of comments that are complaining that reducing complexity is bad for Magic, as the complexity is what they love most about the game. To that I say, I agree, but, I want the actual core rules, how to get through a turn to be as simple as possible. I love the complexity of Magic, but I want that complexity to come from card interactions, not the regular step by step part of playing a game.
Go to surfshark.com/tolarian for 4 extra months of Surfshark
This change just nerfs combat tricks so bad which means now they're going to have to power creep combat trick instants even more..... Instant: +5/+5 and Trample for single G coming up. 🤣
@@HauntedCorpseGamingI wonder if this makes it to where they can print more cards or something
"defender needing more interesting decisions" = do I get to get fucked standing or laying down
What if the creature card says, "for each creature I damaged this turn"? Like "draw one for each creature I dealt damage to."
I just have two questions:
1.- How does this rule change affect 'Banding'?
2.- How does 'Banding' works?
No one knows. It’s a mystery 😊
Banding allows you to play music during the attack and negotiate the type of positive or negative effect that particular band's music had on the genre as a whole.
The answer to both is "No."
This gave me a good chuckle
Damage assignment with banding works like it did originally (sans "damage on the stack") and is now more consistent with non-banding damage assignment but just flips who makes the decision. The controller of the band decides how the opposing creatures distribute damage to the creatures in the band.
For example, if I have an attacking band of 2/4 Icatian Phalanx and 2/1 Savannah Lions and you block with a 3/3 Hill Giant, I can choose to assign all 3 of your Giant damage to my Phalanx.
Conversely if your Hill Giant attacks into my defensive band of the Phalax and Savannah Lions, I also can choose to assign all 3 of your Giant damage to my Phalanx.
Nobody's talking about the surprise Serge appearance. Prof probably called "judge!" and he magically appeared
Must be nice having your own judge on speed dial.
If you say Judge three times in a row in front of a mirror, there is a chance he'll appear
It's only a chance though ; if it doesn't work for you, it could just be poor luck
I agree with simplifying the game a bit, but I really enjoyed that post declared blockers mini game.
I've been waiting for the prof to speak on these changes, I know he likes his well produced videos, but this video took so long to come out and you didn't even bring up Deathtouch or Trample with the new rules, which I think are as big an impact as the rest of this video.
Yeah this video feels like it had more detailed discussion of Surfshark than MTG. It's really aimed at beginners, just like these rules changes.
Please release another video discussing Deathtouch and Trample along with other mechanics this rule change may impact.
How are deathtouch or trample even affected? I'm not seeing the connection
@@GunmanJag deathtouch and trample would interact to the extent that with trample and deathtouch the creature only needs to deal a single point of damage, then that creature is dead, then they trample into the next creature and deal a single point of damage, killing creature 2, then you trample to the next one.
So the death touch trample card could effectively kill 1 creature for every point of attack. a 5/5 trample death touch could kill 5 3/3 creatures because it only needs to deal 1 point to each before trampling through.
Was that not already how it worked? You'd order blockers, then deal one damage to each if you had deathtouch because one damage was considered lethal?
Oops. I always used to play the new way.. we never did "blocker order", we always just assigned damage however the attacker felt... Whelp! Good to know everyone I ever played with has always been ahead of the curve!
Same, the "new" rule is how my buddy originally explained it to me when i came in back at War of The Spark
How
Same lol
Same here lol
I... I think we did at our pod too. lol. Oops
combat tricks are probably my favorite thing in all of magic and this change sorta bums me out. never got a feelsbad from someone blowing me out with a defensive combat trick, it was just a risk i assumed when attacking. not sure this change was necessary and it certainly makes combat tricks much worse, especially the not dead after all effects. i am very surprised at how many people are saying theyve never encountered this in games or thinking the old way was more complicated, though, as the assigning blockers stuff is some of the first stuff i learned in magic and some of the first stuff that really got me excited to "trick" people
I can see how the new way is more intuitive, but I don't think the old way was confusing at all. I don't hate the new change, just a little bummed as a defensive combat trick enthusiast.
Agreed.
Any excuse of "for new players" is horse manure. This is a game of deception and bluffing. Combat tricks are an integral part of the game. New players may not like the initial challenge, but they soon come to appreciate it, because they get to use trickery too.
This a change to line pockets, not make the game "for new players".
@@zoch9797 "its for new players" just means "hasbro needs more money" its why we have universes beyond taking over the game too. get non-magic players to buy a couple commander precons or a booster box because oh look its dr who i love dr who and then they get bored and move on a month or two later while hasbro gets its short-term revenue buoy and the game slowly dies.
Agree it was rewarding for clever gameplay and it never felt that bad because everybody had the same opportunity to do the same kind of combat tricks it was a godsend if you were falling behind in the match too
"clever gameplay" "I play my 3 mana spell that gives my blockers +7/+7" yeah, fuckin genius bro LOL @@sakidickerson
So now combat tricks are better for attackers?
Yes. Attacking and Attacking battle trick usage has been buffed. The utility of defending battle tricks has gone down slightly.
@TapDat52K not slighty the uterly f u c k. ed it
@@TapDat52Kexplain to me how it’s “slightly” and not “MAJORLY” 😂
Lets go banding
Attackers also cannot play tricks between assignment and damage steps
On the concept of it stopping feels bad moments, tons of cards are "feels bad" moments. Counterspells feel bad, tapping a creature before attackers feels bad, board wipeson your massive board feels bad. I stopped a mono red burn deck from entering combat by tapping his prowess attacker with my merfolk deck. The dude got really upset and started saying "attempting to move to combat" instead of "moving to combat". If their targeting this because of "feels bad" moments then why are they only targeting one specific kind of feels bad?
Making the game more accessible by virtue of being simpler may make it more fun for many, but with less opportunity for tricksy skill expression, it may make it less fun for those who derive their enjoyment from being able to leverage their knowledge of the mechanics.
Good. Screw em.
That's just a convoluted and pretentious way to say that it punishes strategy and those who have studied the game.
A convoluted way to say "I'm smarter than everyone who swings at me, and I use my smart brain to make good decision because I don't attack like a big dumb monkey" okay bro
I feel like this is the same argument people made when they removed damage on the stack.
@ You’re probably right, but what’s your point? A subset of people definitely enjoyed the shenanigans that damage on the stack allowed and even if the game works “better” overall for more people without rules like that, that doesn’t mean that the people who enjoy it can’t be sad to see it go.
I was thinking to myself if I was crazy, but then I realized that the part at about 8 minutes was really doubled.
As a person who loves being a surprising, conniving little shit this reduces my enjoyment of magic by about 15%. Frankly a better change would have been a way to deal with poison counters
Thank you so much, Professor! I have been waiting for this because, for some reason, I could not fully understand it. I just started learning with Duskmourn, and now I am being told I need to learn the whole process in a different way. Talk about whiplash! As a newer player, I believe this is for the best! I have had so many "feels bad" moments, and I have noticed a slight change in that since the new rules' effect.
I'll say that it's a less interesting decision tree now then it was, because now the combat tricks and triggering feel bad moments are going to the stronger position, the attacker.
There's less bluffing that can happen that can benefit the defender.
You can still cast the giant growth after attackers are declared and kill the attacking creature when the opponent didn't think you could, there is still space for decisions and tricks
@@w8ting4fri The whole point of almost all of the combat tricks was to keep things alive. Can't do that anymore on defense because this aspect of bluffing felt bad for some.
Now the tricks to keep things alive is better spent on attacking instead of having a decision to save it for an attack or a defense.
@@leadpaintchips9461 you can pick which thing you want to live, you just can't completely steal someone's attacking creature for a single giant growth.
outside of rare exceptions defender has always had the advantage; Summoning sickness, the ability to multi-block, not having to tap in order to block, and for the time this rule was in effect combat tricks to turn the tides. That is outside of the situation of Defender advantage compared to other games where the defender can choose "just not to block"
I will agree that its less interesting and that I too enjoyed the little puzzle of trying to figure out how to block to maximize the efficiency of my board. But it is what it is. If it makes things nicer for people, i suppose thats good. I will absolutely forget about this rule every single time i play magic from here on out though, rip my defending creatures.
I wrote a long comment explaining this to somebody complaining about it, pretty much said everything the prof said and that it was basically a limited only change and as mostly a limited player I was very happy for the change. 100% agree
My main problem with it, is that it slows down the game. A lot of red aggro decks use combat tricks, and having to declare those “INSTANTS” and reveal the usage of them in combat before they’re used, nerfs those kind of decks.
Also destroys the concept of “instants” which, in theory before this change, are playable ANYTIME.
Anytime you had an instant, and had mana, you can play it.
Not anymore
Edit: I’m a casual with 15 decks. I play a tiny bit of standard, mostly Edh.
@@hiphop2u "reveal the usage of them in combat before they're used
Friend... I don't know what you're even talking about, and I'm not sure you do either.
@@Zomburai45 with the new rule, if you want to do a combat trick, you have to do so before you declare attackers, or after damage is distributed. Hence, you have to reveal what you’re doing and can’t last minute use a surprise instant.
Most of the time before rule change, you would wait until everyone decides what they’re doing, and then decide at instant speed to use your combat trick spell.
I’m using the literal English term definition of “reveal,” not the mtg definition brother 😂
@@hiphop2uThis isn’t stopping you from pumping your own blocker in a 1v1 block scenario, or using a “not dead” card, it’s literally just affecting 1vMultiple block scenarios. I think you’re making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.
@@hiphop2uNo, you still get to wait until blocks occur. You just don't get to wait until damage is distributed. There is still the window to cast between blocks and damage.
I really do not like this change, especially for limited. Sure it's a little more clear for new players and I guess it eliminates "feels bad" moments for attackers, but this helps the snowballing player snowball. If you are attacking, typically that means you're in the position to attack as the aggressor. If you look at the statistics, winning the coin flip is a big deal in limited and this only widens that gap.
Also, this just makes combat tricks flat-out worse. This means previous draft sets will have different pick orders and priorities due to this change. Pretty annoying, in my opinion.
My gut was to hate it, but I'm coming around to it being less of a big deal. Partially because combat tricks on defense is a bad strat 99% of the time, unless you are reacting to an opponents trick, which you can still do. There are a few reduced blowout opportunities, but I think the case now where the opponent can choose to still kill the creature that wasn't pumped, if you set it up to be a dinky 1/1 with an enters effect does it really matter?
It'll come down to the set design team. If this is signaling against combat tricks on defense, maybe they will do more +X/+0 tricks or defensive abilities. Or they make defense specific tricks like a mass +0/+3 idk. If the sets are balanced around it then it should be fine.
As for the older sets, rules changes affect old sets that's just how it goes. Personally I prefer an opportunity for fresh analysis over dusting off an old pick list.
I think the micro-specifics of this rule change, combat tricks/skill expression, can be debated if you want but it's a huge buff, relatively, for attacking based abilities: Trample, menace etc.
which didn't need a buff at all, this makes defensive combat tricks basically useless removing an entire layer of strategy to combat and gives the attacking player who is likely already ahead even more of an advantage
@@themoops4006you shouldn't be using your giant growth on block anyway 🤔
@@BusinessSkrub there's a lot more out there than giant growth and why shouldn't we have the option to use it that way when it can be useful? i don't think removing that utility helps anything.
@@BusinessSkrub Yes, if it's to eliminate a good opposing creature.
@@hungryguitarstudent then attack and use it when they block
This makes menace feel actually, well, menacing. So I welcome tis change, even if it means I have to learn some new strategies to maximize combat
My Indoraptor deck loves it. I know what I want to kill and it will stick.
As someone who actually likes to play around combat tricks, this is a set back, but I love it as there's gonna be less issues with teaching newer players and one less judge call from players who think they know better
it's not a setback
It makes the game more proactive and less reactive which is probably what they want.
I actually just taught a friend how to play Magic who had never played before, and after a week or two when we started to get more in depth to the nuts and bolts of the rules, I mentioned how the damage assignment order had just been changed with the Foundations set that we started playing with. After I went on to explain how damage assignment order used to work, he actually said that it sounded more interesting than the way it's currently done now.
I think it promotes attacking, which is good for the game. Instead of everyone too afraid to attack for fear they’ll lose their creature to something they can’t avoid. People can still perform combat tricks, just not the same way they used to, or to the detriment of the attacker.
@GraemeGunn be quiet if you dont know anything a out magic or a combat deck for that natter
Worst part about the change was rewiring our brains. i had a lot of players at my lgs not sure how the rule change affected tricks so this helps a lot. THANKS PROFESSOR !
I know it sounds like a feels bad for new players to get "blown out" by a trick, but it's one of the things that attracted me to the game again. The layers you can take the game to is what makes it great. Losing that complexity is truly a scary thing. Not in the sense that it needs to be a mess of complexity to be interesting, but it is great because there is ALWAYS something new you can find in it. Some new interaction or strategy you've never seen before. If we start down the road of removing those, we could lose one of the great pieces of the game (we've already lost the lore to an extent, and any time to breath and enjoy a set before the next)
This feels like you having to use a Counterspell as the opponent is casting a spell before announcing its name and effect.
its exactly what it is, just give more of an advantage to the attacker who is probably already ahead since they're attacking
You can still cast things after they declare attackers, it's not like there's no room for combat tricks.
The power and toughness and abilities of a creature are printed on the card, correct?
As a player since 1993, I have been through numerous changes in combat, from the damage being put on the stack to no longer being on the stack (RIP Mogg Fanatic), to damage ordering being added and now removed again.
Not to mention banding having been a prevalent thing once upon a time.
To me this is a step in the right direction, where attacking with creatures is usually a good thing instead of only viable if your opponent doesn't have any creatures or cards in hand.
@@ericfortin559it's funny, most of the crying children don't even know that this is how it originally worked in the first place lmfao
Not even a little bit..? You see a giant fireball barreling toward you, you'll want to counter it. You're on a rampage, you're not going to focus all of your attention on the guy who just turned into a giant tiger because you happened to look at him first. Flavor/narrative-wise, this way makes much more sense!
This “minor” update has actually made 2 of my combat focused decks a ton better.
With my Indoraptor and having menace, I have guaranteed kills knowing his damage is enough.
For my Rith deck, I can easily assign excess combat damage now to get my extra dragon token. It’s amped up the dragons I get in the deck and maybe not as much as I think, but it’s a lot less work on my end to make it happen and saves me other spells to do other stuff with.
I haven’t played much of my mono red decks where damage doubling matters - but they can only be improved by this too.
So, folks and wizards saying it was just a minor update and made it more fluid only isn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s greatly improved entire decks and general situations.
when you remove the trick from a combat trick, you have... Sadness.
thank you Serge for explaining rules in a clear and concise way
Slight but important comment about 5:40. The attacker didn't lose their creature "for nothing." They traded it for the combat trick. In the updated rules example, the attacker has a large advantage after the interaction because they lost 1 card and the blocker lost 2.
As a rules guy, I really appreciated the Prof covering this due to the reach his channel has. The video I made got only a fraction of views and can't help as many players. I do wish that he had covered damage Replacement Effects as that is one of the areas that got a massive boost from this rules change. Also to clarify how Trample damage assignment is still the same for players despite us no longer having to assign lethal damage to creatures.
I am not a Magic boomer, only been playing for a little over a couple of years. Your video really helped me to figure this out. Goad is really big in our meta, so combat blocks happen a lot, as do double blocks.
@digitalworldsvr7881 I love Goad and have 3 Goad decks. This rules change is amazing for me and my play style.
7:52 sorry I disagree combat tricks feel way worse now that I have lost all agency
Feels like a dumbing down for no reason.
Tricks were already pretty poor cards. I struggle to ever make room for them even in draft decks unless I just couldn't get enough removal and creatures (in general, there are exceptions). The fact that they are mostly played in draft where you make the best of what you have kind of shows that they were underpowered in the first place. Them still grabbing my worse creature instead of my best like they expected still results in a trade... not worth a card. But that is really what this comes down to, a boost for the attacker since they get to make the last call.
From a 'feel bad' point of view... it felt good when I felt smart with a trick. I felt like a good player who just pulled a magical rabbit out of a hat. Now that is far lessened. I can't hide my cards in hand any longer as they get a chance to react again after I go. And that is really what this comes down to... who gets the last say.
I can kind of see the new player angle, but at the table I never saw it that way. When double blocking was explained, how it worked was explained.
Poor combat tricks, even less ability to shine now. They weren't making it into my decks except in the most powerful cases... so expect to now see them push the power of combat tricks to make them relevant again. Power creep is coming.
Yeah this change is stupid. How you gonna declare blockers and now it's your priority again right after... this makes zero sense to me. Why wizards always trying to fix shit that ain't broke. I ain't playing like this, and if that means I'm done with magic everywhere but at home then I guess that how it will be. Good job wotc at turning away another, well spending lifelong player.
the new player angle is an excuse. new players only need to learn the rules once while this change is there forever.
@@themoops4006 Each new players only needs to learn the rules once (assuming they properly understand it the first time). But if we want the game to continue growing then new players are in fact forever.
"It's easier for new players" is only true if you're also willing to accept that replacing every card game with War would be "easier for new players."
I may be even more boomer, but I sometimes miss the even older mechanic of damage using the stack. I'm ok with the unordered blockers part, but I do think they're should be a point to cast instants and activate abilities after damage intentions are declared.
Yes, I agree with this. Removing the "ordering blockers" part is not a problem, most people were already playing like that, even long-time players I know didn't use to play that way and were confused by what exactly had changed.
But the idea that you no longer can cast spells in response to damage being assigned is... quite frankly, kinda bad. There's no real reason for doing that, and removes a lot of legitimately fun times and mind games at the table.
The main problem with the old damage on the stack rules were the non-intuitive interactions like Mogg Fanatic being able to kill an attacking 2/2 all by itself. I wish they had kept damage on the stack but added a rule so that only creatures still on the board when damage resolved dealt their damage. That would have solved pretty much all the problems.
It's almost like they fixed the original issues with a rule that worked perfectly for years & years.
This rule change is incredibly frustrating.
I'll be rule 0ing the previous version with my friends and encourage others to do the same.
@drakegrandx5914 I think it's interesting that I see more mind game opportunities and you see less.
Playing with damage on the stack is a concept that doesn't make a ton of sense. It's just a rule that existed without flavor that made the game more fun for some and less fun for others. Ordering blockers was introduced to keep some of the intricacies of damage on the stack without the baggage of "Why does the dead guy still kill something?"
This new rule is how people intuitively understand damage, and it changes the balance of power, but defending has been easier than attacking in clogged board states. This helps balance that. If all it did was make attacking better I wouldn't expect the change to be good, but adding in the intuitive nature of how damage works now does push it to be a positive change.
@@cainampi I disagree. Damage on the stack makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is that you can Giant Growth in response to a Lightning Bolt, but you can't Giant Growth in response to a Hill Giant assigning combat damage. I agree that dead creatures still dealing damage was bad and unintuitive, but they could have just removed that part instead of removing the entire ability to respond after damage has been assigned. Removing the ability to interact dumbs down the game.
Ah yes, just what we needed: More power creep to aggro.
So here are the scenario(s):
Attacker goes in vs 2 creatures without pump or removal, defender had to leave mana up (attacker got to untap):
Defender has removal: version doesn't matter.
Defender has pump:
Then: Attacker loses attacker in exchange for pump spell. Maybe they should consider that in future.
Now: Defender loses creature as well. Huh, guess we'll not just play this way at all. Seems like a net loss.
But what if the attacker has pump or removal? (&defender removal).
Well, that was the tension, wasn't it? Above scenario + attacker pump means 2 for 2, with possible 3 for 2 for attacker. Removal and it's a 3 for 1. Unless defender has removal. Etc.
But there's next to no situation (p/t combination) where double blocking + pump doesn't leave you down 2 cards for the attacker's 1... so what reason does the attacker have to care about running/holding up removal? Just run in another haste creature instead.
Was about to make a joke about how Banding is worse now but it seems fully unchanged. Good old Banding, never change.
Combat tricks were a game warping strategy i guess
Desperately needed to be nerfed on the defense specifically.
The change makes the game more understandable and slightly nerfs a strat that hardly anyone used anyways. Also there is still room for combat tricks between attackers being declared and damage.
@@gamerbear84 Not at all.
@@hungryguitarstudent My point exactly.
I really think this is a setback for the longevity of the game. One step down a road where the end result is us playing a game of checkers instead of chess.
The beauty of magic is being a new player and learning hard lessons and then being able to use those lessons as a tool to defeat other players with ingenuity.
I think it's not respectful of the intelligence of people trying to learn how to play a complicated game to assume that this rule is too complicated for them specifically (a rule which greatly alters a ton of cards in a way that benefits the player that's already at a presumed advantage.)
If new players weren't able to understand the previous rule, it's due to poor teaching, not overcomplicated rules.
"You choose attackers, I choose blockers, after each of those steps, we both have a chance to respond."
Now I have to explain damage assignment in a way that doesn't match what the actual cards say.
Reading the card no longer explains the card.
I think removing options is a bad thing.
Easy to learn, hard to master is what makes players stick around.
There are still PLENTY of opportunities to learn hard lessons in magic, this isn't even a lesson 90% of players run into. I think you're being over dramatic. Magic is more complicated than ever it will never be checkers
This a wild take to me considering one of the biggest complaints I hear both online and in person is that Magic is getting too complicated (due to all the paragraph of text cards).
@@GG-bw5qd
Paragraphs of text are single-case complexity (the bad kind).
This was rules complexity (the good kind).
I wouldn't really call this a partial rule reversal toward damage on the stack though there are some similarities. The intent and spirit of the change are very different. Back with damage on the stack while you could assign damage as you pleased as you can now. Then there was a period of time between when that damage would impact the creatures and both players having the opportunity to do things. This basic concept of combat was retained in the change to ordering blockers by removing damage on the stack(which was complex) but introducing an opportunity for the players to do things when they know where damage is going via declared ordering. This change removes that point where players have knowledge and choose to act. It is a fundamental change of spirit and concept from both the old rules. It makes combat tricks fail the basic bar of being tricky.
Additionally, you should feel bad when you fall into a combat trick. You should feel bad when your opponent counters your spell, or hits you with a hexproof effect that fizzles your bolt, or when they hit your creature with removal in response to your aura spell, the point of counterplay is to make the opponent "feel bad" to stymie their plans and make them feel like "Darn!" Removing feels bad moments that are actually just counterplay just waters down the game.
Trample and first strike offensive tricks got a lot better I think while indestructible and protection tricks got much worse.
Trample hasn't changed, you still need to assign damage equal to the toughness of all blockers before you can assign trample damage to the opponent.
I think something to keep in mind with this rule is actually how blockers used to work, back when damage went on the stack: Back then, the attacking player could distribute damage however they liked, and then once the damage was assigned, it went to the stack. At which point, players could cast spells and activate abilities before creatures dealt lethal damage actually died.
"banding" has entered the chat.
With this rule change, why would I even bother putting combat tricks in decks anymore?
They still work in single blocker situations, but yes, they became worse as a whole and were in no need of nerfing to begin with.
This was the final nail in the coffin for green instant buffs. Giant Growth was never the best card, but it sure was fun to surprise your enemy with it to turn a combat around, or leave your enemy who knew you decked it considering if you have it in your hand. Now they don't have a point. Maybe some players still have a use for the sorcery versions that's stronger, but I for one will miss the trickery that sometimes followed blocking in combat.
...you can still respond to declaring blockers, including your own blockers
Yeah, after all, why should you put Monstrous Rage in your deck???
They may as well stop printing them at this point, tbh. They're now useless.
I too am a magic boomer Prof, played from Beta through Ice age and just recently trying to approach playing again. The Commander format intrigues me
Fat packs with novels were my favorite thing. The Mirrari cycle was especially awesome (:
My group adopted the change when it was announced…. We still have a lot of feels bad moments.
Yeah, because this change was nonsense. It has nothing to do with feel bad moments, nothing to do with simplicity, and everything to do with attempting to push the speed of games.
So we used to play our instants/flashes/activate abilities “before damage is dealt”, but I’m guessing we can’t do that anymore?
Do we have to do it immediately “in response to blockers” now?
Yes, after blockers are declared, before you have any info on where damage is going, is when you need to play your combat tricks. Only really matters with multiple blockers, though.
It's done before any damage is assigned, so after blockers are assigned but before the damage step happens. That way, as the aggro player (which is the player WotC seems increasingly catering towards), you get to pick whichever creature the opponent chooses not to pump/protect so you don't have to think as much about your attack phase.
@@gamerbear84 which happens frequently and this makes it basically pointless unless you somehow have a board advantage over the attacker
Uh, in regards to your question at 2:10 what if the first way didnt sound confusing at all? It was pretty straightforward imo.
It's extremely simple, yeah.
I wish it allowed you to cast/activate the instant speed THEN gave the attacker the option to reassign. But if i understand correctly, the attacker can avoid assigning lethal. That i do not like.
I will be able to make the tricks work, but i think they are less "realistic" for lack of a better word.
I view an attack as...
Knight attack planeswalker.
(Blocker) knight fights through blocker.
(2+ blockers) Knight fights through number 1 then 2 then (so on). I can order the knight to focus on any one of them. The new way is me telling the knight punch that one then kick the other.
Why then can i not just tell the knight to ignore the blockers and hit the planeswalker?
Thinking of a part in the rules change article where they specifically call out trample: “[Trampling creatures] must still inflict lethal damage on all blockers before assigning trample damage to a player”. Add deathtouch, which effect literally means “assigning 1 point of damage is enough to destroy a creature”, and you get a Ghalta inflicting about 9-10 points of damage to your opponents even when blocking with 3 or 2 creatures, respectively.
Definitely think this is dumb. Takes away from the idea of casting instants. They are instants. I should be able to use them whenever. Also, they have been ramping spell slinging but they slow combat damage down? Kinda weird to me.
Nothing changed about how instants work?
@@lordk.h.w.711you can just change damage allocation however you like after an instant is cast now
@@lordk.h.w.711with respect, yes they changed how instants work in combat. There are restrictions that were not there before. Right around 6:13
soooo....this made the "when this creature dies" combat tricks pretty much useless? This seems like it makes the combat portion less fun? How does blocking with a cloaked/manifest creature work now? idk this is very weird to me.
I mean Serge famously Time Stopped Eilidh on an Episode of Elder Dragon Hijinx, so it tracks
Thanks for breaking this new ruling down Prof, I'm a relatively new MTG player so this helps clear it up for me! :)
Combat tricking to kill a creature is a 1 for 1 since you used a trick, but it's still a blowout
And you needed a boardstate to block with and to leave the mana open and without creatures in play the trick is a dead card, I honestly don't feel like there was ANY unfairness in how it used to work.
@@gamerbear84 The only "unfair" thing about it is that aggro players don't want to think about attacking -- they just want to attack and be rewarded for it. WotC apparently agrees due to this change and other aspects of the game favoring near-thoughtless aggression.
@@ForeverLaxx New players don't like having their stuff countered, so lets remove counterspells from the game too while we're at it. :P
@@gamerbear84 They've practically already done this as most new players gravitate towards Big Green Dudes and most of the modern examples can't be countered, have some kind of removal protection built-in, or otherwise replace themselves if something happens.
Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain the difference.
I've only been playing since Kamigawa Neon Dynasty, but i think i like this rule change overall. I am a fan of combat keeping players honest, and thematically, it makes more sense that Atraxa Grand Unifer would be able to easily beat up 3 faerie tokens if she really wanted to.
I feel like the whole trample-deathtouch debacle makes a lot more sense now too.
My friend is confused how this change works for trample.
It doesn't change anything for trample. You still need greater power than the sum of blocker toughness to go face.
it does not change trample if understand the new rule well. if I attack with a 5/5 trample and am double blocked by a 4/4 and 2/2, i cannot allocate all my damage to the 2/2 to hit my opponent's life point as there is still a blocker alive. I could however deal one damage to the 2/2 and kill the 4/4 wihtout being at risk of combat trick. But this changes nothing to the trample mechanic. I could be wrong but this is how i understand it.
Trample isn't affected though.
Trample allows you to assign any extra damage to the face/plainswalker (depending on which you declared attacks against), after blockers have been overcome. These changes don't affect that at all, as it only kicks in during the damage assigning phase.
For example:
A 3/1 deathtouch trample is blocked by two 0/8 indestructible (or protection from x) creatures.
Deathtouch means any damage above 0 kills a creature.
Indestructible means the target is not destroyed when dealt lethal damage (or affected by a destroy effect). They still take the damage, they just don't die (creatures with protection do not take the damage).
So if you assign 1 damage to each of those creatures, you'd have overcome all toughness of the blockers and thus be able to assign the 1 trample damage to the face/plainswalker.
You can also choose to assign all damage to one creature (even if it's more than its toughness) and do no trample damage.
@ very nice thank you! I will relay this info :)
@@schwarzyenjoyer6511 thank you! I am not knowledgeable and only started somewhat recently so I could not say anything about it :)
7:52 The Prof giving the same explanation twice back to back is either a casual oversight or a hidden bait to masterfully make me write this comment. GG's Editor!
so tl;dr the attacker used to choose how damage is assigned (how blockers are ordered, which has the same effect) and then the blocker could do things, and now the blocker doesn’t get a window to react after damage is assigned
No, being able to do things after damage is assigned is how it worked when damage was on the stack. Back when damage was on the stack, you could Giant Growth your creature after damage was on the stack, and even if your opponent Giant Growth'd theirs, yours would not die, since it was too late to assign the extra damage.
With the blocker order if both players cast Giant Growth it functions the same as if neither had (barring additional triggers or whatnot) any creature that would have died in the combat with no Giant Growths would still die if each player cast a Giant Growth, no matter when they were cast.
To skip the ad, go to 4:55
Im confused why they did this this way is not more intuitive to a new player either. All this rule change did was make it clear Wizards wants to favor attackers over defenders. Which is fine, but stating it is more intuitive is wrong. Assigning to one creature at a time till it is dead is just as intuitive as putting damage everywhere, especially in a physical card game where you have to track healths manually every time.
Honestly, I've been low-key hyped for this rule change. I didn't do a whole lot of play where opponents (Or myself for that matter) WOULD double-Block, so it didn't really impact me much, but now those newer players I fight can feel like every attack is worth SOMETHING which just makes people feel better about playing the game.
While I obviously admire the lengths to which you clarify how this change makes the possibility of legitimately less-fun moments much lesser, I also appreciate how often you repeat that it is also much more intuitive and easier to understand. I definitely agree, and as someone who really enjoys when new players get into the game, it cannot be understated how much this both makes it easier to learn how to assign multi-blocker damage *and* how it minimizes the chance that said new player feeling like they're making a powerful play suddenly feeling like they've been Uno-Reversed out of being aggressive.
I'm sure a lot of long-time players either do not care, and I'm sure folks who enjoy the bamboozle of a defensive combat trick clearing enemy resources feel like being on the attack is now OP, but for brand new players, I imagine if they were conscious that this change was made at all, it would come across as kind of a blessing.
This makes deathtouch was scarier too
@@SarumanTheStupid Deathtouch already worked this way as 1 damage is considered lethal by default.
hot take: screw new players, magic doesn't need more new players, its been making record amounts of money and its why wotc is making half of all magic universes beyond from now on. new players only need to learn the rules once but this change is there making blocking worse and advantaging aggro forever, this is not a good reason to change the rules of the game.
@@ForeverLaxxI think they were referring to the fact that, previously, a, for example, 2/2 deathtouch creature blocked by two 1/2s wouldn't have been able to kill both creatures if the first blocker was suddenly pumped to a 2/2 or the deathtouch creature got to take 1 damage during the assignment step.
(Of course, why would anyone block that way instead of only declaring 1 blocker and just buffing it is another matter, I was just making a hypothetical example)
In particular, a creature with both menace _and_ deathtouch now is notably stronger, as it is guaranteed to kill at least 2 creatures if blocked, while previously there was a chance to kill it before it could kill the second blocker.
@@drakegrandx5914 What are you talking about? You clearly don't understand Deathtouch and how it worked with the old rules.
Old rules stated that you had to assign enough damage to be lethal to a creature before you could assign damage to a different creature. A 2/2 with Deathtouch being blocked by two 1/2s was always able to assign 1 damage to each blocker (up to its total power in total damage dealt) because 1 damage is *lethal damage* from a source with Deathtouch. Using a pump spell on one of the 1/2s would never save it or its partner blocker unless that pump spell gave First Strike (and enough power to kill the 2/2 in this example).
Please learn the game before trying to explain the game.
I don't like this change, as the attacking player is usually at the advantage anyway. This further empowers aggro strategies at the expense of the already disadvantaged player in a very "we'll nu-uh I actually meant to do X, neener neener neener" fashion. Removing options for strategies and interaction is never a healthy change for this game unless they create very unhealthy play patterns.
WE GONNA ROCK DOWN TO yu-gi-oh avenue WHERE GAMES END IN LIKE 2 TURNS.
Why not apply this timing rule to the attacker's creatures? Letting a 2/2 pass to get pumped up to holy hell or get double blocked to just obliterate you anyway is also quite the feel bad. I say create transparent interactions upfront all around.
At my LGS, there was a guy who argued the old the "damage on the stack" rule for a few events, and people called him on it multiple times till the judge finally threatened to boot him. Schmuck was doing it on purpose to pull one over on opponents. I always think of that when on the damage topic, but I personally like this change.
This feels more like a nerf to Not Dead After All than a rules change to benefit the format.
I didn’t even know this change had been made so I really appreciate it prof! And I hope this upcoming week you and your family have a wonderful holiday season if you celebrate!
Sounds like simplified banding without the keyword
I agree! At least the part of banding where the attacker has the ability to assign damage to blockers. But maybe this new rule could be the first step towards bringing back banding! 🤩
Yeah it basically makes all attackers attach in separate bands
That's because banding is from a time when this is how all damage was assigned and it kept it. This isn't a new rule so much as going back to how it used to be before blocker order came in after damage on the stack went away.
@@antonie9653 well, yeah, because banding was created based on these not-really-new rules ^^
Did'nt banding allow the controller of the band to assign the damage? Hence, when you block with a band, you assign damage, and can spread it around to save your creatures?
As an older player, I'm excited to see this change as is more intuitive. The big thing I am bummed about is I still miss saying, "After damage is assigned, but before damage is dealt ..." and then buffing, or 'preventing the next x damage' type of interactions. The game has moved on a lot from that sort of player interaction and game design, but in the old days, there was always something to do with buffing, countering, preventing etc.
We'll see what new cards come along to take advantage of the 'new' mechanics. Should be fun. :)
I hate this new rule, the best mechanics out there is what makes MTG the best trading card game, if I wanted simplified mechanics I’d play YuGiOh
Facts! Dumb kids can go play button mashers, Magic was never was meant for everyone. And they can't magically make it happen. They're just confusing and pissing people off constantly.
I think it's just a question of does this complexity actively improve the game, or is it better to take it out here and then increase complexity elsewhere. E.g. the stack definitely improves the game, but imo order-blockers step doesn't.
"if I wanted simplified mechanics I’d play YuGiOh"
You may have quite a misunderstanding of what Yugioh is really like.
Hi prof, sorry I didn't read all the comments before this but, i think the example in 10:43 do not correctly demonstrate how protection from a color works with multiple blockers, the first creature dosen't "eat" all the damage, the attacking creature has to deal "lethal damage" (2) and then it can deal the rest to the next creature (in your example the order of creatures well... is not the best jajaja) in this case 2 damage to welcoming vampire, then the game "prevent" the 2 damage to grand abolisher. But this is just a "visual" like problem for me (sorry editor of the video ) Greetings from Chile
Did you hear about the former Vice President opening a dance studio?
It’s called the Al Gore Rhythm.
Once you pointed out, that damage assignment actually used to work like this the change made a lot more sense... in one way I'm a bit sad that some of the blocker's advantage is taken away - but if that helps break stalemates more often I guess it's not that bad
Damage on the stack was the most intuitive version of this rule there ever was
I think this change will have the biggest impact on limited, where multiblocking AND combat tricks tend to be more common, which I guess is appropriate if it was a change meant to simplify the game for new players, who are more likely to be at limited events like prerelease.
Hey Prof, Rakdos SCAM is banned. Your example is outdated. Etc, etc.
Engagement, engagement.
HE SAID THAT ALREADY
Outrage bait
Engagement
I like it. Simpler, more intuitive, less gotcha moments for new players, makes the whole combat conversation in paper games smoother. I guess I don't love that it slightly benefits the attacker when limited formats have already been so aggressive lately, but honestly defensive combat tricks were already basically a desperation move and pretty likely to get blown out.
i would of liked to have a response window after damage assignment for casting spells and activating abilities
Lol Alberta makes sense
Haha, I honestly had no idea what this line meant, I just thought it was funny.
Alberta's just labeled as the worst, angriest, most miserable province to be in. Unless of course you're from Alberta, then it's Quebec.
Aren't high base power deathtouch creatures going to be crazy now?
Deathtouch creatures could always do this because technically 1 damage is lethal damage so if the opponent blocks your 3/3 deathtouch with 3 0/4s you can kill all of them in the new and old system
Damage on the stack was good. You will never convince me otherwise. It just made sense, and enabled really simple but fun tricks that were easy to work out so as a new player you'd get how it worked and get to feel clever.
I mean, this only effects situations where you're using multiple blockers, have a preference on which one you want to survive AND have combat tricks to save that one. In nearly 30 years of Magic I don't remember this exact scenario actually happening. You can still declare single blockers and pump one after seeing WHAT blocked and apply tricks - this only matters when you have MULTIPLE blockers. It's amazingly niche.
Is menace a joke to you? :) I don't know any numbers and I get to play maybe once in two weeks or less, but there usually is a creature with menace in play. And actually, more often there just could be need to deal with a bulky creature by having multiple lean bois engage it, and those bois need the combat tricks. That said, I'm involved in kitchen table MTG so just caveat my comment.
I've probably watched half a dozen explanations of this at this point and this is definitely the easiest to grok
As someone newer to magic. This change sounds very nice the old rules of double blocking and weird splitting of damage was confusing. Not to mention having a menace card and not killing a card because the first one gained indestructible and then not having enough damage to carry over and kill card #2
Having to cast spells before blockers have been chosen is kind of annoying.
Well after chosen but before damage is ordered
@@dakkenblah1450 Blockers aren't even ordered. Think of them as lining up side-by-side.
Hey, you now get to 2-for-1 yourself to keep the better creature. Yaaay...
I think if I would have heard about this change without explanations like this I wouldn't have liked them. Now that I've seen examples play out, it makes a lot of sense. Great video, prof!
Anything that incentivizes attacking is a good thing in my book. I feel like commander games always get bogged down by not enough attacks happening
Morbid Opportunist: fades away
Nadier's Nightblade: fades away
Delighted Halfling: KABOOOOM!!! TELL'EM WHO SENT YOU!!!!
"That wasn't very Canadian of you."
Prof. obviously isn't a history major.
TBF it's kind of odd to define a culture by key moments in its history, especially since those are typically elite-driven rather than commoner-driven. Imagine perma-defining Japan based on WWII or the Tokugawa Shogunate? Culture changes, and culture is defined by the commons.
I happy you explained this in a video because I had no idea what the rule change even was
Bro I thought this was about Faithless Looting I thought we already covered this sir 😭
This is veey off topic but i didnt know you couldnt say "leaving a comment for the Algo..." youtube really flagged that statement to not be engagement? I think thats pretty screwed up.
Wow so they screwd over a huge amount of cards and a huge amount of decks. We all know you play merfok it dosent effect you in the slightest. Combat decks and commanders are now OBSOLETE and suck. Prowess is now in shambles and plenty of people will have alot to say. Backlash incoming again! Ban mana Crypt Backlash coming!! Thousands of decks are scred over because of this
The first thing that came to mind for me with this rule is how much more powerful deathtouch becomes, especially when combined with first strike.
I'm not a fan of the change. It weakens pump spells and blocking. It should be risky attacking.
No, it shouldn't be. That's how most decks win games - by attacking your opponent.
Group blocking with pump spells was never intuitive and leaning into that just leads to board stalls because people won't attack at all.. Dissuading attacking slows the game down immensely, particularly when newer players are involved as they historically are already very hesitant about making a game action that could lead to them losing a creature.
it is still risky though... just not disproportionately risky anymore ^^
Lmfao all the cy babys who think they should get to attack for free. Get the f k out of here scrubs
@@GraemeGunn so why not just get rid of blocking entirely then if that's the operative factor here by this logic?
I think I like the idea of being able to assign damage across blockers equal to toughness, but I don't like the attacking player getting to just change it again in response.
A good change for the only audience they care about: new players.
this change wouldnt be necessary if they focused on figuring out a better way to teach the game. seeing as that was one of the cited reasons that some people would do it this way any ways. just because something seems to be instinctive doesnt mean its right. it should have been an idicator that the rules need to be explained better along with providing ways to help experienced players teach new players. you know so we could bridge the gap between the too groups.
I think overall this is better. There are always some casualties to the rules change, and I don't just mean cards that are downgraded, but I mean situations that are a little more feel bad. Maybe that doesn't exist here, but I think with the persist/not dead stuff it can be a little rough to really use these best, but it's probably only niche situations. But I think you're right that this is for the good of the game and bringing in new people
this feels like somehow priority order switches from attacker to defender in mid combat. now the defender is forced to go first or pass' and the attacker has the freedom to respond , so any combat pump can be responded with removal, and ....
A horrible change. Absolutely hate it. I ask my playgroup constantly to play OG rules. I’m glad they don’t mind.
It also doesn’t change gameplay all that much. But aggro decks rely on combat tricks a lot. If I’m playing a red aggro deck of some kind, I want the old combat mechanics for obvious reasons.
I kno I won't be partaking in this stupidity. I'm not about to dumb shit down for no one. To hard? Go play street fighter or watch asmondgold 😂
@@Greatestnesss no.
Go play over there, and ima play over here
I agree that it simplifies the game, I'm not sure it needed the streamlining, or that defensive tricks needed to be depowered, or attacking combat tricks needed to get better.
Defending already tends to inherently put you at a disadvantage, since the attacker had the initiative and control of the action, ordering blockers counteracted it a bit by giving a form of control to the defending player.
I'm also not sure about the "feel bad argument". Why does the Serge example count as a feel-bad and the Goblin Electromancer doesn't? I would feel worse in the second instance than in the first, if I attack I choose and I take a risk, if I'm attacked into I do not, so it feels like I'm punished for a decision I don't even get to make.
Am I crazy or is this a rule for quite a while... checked resources, assigning combat damage is there since the Magic 2010 rule set change. (I am wrong apparently - see the replies)
You're not crazy but you are wrong.
like in the video, Prof explains that it sort of used to work the way it does now when damage used to be put onto the stack like spells
@GraemeGunn that's also a possibility. 😂
Idk what you've read but ya, definitely wrong.
It are the following rules that confuse me now (rules from the M10 set)
- Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack - There is no longer a time window between the assigning of damage and the damage being dealt in which activated abilities or instants could be played. Instead, damage is dealt as soon as the players have finished assigning it.
- Multiple blockers are assigned damage in succession -
If a creature is blocked by multiple creatures, the attacking players number the blockers in the order the attacking creature will deal damage to them. A creature can only assign damage to a blocking creature with a higher number if all creatures with numbers below that creature's number have been assigned lethal damage.
Source MTGWiki
I'm seeing a lot of comments that are complaining that reducing complexity is bad for Magic, as the complexity is what they love most about the game. To that I say, I agree, but, I want the actual core rules, how to get through a turn to be as simple as possible. I love the complexity of Magic, but I want that complexity to come from card interactions, not the regular step by step part of playing a game.
isn't this old news, little late on this one prof
a month = late? 😭
@@idontneedanameifyI second this. A month is ancient in internet time.