I recently read about this rule change in an article. I thought I fully understood how the change work, but was slightly worried I may have misunderstood something, as I am better gleaning information by conversation then reading. I'm glad this video was able to clarify that I did fully understand the rule change
The article that first announced this change originally had incorrect information about the current rules. It was only updated today. I almost broke thinking I had been playing combat wrong this whole time 😂
Unfortunately, gleaning will also no longer be allowed in MTG, as of of November 15th, at which point Study Group classes will be available both online as well as at community colleges, at least until Wizards Seminaries are fully up and running.
@@A1Authority fast forward to the dystopian magic future where you can only play magic if you went to an accredited wizards college and gotten your masters in magic
One interesting wrinkle that I feel like people aren't talking about with this rule is how it interacts with the old "basilisk" ability that creatures like Thicket Basilisk and Stone-Tongue Basilisk had before we got deathtouch (whenever this creature deals combat damage to another creature, destroy that creature at end of combat). The end of combat thing made it worse than deathtouch with multiple blockers because under the old damage assignment rules you still had to assign full damage to something rather than a single point to each like deathtouch does. Now that you can allocate damage however you want, those old creatures pretty much have deathtouch now and are much more powerful.
They're like one-turn flash-speed auras; Playing them into possible interaction is always a risk. If nothing else, this rule change takes away the incentive to block with multiple creatures when one creature + combat trick will do.
All I need now is control over the order of resolution for replacement effects I control affecting other players, and Torbran can be The King of Redfell.
@@crazykhespar8487 this only applies to when there's multiple blockers. You can still play combat tricks after blockers are declared you just have to do it before choosing how to assign damage
@@crazykhespar8487 This really isn't a substantial change, I'd like it if people would stop saying shit that is just fully incorrect & getting mad about it
It honestly simplifies blocking. You still pass priority the same after blockers you just don’t say how you divide out your damage. Makes sense to me. 🤷🏻
I'm going to be that guy and say it's returning to Magic as Richard Garfield intended, since this is actually how assigning damage worked before Sixth Edition (minus some of the wonkiness from back then).
They are going to have to make combat trick spells better to compensate for this change because this is going to make a difference in limited environments.
This does no such thing. Your generation of magic players had combat easy. This is a ROLLBACK to post Classic Sixth Edition combat MINUS damage on the stack.
You are the kind of player that makes this game worse. You don't know who you are talking to. Whether they are new or possibly alpha players, it doesn't give you the right to be so spiteful and ridiculous. Chill man.@@shryque
Excuse me, what? You _don't_ *have* to assign lethal damage to blockers to damage other blockers anymore? That is crazy and indeed has very big implications for direct damage spells.
@@ifitisntjmo You already could split the damage with deathtouch, because you only need to assign 1 damage for it to be lethal damage (even if the creature has indestructible).
@@leonmrs16 No, because attackers and blockers still deal damage at the same time. The only difference is when the choice happens on the part of the attacker (before they would choose the order of the blockers when blockers were declared, now they choose the distribution of damage when the damage is dealt). First Strike + Deathtouch is still a huge deal because your attacker would deal damage in the First Strike damage step, before the regular damage step. Since it has Deathtouch, all blockers that take damage from it would die, and won't get a chance to deal any damage back to your attacker. Nothing about that interaction is changing.
@@leonmrs16first strike still matters with death touch because the opponents stuff without first strike will still die in the first strike phase of damage.
This change actually adds more strategic depth to combat, not less. You now have to consider post-combat effects/spells more carefully when declaring multi-blocks. I believe it was worth nerfing combat tricks used defensively to gain the added depth. For anyone still on the fence, the people that make this game are very smart. They will alter their design choices for combat tricks moving forward with consideration for this new rule. Think of a card like Mogg Fanatic. Once damage on the stack was removed from the rules, they stopped printing that card and made different design choices. They will do the same for combat tricks.
It's because damage assignment isn't really an action, like moving from any other gameplay phase to the next. Like a game can't move to (insert phase here), the opponent waits, and then based on what the other player does during that phase, the opponent says play a card that activates before the new phase entirely. Can't do that.
I dont think thats true because the end of combat step seems to be unchanged. Unless you mean that we cant cast spells while creatures have damage assigned to them which has never been the case.
So basically the assign blockers autos into damage and no spells can be cast what about abilities like regen or indestructible I think it was a good rule change that disrupts control or tempo builds and gives aggro more info for attacks and plays Downside is they are probably putting it on every format and not having a separate format with the foundations combat rule
What is and is not considered "lethal combat damage" can be weird and counterintuitive (like how Trample & Deathtouch interact for example), so just letting you assign what you want is less of a hassle.
@@FirewynnTV It could already do that. For creatures with deathtouch, any amount of damage is considered lethal. (I think you just proved their point about the current rules being unintuitive.)
@@MakeVarahHappen It does though? You don't have to know if damage doubling or deathtouch or something technically makes something "lethal damage", you just assign however much damage kills the thing
This made me realize I didn't know how damage actually worked in the first place so this new rule just feels more intuitive. It's actually weird to me that you HAD to assign lethal and then a buff would negate part of that assignment. I like the change frankly
You don't *assign* lethal damage until the combat damage step. Ordering the blocks let your opponent infer what damage you were looking to deal and react according to that.
can't say I agree. Double blocking is still useful, this only changes how combat tricks interact with it. Double blocking is still a good way to have your creatures trade up with your opponent's.
Double blocking was, and still might be even after the change, incredibly useful. Blocking a 3/3 with two 2/2s and having only one of them die means that 2-2 has traded with an higher "quality" card
@@Bbing888also, in higher power format like legacy, double blocking is common and can skew games when you have cards like magus, or harbinger of the seas.
You're not the first person I've heard say this. Very surprised. Usually you learn about this current combat rule when you're learning about a Deathtouch attacker and multiple blockers.
@@attackoncardboard That always seemed intuitive to me that I could just assign 1 to each blocker. Most people I know just assumed you could spread damage as you wanted anyways and never knew about the order and restriction of killing the first creature. We only knew we needed to deal lethal to creatures to hit the player, not the other creatures in the order. edit: we actually used it sometimes to avoid killing someone's stuff if we were forced to attack by spreading damage non-lethally
@@attackoncardboard this stuff is always easier to learn in MTGA cause there is very clear and you don't have the remember the details. Its something i recommend for everyone new to learn basics. If never played in arena, its not that intuitive
Second video I've seen on the topic (greatly appreciated btw) and the comments are almost entirely made up of either: 1: omg this is terrible why would they do this? Combat tricks are useless now. 2: Oh. I've already been playing like that. The second group implies that's what's already intuitive to newer players. Personally, I feel like this is mostly a buff to creatures with menace and that it makes way more sense for combat damage to be assigned when damage actually happens. Getting to split damage however you want instead of assigning lethal damage in order is.... interesting. That part I'd need to happen naturally a few times to form an opinion on.
Not even intuitive to new players, this is how it was for a good while before M10 as well. A lot of players never knew it was changed and new players often learn from established players.
It also buffs Pyroclasm effects and damage doublers while making the later more intuitive. Previously, if your 4/4 menace was double blocked by two 4/4s while you had a gratuitous violence, you couldn't actually kill them both since damage needs to be assigned first, then is doubled as it's dealt. Since you had to assign 4 damage to one to count as lethal, you couldn't assign any to the other, then you deal 8 to that one. Now, you can split it 2 and 2, then both will be dealt 4.
Back when there was still mana burn, and combat damage stack, the new way was how we assigned damages. And funnyly enough, I never played with anyone using the defending order. So I'm happy for this update.
@@ForeverLaxxI agree with you when playing standard or limited environments. But when I’m playing commander and everyone is being a coward and the game lasts 3 hours it’s super annoying 😂
@@ForeverLaxximplying you can't play an aggressive strategy in a thoughtful manner. Offense in Magic has always been favored, I don't know where this idea that it hasn't comes from.
makes tricks close to useless. I dont understand why they would ever change this. Their excuse is to make it easier for new players but they just swapped it from defender knows where damage goes to attacker. It is exactly as complicated, and more clunky than previously
@@shryque Nah. Removing the stack made sense because it was counterintuitive and it led to disguisting shenanigans taking advantage of it in ways that didn't really make sense, even defensively (Bottle Gnomes, anyone?). This is just removing a layer of complexity from the game and leaving less opportunity from tactical choices and mind games. There is no stack, therefore your use of tricks will be limited. It makes the game poorer.
We'd have to see the updated CR wording, but it probably will, since assigning damage like this is mostly how it worked pre-6E. The main advantage with banding is that the side with banding gets to decide damage assignment instead of the attacker. Which is why it's so good at being anti-trample.
Yes, but not in a functional way. It takes part of banding's rules(allowing freeform damage assignment) and makes it standard behavior instead of a special case.
The real thing no one is talking about is that this takes away an edge experienced players have over inexperienced players. This has always been a tug of war with Magic, because rewarding players for deep knowledge of the game is what has kept a lot of people invested. But a lot of people have also been turned off when they get blown out because they don't know a rule. Generally speaking, I feel like it's worked out in the past, but we'll see how this impacts the game.
I would say this changes makes the game significantly boring and less fun for people who aren’t playing aggressive decks(or voltron or tokens I suppose)
@@pokegard I don't know if I agree that it's "boring" yet myself. It shifts the play pattern a bit, but double blocking is already a move that has a high risk of blow out. What I really want to see is if they adjust combat tricks to match this. They knew they were changing the rule when they designed the set, so let's see if they compensate at all, or if defensive combat tricks just suck worse now.
@@jkdeadite fair, and it definitely is a good question yeah But a problem is how it will affects other combat tricks that already exist(if the new ones work differently, will older ones still be useful outside of a few scenarios like infect?)
My whole problem is that if a new player who is actively learning and getting better and wants to improve their skill at the game gets hand held through the process. Part of learning what you can and can’t do, as well as getting blown out in combat, is by having it happen to you in game. I see reasons for both super casual players who don’t care for the deep nuances of the game and just wanna have it more streamlined….but what of the players who wanna learn? Those who like the ins and outs of certain rules and combat tricks? Personally I do not like the change simply because it hinders newer players who actually wanna get good at the game and learn these intricate rules.
@@pokegardIt's never felt right to me that a combat trick which only targets one creature can be used to protect multiple. I also don't really feel like this change comes up all that often. It only matters when you double block a creature, you have a combat trick, and the creature you are blocking doesn't have enough power to kill at least one creature anyways. Also, this isn't just removing strategies. It opens up more with stuff like Pyroclasm after combat. It also makes damage doublers more sensible. In no works does it make sense that if your 4/4 is blocked by two other 4/4s while you have Gratuitous Violence, you can't kill both. This change fixes that.
Been playing this wrong I thought you could assign as much damage how you wanted so for example 5 all to one creature or divide it in a way leaving both creatures alive.
Hopefully. This change does let you assign damage with your creatures in all the same ways that banding let you assign it with your opponent's creatures after all.
Such wildly bad takes in this comment section. This isn't going to affect 99% of games. It just takes an unintuitive rule and makes the game work more like you'd expect. The example from the video is basically unchanged. The difference is that the right play now is to single block and Giant Growth that creature. You'd have change the example to something like two 2/4s blocking a 6/6. Or change the Giant Growth to something that only gives indestructible. Spells that give indestructible without pumping are mildly nerfed by this, I guess.
I'm still forming my opinion on this personally. I'll need to think it through more. The one thing I will say, though, to people saying they need to buff combat tricks, I feel like they already have? We've had some of the best combat tricks ever printed in recent years. Moreover, using combat tricks defensively is already incredibly risky and infrequent due to risk of being blown out. My initial impression is this makes attacking a bit safer which can help reduce stalemates in limited, which is the main place you'll be using combat tricks anyhow, unless you're playing a very aggressive deck, like mono-red in which case using combat tricks defensively often runs the risk of running out of gas on offense. Currently, I feel like this is probably positive but I do agree the floor for combat tricks might be to be lifted. Bad combat tricks are already nearly unplayable. This just makes them a little worse.
I didnt know the assignjng damage order before. When i first learned magic i was taught it like the new rule where you can divide damage up however you wanted like the new rule
Hmm, it already feels pretty unfavorable to use multiple blockers. This makes it all the more intimidating. But that does indeed mean the rule already hardly ever applied in our group.
This sorta goes back to how combat used to work, except back in the day after the damage was assigned you were still able to respond with a giant growth.
Hapatra with wither creatures likes this change. And i'm sure there are some other cases where you dont want to deal lethal damage at all to some creatures.
I think this makes the majority of non-professional players more likely to actually ATTACK with their creatures instead of just psyching themselves out of it every turn Bad change for skill expression, but better for activity at lower level play. Good decision overall for a game struggling to attract new players.
So under the correct rules, immediately after the defender declares blockers, if they multi block, the attacker chooses an order for the blocking creatures. Then players have a chance to cast spells. Then we go to the damage step. Now, players assign their damage and then it is simultaneously dealt with no time to respond in between. However, they have to assign it according to certain rules. They must assign lethal to the first creature in the order they decided on earlier before they can start assigning damage to the second and so on. So you can respond after ordering blockers, but not after it's assigned. This definitely makes things a lot more intuitive though.
@@seandun7083 Oh, ok I've been playing it even worse than I thought. I've just never said the order for blocking creatures when I've been multi-blocked before.
Huh, well I've been playing combat wrong for a long time now. Markedly, I think 2009 was one of my dropped periods and this situation doesn't exactly come up a lot, but I've been playing like this for years. In my defense, when I got back in, I was only told combat damage no longer used the stack. Really though, it is basically a return to the general pre-Sixth Edition combat flow. Minus some of the wonkiness.
Maybe I’ve just gotten so used to the current rules and enjoy the nuances double blocking, ordering, bluffing and baiting you can do on both sides of the table. Lowering the skill gap isn’t preferred, but I can see this speeding up play a bit. Eh, I’ll get used to it.😅
I've always though it was weird that a Giant Growth can save two blockers even though it only targets one. This is one of those rules where whenever it comes up and I have to explain it to a new player, it always feels so bad to explain. It is cool that the new system lets you do tricks to make a Pyroclasm better though.
In a world with best of 1 arena this just bad. Its like it doesnt matter most of the time but it primarily play mtg arena limited it is a very big deal.
Absolutely love the change back to something closer to the original magic damage rule. Only hurts defensive combat tricks in which double blocks happen. In an ideal world you could cast a damage prevention spell, but i think it is worth the trade off, and have always hated the cant split damage rule unless you kill something. It is the least flavorful rule and does not seem like any three on one fight i have ever seen.
I'll be 100% honest. I never knew you were supposed to declare the order of blockers. I have only ever played the way that they are changing it to. I'm more surprised that I never knew that I had been doing it wrong all of these years.
If i understand correct, some here would say the rules are returned to how they were. Like we used a TIME STATION to turn back time. And others would call this bogus, and call them APEs, for wanting this rules of change and ESCAPE the mess of Damage Assignment Order.
Very good rule change, for multiple reasons. 1. Blockers already have a major advantage, and attacking is generally discouraged. This helps balance things out, and add more tactical decisions. Combat tricks are still effective, but they will no longer be massive blowouts when blocking with multiple creatures. 2. This works more intuitively with damage replacement effects versus multiple blockers, as you aren't forced to dump a bunch of damage into a creature before they apply, meaning they won't be wasted nearly as often. Trample will likely still have that waste occur, since you need to reach lethal damage on blockers before assigning excess, and I doubt they will change that. 3. As mentioned in the article, damage assignment order is a relic from trying to somewhat preserve the feeling of putting damage on the stack when they removed it. And remember, this doesn't really affect single blocking. While the example given shows off the change, the blocker can easily just choose one to block with and use Giant Growth on it without losing their other creature and still defeating the attacking creature.
Been seeing a lot of MtG lately, after selling off over 5,000 cards from just after revised up to Urza’s for 2k(just post COvid), I’m almost tempted to dip back into the pool
As far as i remember since danage don't got on the stack anymore the blocker declaring segment is the last moment to react to anything. Danage distribution is declared and is then dealt immedately. Inly thing that doesn't sounds familiar is, that damage could be divided without the restriction that it must give enough damage to one blocker to destroy it, and then to the next and so on. Just hurting several blockers without dealing lethal damage to at least one of them sounds strange.
I can see how this will inflate the value of post-combat "kill creature that has taken damage" spells. Let's see the Professor influence up a deck his minions cook up for him.
I actually like this new rule. One thing you didn't touch on is that with the current rules (and will still apply to the new rules) is that when there are multiple blockers, you can assign more than lethal if you want to. Using the example in the video, you can choose to do all 5 damage to the 4/4 even before combat tricks happen. This could be relevant if one of the blockers has Enrage or something on your side cares about doing excess damage.
Huh? Is that true? So, for example, I attack with my 7/6 gisath that has trample, they block with a 4/4 and a 3/3, can I assign 7 damage to the 3/3 and the 4 will trample over to the defending player(thus allowing gisath to trigger his ability)?
@@Akario3 No, that is not how it works nor what I was saying. If you choose to do 7 damage to the 3/3, all 7 damage is being dealt to the 3/3. To be able to trample damage over to the player (or planeswalker), lethal damage must be dealt to all blockers first. It would be the same if there was only a 3/3 blocking. You could choose to deal all 7 damage to that creature instead of trampling over any to the player. Most people skip the step of deciding how much damage to deal to the creature and how much to trample to the player. This is relevant for anything that cares about excess damage. For example, if you had Rith, Liberated Primeval on the battlefield and you chose to only deal 3 damage to the 3/3 and trample the rest to the player, no excess damage was done so you would not get the 4/4 dragon on your end step. You would need to assigned at least 4 damage to the 3/3 for it to trigger. If you play Arena, you may not have come across this because the default setting is to auto-assign damage. If you go to your Gameplay settings, you can untick "Auto Assign Combat Damage" and see that you can play around with ways to assign combat damage.
Just asking, because I didn't see anyone asking it: So like spells, that prevent the next X damage a creature is taking or redirect them, are now useless, because if you cast them to protect a monster, the attacker can just swing the damage to one of the other blockers, making you "effectivly" protect the one creature with the prevent x damage spell, but don't get any value out of the prevented damage, because never would never been prevented? Still would help in 1vs1 creature fights, but prevent damage spells/abilitys now seem rather big nerfed in fights with multiple creatures.
That is true. It is important to check if it stops damage a creature would take, or stops damage a creature would deal though. Also, I don't think they have printed many of those in a while.
I think this seems a lot more impactful at first glance than it is, and it simplifies the game a lot for removing a priority step. I think its the kind of thing that will trip you up once, than will just be part of the game. Multi blocking a creature with equal value creatures, having a combat trick, and having mana up isnt something that comes up too often. The combat trick also has to be strong enough to work by the old rules and weak enough to fail at the new ones. I kinda feel like we might need a big rules change, but the game and player base are really big so its hard. Its like a piece of software we've been patching every set, but hasn't gotten a big version update in over a decade. E.g. creatures can fight each other in this game, but when I block your creature with mine, they hit each other but don't fight. It looks like they are, death touch and lifelink treat them the same, but first strike and double strike don't. If these mechanics where reworked, it could be "declare attackers, declare blockers, spells and abilities, each creature fights, enter next main phase" instead if the multiple passes of priority back and forth. The game has to be interactive, but each set of priority passes adds time and complexity to the game.
I have been playing with the new Foundation rules since Alara lol. It just seemed like the logical way to do it. It's how I always learned and believed combat worked. This is funny. MTG is a trip XD
They design the cards for combat tricks to defend your blockers, they take away combat tricks for your blockers. This seems like taking the "magic" part out of combat. It's really not that complicated compared to the entire mechanic of the game. As you were able to very easily demonstrate. But being able to assign all the creatures any amount, not having to assign lethal damage to blocking creature 1 before blocking creature 2, is at least a little interesting. Hasta la Vista giant growth.
So they just put to damage assigment like deathtouch but the attacker choses how the damage is distributed by either killing as much as possible ot leaving most amount of wounded creatures and if you want to save a creature you must do it preventively save instead of reactively... i guess its a fine change but it will take a while to get used to it.
im pretty new to magic but i like this change, just makes battle steps a little more straightforward, everybody declare your stuff, do your shenanigans, do math/fight, move on.
So... they're basically going back to the pre-2010 way damage division worked, but retaining the lack of 'combat damage on the stack'. Good. It always made sense to me that you should be able to divide your damage amongst opposing creatures as you like, rather than have some enforced 'order' that led to weird corner case unintended results. The 'damage order' method always felt like a weirdly artificial patch job that did the opposite of what the overall goal of WotC in doing things with combat was - which is to say, the goal of reducing (though nor eliminating) 'stalled boards' happening on their own, without players doing something specific to try and stall them. Amusingly, I've always seen the 'order of blockers' process done wrong, given this description. I don't think I've ever seen anyone declare order of damage on blockers as part of the blocking event; it always happened after blockers, then priority, and just before damage (which, according to this video, was wrong). Pre-2010 change, the act of blocking was purely a Defending Player action, so the Attacker had no choices to make at that moment of combat, and many people, I think, did not find it natural that the attacker would need to make decisions during the opponent's action of declaring blockers, especially since this mechanic itself (and double blocking in general) was not a common occurrence. This probably is part of the reason for changing it - if a lot of people are playing it wrong even after this long with it, then you should really consider whether it's a mechanic. (Remembering 'Suspend' creatures getting Haste) The return of Divided Damage, amusingly, also makes Banding slightly more understandable, as Banding's effect was always related to flipping who made that choice - attacking into blocking Banding Creatures let the Defending player choose how damage was divided instead of the Attacking player. Now that the Attacking player is dividing damage this way again, it reduces the complexity of that effect. Glad to see Divided Damage return. Still mostly neutral about whether or nor 'combat damage on the stack' was a better or worse rule than 'combat damage assigned and dealt as one action'. They both have pros and cons, and I can see either being desirable to a game for different reasons.
Exactly. So many people in this comment section are going like "wait, we are supposed to order blockers?" It's always felt weird to me that a single combat trick could save multiple creatures by buffing one.
This is how it was for the first 15 years of magic, so it’s more of a revision than a change. But I’m all for it. Now we just need to get back to damage using the stack.
I think doing away with assigning damage order in the blockers step is a welcome change, but getting to distribute that damage any way you want to in the damage step as the attacking player, as opposed to needing to take out one blocker before hitting another is stupid.
what? I THink that I've always used the Foundations rules without even knowin, glad they introduce that it make lot more sense, compared to the post 2010 rule
Yeah, the "New rule" is not so new, it's just how combat worked between 6th and M10, and a lot of players never knew it was changed in the first place.
@@kalierdarkekd oh I see but it's changed when the damage where not anymore a thing that go on the stack? like Mogg Fanatic thing that was able to kill 2 X/1 creatures with old rules. so yeah the first part of the video is about how the rules are right now? cause I think I've always used the rules explained in the second part of the video 🤣🤣
As somebody who favors cantrips I find this kinda stupid but as somebody who uses Flash spells and knows how the stack works I don't see it complicating too much. If anything it'll just be a chore to remember some new thing that hasn't been a rule for 20 years but still favors the player with the most open mana and foreknowledge.
I always thought you could simply divide damage as you choose, similar to the new rule, but opponents would still have a chance to respond since you would still have to declare which creatures took the damage and how. I feel that would be a decent compromise, while not making combat further favor the attacking player, even if it wouldn't change much other than perhaps making it simpler to understand.
thats how it worked when damage used to be on the stack. rules wise for that to work they would either need to put damage back on the stack (they won't cause it would make arena near unplayablely slow) or completely change how combat damage is approached by adding another phase of combat after damage assignment but before damage is done or some other similar band-aid fix with hard to predict outcomes. There is also the possibility of putting only combat damage on the stack which would probably be the best approach out of these options but adds more complexity which is in opposition to wotc's goal with this change.
Sad to see a bit more of the nuance go, BUT I feel like it didn't create fun, and the weird extra knowledge checks came up too often. I do look forward to the buff this gives to first strike/double strike creatures+ static damage increasing effects. We still need to assign lethal though right? So if I'm attacking with a 4/4 and they block with 2 1/1 elf tokens and a putrid goblin, I can't over assign to the elf tokens right?
I wouldn't say that nuance is leaving, more that it's getting moved. You lose combat tricks saving multiple creatures for free, but gain needing to consider how they might assign damage while coating what to protect. It also adds cool tricks with Pyroclasm and makes damage doubling more intuitive (though it's still weird with trample).
So there's a major side effect of this. That is a massive buff to deathtouch for player's who can force blocking. Nemesis mask and the like lets you kill as many creatures as your creature has power, since now you can give every blocker a single point of damage
So I no longer have to assign lethal damage to whatever is first in damage assignment order? I can basically choose how i want to split the damage? How does trample and trample on spells work?
Its a terrible change that makes combat tricks even worse. In my opinion its more complicated than what we already have. Genuinly dont understand whats the point of this change, especially that imo double blocking at the moment is simpler than after the changes.
I really don't think it makes things more complicated that the current system. In the current system, you need to decide an order for blockers immediately when they are declared (when's the last time you actually said what order the blockers were in as they were assigned rather than just saying "I kill that one" once damage happens?). Then during the combat damage step, you must assign your damage among the blocking creatures according to certain rules (you must assign lethal to each one before assigning any to the next). Now, we get to skip the ordering blockers step entirely and let you split damage however you want among the blocking creatures. That's two rules that you don't need to know. I know that usually when I teach new players, they tend to assume it works the new way. While this weakens combat tricks a bit, it does so in a way that also makes them more intuitive. Does it really make sense that you can save both blocking creatures by giving one some extra toughness? In addition to that though, it also strengthens Pyroclasm effects and makes damage doubling both sightly stronger and slightly more intuitive. Before this, if you attacked with a 4/4 menace and your opponent blocked with two 4/4s, you are forced to kill one of them and deal 0 to the other. Now, if you want to, you can split your damage and deal 2 to each, then cast Pyroclasm after combat to kill both of them. Previously, if you attacked with a 4/4 menace and they blocked with two 4/4s and you had a Gratuitous Violence, you had to assign 4 damage to one of the 4/4s, which was then doubled to deal 8 damage to that creature and the other would be unharmed. Now, you can assign 2 damage to both and have it be doubled to 4 to kill them both.
I’m going to have to think about this more, but I have mixed feelings right now. It sounds to weaken the defender and strengthen the attacker, which could be good or bad, hard to say. Probably will lead to more aggressive play, which I imagine was probably part of the reason-Mark Rosewater has made it clear before that board stall and too much defensive advantage is something WoTC worried about. With multiplayer being as big as it is now, that was probably on their minds. Simplifying damage increases and multipliers seems useful, but I don’t like weakening combat tricks for the defender.
Not saying anything in Magic can be put in a real world scenario (like I cast bolt; oh I react on your cast and prevent that damage; oh so I cast another bolt which resolves before the first bolt I cast 😉) but imagine an attacker blocked by two creatures which are hacking simultaneously on our attacker but the attacker HAS to decide to just fight the one creature decided until it falls... Will say the new rule is ok and more intuitive.
I "er'd on the side of caution" as I can't remember which dates the rules changes generally go live. If the change does go into effect on Prerelease, the judge running the event will announce it.
1 Am i the only person not seeing an issue with this? 2 So you dont know which creature im unaliving first, you still kill my creature like you planned, and if you have a spell as in the video you probably get to decide which creature i don't kill anyway right? 3 If i dont have trample or menace why are you multi blocking when 1 blocker would do? 4 if i have deathtouch cant i already just poke each blocker with 1 lethal damage making the rules change irrelevant? 5 if i still have to cast my instants first after blockers are declared you still get to see my 'tricks' before deciding if you want/need to use your own right?
I like how it gives the choice to the attacker of where you put damage selectively so that they can combo with AOE damage. BUT i think you should still have to assign that damage before and allow instants to be cast after. The nerf to combat tricks is unnecessary and unwarranted imo
What if I decide to unsummon my creature after declaring it a blocker? Is the attacking player going to be able to assign damage to me, the player instantly?
Here’s the thing - great explanation- Maro ranked banding as worst mechanic ever (just for meme value) - this rule change in effect makes every attacker banded with itself??? Because the main benefit of attacking in a group of creatures with at least one of them had banding was exactly this result- attacker got to assign damage as regardless of damage order.
It's not removing the damage step or the end of combat step. It just means you don't order blockers during the declare blockers step and can assign damage however you want during the damage step rather than having to assign lethal to one creature before moving on to the next.
I do believe the attacker deserves more agency, the game intrinsically should reward proactive gameplay and midrange/combo/control are already sufficiently uninteractive to the aggro player as it stands. This makes combat tricks less of a massive blowout, braking those awkward aggro vs aggro stalemates. And again, there’s enough opportunity to blow out combat math with declared blockers and instant speed.
*casually pumps up the jam*
I'm glad at least 1 person got that reference 🤣
@@attackoncardboardIt's still early, more will get it 😁 Also love your Dropout / Um, Actually references by the way 😊
Damn, I missed that! 😆
@@attackoncardboard +1
Too unlimited!!
I recently read about this rule change in an article. I thought I fully understood how the change work, but was slightly worried I may have misunderstood something, as I am better gleaning information by conversation then reading. I'm glad this video was able to clarify that I did fully understand the rule change
The article that first announced this change originally had incorrect information about the current rules. It was only updated today.
I almost broke thinking I had been playing combat wrong this whole time 😂
@@attackoncardboard Thankfully the article I read was from a 3rd party, and they described the rules change exactly has you had
Unfortunately, gleaning will also no longer be allowed in MTG, as of of November 15th, at which point Study Group classes will be available both online as well as at community colleges, at least until Wizards Seminaries are fully up and running.
@@A1Authority fast forward to the dystopian magic future where you can only play magic if you went to an accredited wizards college and gotten your masters in magic
One interesting wrinkle that I feel like people aren't talking about with this rule is how it interacts with the old "basilisk" ability that creatures like Thicket Basilisk and Stone-Tongue Basilisk had before we got deathtouch (whenever this creature deals combat damage to another creature, destroy that creature at end of combat).
The end of combat thing made it worse than deathtouch with multiple blockers because under the old damage assignment rules you still had to assign full damage to something rather than a single point to each like deathtouch does. Now that you can allocate damage however you want, those old creatures pretty much have deathtouch now and are much more powerful.
Just means you shouldn't block basilisks with more than one creature. You never wanted to multi-block a basilisk anyways though.
Why would they nerf the combat tricks like that? They were already a kinda weak card type.
They're like one-turn flash-speed auras; Playing them into possible interaction is always a risk.
If nothing else, this rule change takes away the incentive to block with multiple creatures when one creature + combat trick will do.
@nicodemuseam which, even in limited, is the correct move 99 of 100 times
what? have you ever played standard against mono red? thankGod they banned leyline of resonance 😂😂😂
@@leonmrs16 only in arena lol
Because blocking order was an unintuitive rule. I still remember recoiling from this rule when I first learned about it.
All I need now is control over the order of resolution for replacement effects I control affecting other players, and Torbran can be The King of Redfell.
They arent combat "tricks" anymore if they have to be shown beforehand
All WotC has to do now is allow players to attack individual creatures and the Heartstoning of the game will advance further.
@@crazykhespar8487 this only applies to when there's multiple blockers. You can still play combat tricks after blockers are declared you just have to do it before choosing how to assign damage
@@crazykhespar8487 This really isn't a substantial change, I'd like it if people would stop saying shit that is just fully incorrect & getting mad about it
It honestly simplifies blocking. You still pass priority the same after blockers you just don’t say how you divide out your damage. Makes sense to me. 🤷🏻
I'm going to be that guy and say it's returning to Magic as Richard Garfield intended, since this is actually how assigning damage worked before Sixth Edition (minus some of the wonkiness from back then).
They are going to have to make combat trick spells better to compensate for this change because this is going to make a difference in limited environments.
This does no such thing.
Your generation of magic players had combat easy.
This is a ROLLBACK to post Classic Sixth Edition combat MINUS damage on the stack.
@@shryque ofc is does and it has nothing to do if its a rollback it changes sthings of course
@DaxRaider I've been playing since the end of 4th edition... I OBJECTIVELY know you are wrong.
You are the kind of player that makes this game worse. You don't know who you are talking to. Whether they are new or possibly alpha players, it doesn't give you the right to be so spiteful and ridiculous. Chill man.@@shryque
@@badmangames5735 lmao, weakling.
Did I hit a nerve?
What's the saying kids are using?
Get Gud.
This is a wild change, gonna be a huge deal especially in limited where combat tricks are super common
In general it makes attacking much better
Excuse me, what? You _don't_ *have* to assign lethal damage to blockers to damage other blockers anymore? That is crazy and indeed has very big implications for direct damage spells.
Gives attacking death touch a huge buff since if you have 2 or more power you dont have to get through toughness to split the damage.
@@ifitisntjmo You already could split the damage with deathtouch, because you only need to assign 1 damage for it to be lethal damage (even if the creature has indestructible).
its weird, so basicly every creature with death touch has "standard first strike"? Glissa is useless?
@@leonmrs16 No, because attackers and blockers still deal damage at the same time. The only difference is when the choice happens on the part of the attacker (before they would choose the order of the blockers when blockers were declared, now they choose the distribution of damage when the damage is dealt).
First Strike + Deathtouch is still a huge deal because your attacker would deal damage in the First Strike damage step, before the regular damage step. Since it has Deathtouch, all blockers that take damage from it would die, and won't get a chance to deal any damage back to your attacker. Nothing about that interaction is changing.
@@leonmrs16first strike still matters with death touch because the opponents stuff without first strike will still die in the first strike phase of damage.
This change actually adds more strategic depth to combat, not less. You now have to consider post-combat effects/spells more carefully when declaring multi-blocks. I believe it was worth nerfing combat tricks used defensively to gain the added depth. For anyone still on the fence, the people that make this game are very smart. They will alter their design choices for combat tricks moving forward with consideration for this new rule. Think of a card like Mogg Fanatic. Once damage on the stack was removed from the rules, they stopped printing that card and made different design choices. They will do the same for combat tricks.
Good assessment!
It makes kinda of sense that the attacking player has the advantage but is a bit weird that after the damage assingment we cant't cast any more spells
It's because damage assignment isn't really an action, like moving from any other gameplay phase to the next. Like a game can't move to (insert phase here), the opponent waits, and then based on what the other player does during that phase, the opponent says play a card that activates before the new phase entirely. Can't do that.
You could never cast spells between assigning and dealing damage, but between assigning blocking orders.
Before you can when damage is on the stack or “stack damage” rules are possible. This was pre 2010 i think
I dont think thats true because the end of combat step seems to be unchanged. Unless you mean that we cant cast spells while creatures have damage assigned to them which has never been the case.
So basically the assign blockers autos into damage and no spells can be cast what about abilities like regen or indestructible
I think it was a good rule change that disrupts control or tempo builds and gives aggro more info for attacks and plays
Downside is they are probably putting it on every format and not having a separate format with the foundations combat rule
This is how i thought it already worked, guess i'm now playing the game correctly!
Guess doing math is for attackers now
Did they explain why? This feels random.
What is and is not considered "lethal combat damage" can be weird and counterintuitive (like how Trample & Deathtouch interact for example), so just letting you assign what you want is less of a hassle.
@@Metal_Maoist yes but now a menace deathtouch with at least 2 power can kill 2 creatures instead of just whatever is the front block order...
@@FirewynnTV It could already do that. For creatures with deathtouch, any amount of damage is considered lethal. (I think you just proved their point about the current rules being unintuitive.)
@@Metal_Maoist okay but this doesn't change that
@@MakeVarahHappen It does though? You don't have to know if damage doubling or deathtouch or something technically makes something "lethal damage", you just assign however much damage kills the thing
its like they came in and moved my couch to an awkward spot and told me to just get used to it
This made me realize I didn't know how damage actually worked in the first place so this new rule just feels more intuitive. It's actually weird to me that you HAD to assign lethal and then a buff would negate part of that assignment.
I like the change frankly
You don't *assign* lethal damage until the combat damage step. Ordering the blocks let your opponent infer what damage you were looking to deal and react according to that.
this change makes double blocking (which was already a disadvantageous play) into something you should never do unless your going to lose the game.
What? I'll hapilly trade 2 useless 1/1s for your 4/2 any day of the week
can't say I agree. Double blocking is still useful, this only changes how combat tricks interact with it. Double blocking is still a good way to have your creatures trade up with your opponent's.
Double blocking was, and still might be even after the change, incredibly useful. Blocking a 3/3 with two 2/2s and having only one of them die means that 2-2 has traded with an higher "quality" card
@@Bbing888also, in higher power format like legacy, double blocking is common and can skew games when you have cards like magus, or harbinger of the seas.
Do you even play magic?
Personally, I think it should have been like this to begin with. This is closer to how it was prior to Magic 2010.
I actually had no idea this was a thing this whole time...
You're not the first person I've heard say this. Very surprised. Usually you learn about this current combat rule when you're learning about a Deathtouch attacker and multiple blockers.
@@attackoncardboard That always seemed intuitive to me that I could just assign 1 to each blocker.
Most people I know just assumed you could spread damage as you wanted anyways and never knew about the order and restriction of killing the first creature. We only knew we needed to deal lethal to creatures to hit the player, not the other creatures in the order.
edit: we actually used it sometimes to avoid killing someone's stuff if we were forced to attack by spreading damage non-lethally
@@pj-willeyou can if the attacker has deathtouch
@@attackoncardboard this stuff is always easier to learn in MTGA cause there is very clear and you don't have the remember the details. Its something i recommend for everyone new to learn basics. If never played in arena, its not that intuitive
@@pj-wille right. For me, that was like the First Main/Second Main thing Six months ago.
Second video I've seen on the topic (greatly appreciated btw) and the comments are almost entirely made up of either:
1: omg this is terrible why would they do this? Combat tricks are useless now.
2: Oh. I've already been playing like that.
The second group implies that's what's already intuitive to newer players.
Personally, I feel like this is mostly a buff to creatures with menace and that it makes way more sense for combat damage to be assigned when damage actually happens.
Getting to split damage however you want instead of assigning lethal damage in order is.... interesting. That part I'd need to happen naturally a few times to form an opinion on.
Not even intuitive to new players, this is how it was for a good while before M10 as well. A lot of players never knew it was changed and new players often learn from established players.
Shows you who knew how to play honestly.
It also buffs Pyroclasm effects and damage doublers while making the later more intuitive.
Previously, if your 4/4 menace was double blocked by two 4/4s while you had a gratuitous violence, you couldn't actually kill them both since damage needs to be assigned first, then is doubled as it's dealt. Since you had to assign 4 damage to one to count as lethal, you couldn't assign any to the other, then you deal 8 to that one.
Now, you can split it 2 and 2, then both will be dealt 4.
It's only intuitive because people are teaching them badly. Just show them damage order once. It's not complicated.
Back when there was still mana burn, and combat damage stack, the new way was how we assigned damages. And funnyly enough, I never played with anyone using the defending order. So I'm happy for this update.
It makes sense to assign damage during damage.
The new rule gives the attacker an advantage and the defender a disadvantage compared to the old rules.
This is why I don't like it. It's another change that pushes players to be aggressive and punishes thoughtful play.
@@ForeverLaxxI agree with you when playing standard or limited environments.
But when I’m playing commander and everyone is being a coward and the game lasts 3 hours it’s super annoying 😂
@@ForeverLaxximplying you can't play an aggressive strategy in a thoughtful manner. Offense in Magic has always been favored, I don't know where this idea that it hasn't comes from.
@@NuSocTheKelDor Following me to another comment chain to seethe isn't a good look.
@@ForeverLaxxwrong, aggressive play should be actively rewarded.
makes tricks close to useless. I dont understand why they would ever change this. Their excuse is to make it easier for new players but they just swapped it from defender knows where damage goes to attacker. It is exactly as complicated, and more clunky than previously
This is how combat used to work.
Tricks are BETTER than ever before.
Put damage BACK on the stack and watch people MELT
@@shryquei agree. i remember the old ravager days 😅
This is massively more intuitive. You assign damage, it happens.
@@shryque Nah. Removing the stack made sense because it was counterintuitive and it led to disguisting shenanigans taking advantage of it in ways that didn't really make sense, even defensively (Bottle Gnomes, anyone?).
This is just removing a layer of complexity from the game and leaving less opportunity from tactical choices and mind games. There is no stack, therefore your use of tricks will be limited. It makes the game poorer.
@@Shendue You say that because you NEVER played without assignment order.
Tricks are better, and combat is better.
Seriously, get gud
Does the affect banding at all?
We'd have to see the updated CR wording, but it probably will, since assigning damage like this is mostly how it worked pre-6E. The main advantage with banding is that the side with banding gets to decide damage assignment instead of the attacker. Which is why it's so good at being anti-trample.
Yes, but not in a functional way. It takes part of banding's rules(allowing freeform damage assignment) and makes it standard behavior instead of a special case.
😂😂😂
Rest in peace banding… You will be missed.
The real thing no one is talking about is that this takes away an edge experienced players have over inexperienced players. This has always been a tug of war with Magic, because rewarding players for deep knowledge of the game is what has kept a lot of people invested. But a lot of people have also been turned off when they get blown out because they don't know a rule. Generally speaking, I feel like it's worked out in the past, but we'll see how this impacts the game.
I would say this changes makes the game significantly boring and less fun for people who aren’t playing aggressive decks(or voltron or tokens I suppose)
@@pokegard I don't know if I agree that it's "boring" yet myself. It shifts the play pattern a bit, but double blocking is already a move that has a high risk of blow out. What I really want to see is if they adjust combat tricks to match this. They knew they were changing the rule when they designed the set, so let's see if they compensate at all, or if defensive combat tricks just suck worse now.
@@jkdeadite fair, and it definitely is a good question yeah
But a problem is how it will affects other combat tricks that already exist(if the new ones work differently, will older ones still be useful outside of a few scenarios like infect?)
My whole problem is that if a new player who is actively learning and getting better and wants to improve their skill at the game gets hand held through the process. Part of learning what you can and can’t do, as well as getting blown out in combat, is by having it happen to you in game. I see reasons for both super casual players who don’t care for the deep nuances of the game and just wanna have it more streamlined….but what of the players who wanna learn? Those who like the ins and outs of certain rules and combat tricks? Personally I do not like the change simply because it hinders newer players who actually wanna get good at the game and learn these intricate rules.
@@pokegardIt's never felt right to me that a combat trick which only targets one creature can be used to protect multiple.
I also don't really feel like this change comes up all that often. It only matters when you double block a creature, you have a combat trick, and the creature you are blocking doesn't have enough power to kill at least one creature anyways.
Also, this isn't just removing strategies. It opens up more with stuff like Pyroclasm after combat.
It also makes damage doublers more sensible. In no works does it make sense that if your 4/4 is blocked by two other 4/4s while you have Gratuitous Violence, you can't kill both. This change fixes that.
Been playing this wrong I thought you could assign as much damage how you wanted so for example 5 all to one creature or divide it in a way leaving both creatures alive.
Why would you ever have thought that?
Guess this means Banding is back in 2025.
Hopefully. This change does let you assign damage with your creatures in all the same ways that banding let you assign it with your opponent's creatures after all.
Well i guess my playgroup was just playing the game wrong for the past few years, nice to know nothing will change for us
Such wildly bad takes in this comment section. This isn't going to affect 99% of games. It just takes an unintuitive rule and makes the game work more like you'd expect.
The example from the video is basically unchanged. The difference is that the right play now is to single block and Giant Growth that creature. You'd have change the example to something like two 2/4s blocking a 6/6. Or change the Giant Growth to something that only gives indestructible.
Spells that give indestructible without pumping are mildly nerfed by this, I guess.
I'm still forming my opinion on this personally. I'll need to think it through more. The one thing I will say, though, to people saying they need to buff combat tricks, I feel like they already have? We've had some of the best combat tricks ever printed in recent years. Moreover, using combat tricks defensively is already incredibly risky and infrequent due to risk of being blown out. My initial impression is this makes attacking a bit safer which can help reduce stalemates in limited, which is the main place you'll be using combat tricks anyhow, unless you're playing a very aggressive deck, like mono-red in which case using combat tricks defensively often runs the risk of running out of gas on offense. Currently, I feel like this is probably positive but I do agree the floor for combat tricks might be to be lifted. Bad combat tricks are already nearly unplayable. This just makes them a little worse.
When is the next un set coming out? We need a creature named "the jam" so we can pump it up!
This doesn't help, but Yugioh has "Frog the Jam".
@@theparagonalI cast wish
This change is actually way more intuitive. People just like to complain about nothing.
I didnt know the assignjng damage order before. When i first learned magic i was taught it like the new rule where you can divide damage up however you wanted like the new rule
Hmm, it already feels pretty unfavorable to use multiple blockers. This makes it all the more intimidating. But that does indeed mean the rule already hardly ever applied in our group.
Even that I don't personally liked. It's make the game way easy to understand, specifically of how deathtouch works.
This sorta goes back to how combat used to work, except back in the day after the damage was assigned you were still able to respond with a giant growth.
Hapatra with wither creatures likes this change. And i'm sure there are some other cases where you dont want to deal lethal damage at all to some creatures.
They ROLLED back combat to how it was post Classic Sixth Edition MINUS damage on the stack.
A lot of old players I know didn't even know they ever changed the rule and were still using it how it was in 6th
I think this makes the majority of non-professional players more likely to actually ATTACK with their creatures instead of just psyching themselves out of it every turn
Bad change for skill expression, but better for activity at lower level play.
Good decision overall for a game struggling to attract new players.
multiblocking a Ghyrson Starn deck will be hilarious now
This largely feels like the rules catching up to how the game is played 🤔
If you dont know how to play sure.
oh i have been playing magic wrong for a long loooong time if we have to pass priority after declaring how damage is dealt out
So under the correct rules, immediately after the defender declares blockers, if they multi block, the attacker chooses an order for the blocking creatures.
Then players have a chance to cast spells.
Then we go to the damage step. Now, players assign their damage and then it is simultaneously dealt with no time to respond in between. However, they have to assign it according to certain rules. They must assign lethal to the first creature in the order they decided on earlier before they can start assigning damage to the second and so on.
So you can respond after ordering blockers, but not after it's assigned.
This definitely makes things a lot more intuitive though.
@@seandun7083 Oh, ok I've been playing it even worse than I thought. I've just never said the order for blocking creatures when I've been multi-blocked before.
Huh, well I've been playing combat wrong for a long time now. Markedly, I think 2009 was one of my dropped periods and this situation doesn't exactly come up a lot, but I've been playing like this for years. In my defense, when I got back in, I was only told combat damage no longer used the stack.
Really though, it is basically a return to the general pre-Sixth Edition combat flow. Minus some of the wonkiness.
Maybe I’ve just gotten so used to the current rules and enjoy the nuances double blocking, ordering, bluffing and baiting you can do on both sides of the table.
Lowering the skill gap isn’t preferred, but I can see this speeding up play a bit.
Eh, I’ll get used to it.😅
I've always though it was weird that a Giant Growth can save two blockers even though it only targets one. This is one of those rules where whenever it comes up and I have to explain it to a new player, it always feels so bad to explain. It is cool that the new system lets you do tricks to make a Pyroclasm better though.
In a world with best of 1 arena this just bad. Its like it doesnt matter most of the time but it primarily play mtg arena limited it is a very big deal.
Absolutely love the change back to something closer to the original magic damage rule.
Only hurts defensive combat tricks in which double blocks happen. In an ideal world you could cast a damage prevention spell, but i think it is worth the trade off, and have always hated the cant split damage rule unless you kill something. It is the least flavorful rule and does not seem like any three on one fight i have ever seen.
I'll be 100% honest. I never knew you were supposed to declare the order of blockers. I have only ever played the way that they are changing it to. I'm more surprised that I never knew that I had been doing it wrong all of these years.
this is unironically how my table has been playing for YEARS (or at least very similar)
so for me nothing changes?
funny enough thats how i thought damage was assigned in the current state of the game lol
If i understand correct, some here would say the rules are returned to how they were. Like we used a TIME STATION to turn back time. And others would call this bogus, and call them APEs, for wanting this rules of change and ESCAPE the mess of Damage Assignment Order.
magic zoomers: THIS NEW RULE IS TERRIBLE
magic boomers: so the new rule is gone and the old rule is back? neat.
Even newer players "wait, we were supposed to be ordering blockers?"
Very good rule change, for multiple reasons.
1. Blockers already have a major advantage, and attacking is generally discouraged. This helps balance things out, and add more tactical decisions. Combat tricks are still effective, but they will no longer be massive blowouts when blocking with multiple creatures.
2. This works more intuitively with damage replacement effects versus multiple blockers, as you aren't forced to dump a bunch of damage into a creature before they apply, meaning they won't be wasted nearly as often. Trample will likely still have that waste occur, since you need to reach lethal damage on blockers before assigning excess, and I doubt they will change that.
3. As mentioned in the article, damage assignment order is a relic from trying to somewhat preserve the feeling of putting damage on the stack when they removed it.
And remember, this doesn't really affect single blocking. While the example given shows off the change, the blocker can easily just choose one to block with and use Giant Growth on it without losing their other creature and still defeating the attacking creature.
Been seeing a lot of MtG lately, after selling off over 5,000 cards from just after revised up to Urza’s for 2k(just post COvid), I’m almost tempted to dip back into the pool
Big upcoming year to get back into the game!
As far as i remember since danage don't got on the stack anymore the blocker declaring segment is the last moment to react to anything. Danage distribution is declared and is then dealt immedately. Inly thing that doesn't sounds familiar is, that damage could be divided without the restriction that it must give enough damage to one blocker to destroy it, and then to the next and so on. Just hurting several blockers without dealing lethal damage to at least one of them sounds strange.
I can see how this will inflate the value of post-combat "kill creature that has taken damage" spells. Let's see the Professor influence up a deck his minions cook up for him.
I actually like this new rule.
One thing you didn't touch on is that with the current rules (and will still apply to the new rules) is that when there are multiple blockers, you can assign more than lethal if you want to. Using the example in the video, you can choose to do all 5 damage to the 4/4 even before combat tricks happen.
This could be relevant if one of the blockers has Enrage or something on your side cares about doing excess damage.
This was already possible
@@levinies2187 I know. That's why I said "with the current rules"
Huh? Is that true? So, for example, I attack with my 7/6 gisath that has trample, they block with a 4/4 and a 3/3, can I assign 7 damage to the 3/3 and the 4 will trample over to the defending player(thus allowing gisath to trigger his ability)?
@@Akario3 No, that is not how it works nor what I was saying.
If you choose to do 7 damage to the 3/3, all 7 damage is being dealt to the 3/3. To be able to trample damage over to the player (or planeswalker), lethal damage must be dealt to all blockers first.
It would be the same if there was only a 3/3 blocking. You could choose to deal all 7 damage to that creature instead of trampling over any to the player. Most people skip the step of deciding how much damage to deal to the creature and how much to trample to the player.
This is relevant for anything that cares about excess damage. For example, if you had Rith, Liberated Primeval on the battlefield and you chose to only deal 3 damage to the 3/3 and trample the rest to the player, no excess damage was done so you would not get the 4/4 dragon on your end step. You would need to assigned at least 4 damage to the 3/3 for it to trigger.
If you play Arena, you may not have come across this because the default setting is to auto-assign damage. If you go to your Gameplay settings, you can untick "Auto Assign Combat Damage" and see that you can play around with ways to assign combat damage.
@@TheBorzoi Okay, thanks for clarifying cus I thought I was playing it wrong this entire time haha 😆
Just asking, because I didn't see anyone asking it:
So like spells, that prevent the next X damage a creature is taking or redirect them, are now useless, because if you cast them to protect a monster, the attacker can just swing the damage to one of the other blockers, making you "effectivly" protect the one creature with the prevent x damage spell, but don't get any value out of the prevented damage, because never would never been prevented?
Still would help in 1vs1 creature fights, but prevent damage spells/abilitys now seem rather big nerfed in fights with multiple creatures.
Excellent point! Yes, a big change there!
That is true. It is important to check if it stops damage a creature would take, or stops damage a creature would deal though. Also, I don't think they have printed many of those in a while.
I think this seems a lot more impactful at first glance than it is, and it simplifies the game a lot for removing a priority step. I think its the kind of thing that will trip you up once, than will just be part of the game. Multi blocking a creature with equal value creatures, having a combat trick, and having mana up isnt something that comes up too often. The combat trick also has to be strong enough to work by the old rules and weak enough to fail at the new ones.
I kinda feel like we might need a big rules change, but the game and player base are really big so its hard. Its like a piece of software we've been patching every set, but hasn't gotten a big version update in over a decade. E.g. creatures can fight each other in this game, but when I block your creature with mine, they hit each other but don't fight. It looks like they are, death touch and lifelink treat them the same, but first strike and double strike don't. If these mechanics where reworked, it could be "declare attackers, declare blockers, spells and abilities, each creature fights, enter next main phase" instead if the multiple passes of priority back and forth. The game has to be interactive, but each set of priority passes adds time and complexity to the game.
I have been playing with the new Foundation rules since Alara lol. It just seemed like the logical way to do it. It's how I always learned and believed combat worked. This is funny. MTG is a trip XD
The use of Pump Up the Jam is very good
It was a last minute addition 😅 As I was reviewing the final footage, I heard myself and went "wait a minute..."
Interestingly, the removal of damage assignment order actually makes banding a little more intuitive
Changes rules of blocker to simplify things.
Goad politics: let us introduce ourselves
They design the cards for combat tricks to defend your blockers, they take away combat tricks for your blockers. This seems like taking the "magic" part out of combat. It's really not that complicated compared to the entire mechanic of the game. As you were able to very easily demonstrate. But being able to assign all the creatures any amount, not having to assign lethal damage to blocking creature 1 before blocking creature 2, is at least a little interesting. Hasta la Vista giant growth.
Does it make sense for a combat trick which targets one creature to protect both?
This doesn't affect combat tricks when single blocked at all.
So they just put to damage assigment like deathtouch but the attacker choses how the damage is distributed by either killing as much as possible ot leaving most amount of wounded creatures and if you want to save a creature you must do it preventively save instead of reactively... i guess its a fine change but it will take a while to get used to it.
Damage assignment order has literally never come up in a single game I've played. This change is good and way more intuitive.
im pretty new to magic but i like this change, just makes battle steps a little more straightforward, everybody declare your stuff, do your shenanigans, do math/fight, move on.
I hope you drop out of magic. Cause you're dumb if you think this is fair with things like deathtouch and other abilities.
This change definitely strikes me as one to make it more streamlined on computer rather than because it makes a better game of paper magic.
Honestly this seems fine
So... they're basically going back to the pre-2010 way damage division worked, but retaining the lack of 'combat damage on the stack'. Good. It always made sense to me that you should be able to divide your damage amongst opposing creatures as you like, rather than have some enforced 'order' that led to weird corner case unintended results. The 'damage order' method always felt like a weirdly artificial patch job that did the opposite of what the overall goal of WotC in doing things with combat was - which is to say, the goal of reducing (though nor eliminating) 'stalled boards' happening on their own, without players doing something specific to try and stall them.
Amusingly, I've always seen the 'order of blockers' process done wrong, given this description. I don't think I've ever seen anyone declare order of damage on blockers as part of the blocking event; it always happened after blockers, then priority, and just before damage (which, according to this video, was wrong). Pre-2010 change, the act of blocking was purely a Defending Player action, so the Attacker had no choices to make at that moment of combat, and many people, I think, did not find it natural that the attacker would need to make decisions during the opponent's action of declaring blockers, especially since this mechanic itself (and double blocking in general) was not a common occurrence. This probably is part of the reason for changing it - if a lot of people are playing it wrong even after this long with it, then you should really consider whether it's a mechanic. (Remembering 'Suspend' creatures getting Haste)
The return of Divided Damage, amusingly, also makes Banding slightly more understandable, as Banding's effect was always related to flipping who made that choice - attacking into blocking Banding Creatures let the Defending player choose how damage was divided instead of the Attacking player. Now that the Attacking player is dividing damage this way again, it reduces the complexity of that effect.
Glad to see Divided Damage return.
Still mostly neutral about whether or nor 'combat damage on the stack' was a better or worse rule than 'combat damage assigned and dealt as one action'. They both have pros and cons, and I can see either being desirable to a game for different reasons.
Exactly. So many people in this comment section are going like "wait, we are supposed to order blockers?"
It's always felt weird to me that a single combat trick could save multiple creatures by buffing one.
And this is being changed why exactly?
Cause the previous version was an unintuitive relic left over from damage going on the stack.
This is how it was for the first 15 years of magic, so it’s more of a revision than a change. But I’m all for it. Now we just need to get back to damage using the stack.
My friends and I were already playing this way because we thought that's how it worked...
I think doing away with assigning damage order in the blockers step is a welcome change, but getting to distribute that damage any way you want to in the damage step as the attacking player, as opposed to needing to take out one blocker before hitting another is stupid.
what? I THink that I've always used the Foundations rules without even knowin, glad they introduce that it make lot more sense, compared to the post 2010 rule
Yeah, the "New rule" is not so new, it's just how combat worked between 6th and M10, and a lot of players never knew it was changed in the first place.
@@kalierdarkekd oh I see but it's changed when the damage where not anymore a thing that go on the stack? like Mogg Fanatic thing that was able to kill 2 X/1 creatures with old rules.
so yeah the first part of the video is about how the rules are right now? cause I think I've always used the rules explained in the second part of the video 🤣🤣
The very rare buff to attacking
As somebody who favors cantrips I find this kinda stupid but as somebody who uses Flash spells and knows how the stack works I don't see it complicating too much. If anything it'll just be a chore to remember some new thing that hasn't been a rule for 20 years but still favors the player with the most open mana and foreknowledge.
I always thought you could simply divide damage as you choose, similar to the new rule, but opponents would still have a chance to respond since you would still have to declare which creatures took the damage and how. I feel that would be a decent compromise, while not making combat further favor the attacking player, even if it wouldn't change much other than perhaps making it simpler to understand.
thats how it worked when damage used to be on the stack. rules wise for that to work they would either need to put damage back on the stack (they won't cause it would make arena near unplayablely slow) or completely change how combat damage is approached by adding another phase of combat after damage assignment but before damage is done or some other similar band-aid fix with hard to predict outcomes.
There is also the possibility of putting only combat damage on the stack which would probably be the best approach out of these options but adds more complexity which is in opposition to wotc's goal with this change.
Very good video, I wasn't 100% sure if I read everything correctly, so this helps a lot
Another great explanation!
Sad to see a bit more of the nuance go, BUT I feel like it didn't create fun, and the weird extra knowledge checks came up too often.
I do look forward to the buff this gives to first strike/double strike creatures+ static damage increasing effects.
We still need to assign lethal though right? So if I'm attacking with a 4/4 and they block with 2 1/1 elf tokens and a putrid goblin, I can't over assign to the elf tokens right?
Remember, no changes have occurred outside of the Declare Blockers step, everything during the Combat damage step still works as normal 🙂
I wouldn't say that nuance is leaving, more that it's getting moved. You lose combat tricks saving multiple creatures for free, but gain needing to consider how they might assign damage while coating what to protect. It also adds cool tricks with Pyroclasm and makes damage doubling more intuitive (though it's still weird with trample).
So there's a major side effect of this. That is a massive buff to deathtouch for player's who can force blocking. Nemesis mask and the like lets you kill as many creatures as your creature has power, since now you can give every blocker a single point of damage
Deathtouch already worked that way. It does buff triggered ability versions like Phage though.
So I no longer have to assign lethal damage to whatever is first in damage assignment order? I can basically choose how i want to split the damage? How does trample and trample on spells work?
You still need to deal lethal damage to all blockers before going face with trample.
Its a terrible change that makes combat tricks even worse. In my opinion its more complicated than what we already have. Genuinly dont understand whats the point of this change, especially that imo double blocking at the moment is simpler than after the changes.
I really don't think it makes things more complicated that the current system. In the current system, you need to decide an order for blockers immediately when they are declared (when's the last time you actually said what order the blockers were in as they were assigned rather than just saying "I kill that one" once damage happens?). Then during the combat damage step, you must assign your damage among the blocking creatures according to certain rules (you must assign lethal to each one before assigning any to the next).
Now, we get to skip the ordering blockers step entirely and let you split damage however you want among the blocking creatures. That's two rules that you don't need to know. I know that usually when I teach new players, they tend to assume it works the new way.
While this weakens combat tricks a bit, it does so in a way that also makes them more intuitive. Does it really make sense that you can save both blocking creatures by giving one some extra toughness?
In addition to that though, it also strengthens Pyroclasm effects and makes damage doubling both sightly stronger and slightly more intuitive.
Before this, if you attacked with a 4/4 menace and your opponent blocked with two 4/4s, you are forced to kill one of them and deal 0 to the other. Now, if you want to, you can split your damage and deal 2 to each, then cast Pyroclasm after combat to kill both of them.
Previously, if you attacked with a 4/4 menace and they blocked with two 4/4s and you had a Gratuitous Violence, you had to assign 4 damage to one of the 4/4s, which was then doubled to deal 8 damage to that creature and the other would be unharmed. Now, you can assign 2 damage to both and have it be doubled to 4 to kill them both.
It will take time to get used to but I would say I like it
Super helpful video! Thanks
I’m going to have to think about this more, but I have mixed feelings right now. It sounds to weaken the defender and strengthen the attacker, which could be good or bad, hard to say. Probably will lead to more aggressive play, which I imagine was probably part of the reason-Mark Rosewater has made it clear before that board stall and too much defensive advantage is something WoTC worried about. With multiplayer being as big as it is now, that was probably on their minds. Simplifying damage increases and multipliers seems useful, but I don’t like weakening combat tricks for the defender.
Not saying anything in Magic can be put in a real world scenario (like I cast bolt; oh I react on your cast and prevent that damage; oh so I cast another bolt which resolves before the first bolt I cast 😉) but imagine an attacker blocked by two creatures which are hacking simultaneously on our attacker but the attacker HAS to decide to just fight the one creature decided until it falls... Will say the new rule is ok and more intuitive.
November 15th? Does that mean this rule is not in effect for Foundations prerelease?
I "er'd on the side of caution" as I can't remember which dates the rules changes generally go live.
If the change does go into effect on Prerelease, the judge running the event will announce it.
1 Am i the only person not seeing an issue with this?
2 So you dont know which creature im unaliving first, you still kill my creature like you planned, and if you have a spell as in the video you probably get to decide which creature i don't kill anyway right?
3 If i dont have trample or menace why are you multi blocking when 1 blocker would do?
4 if i have deathtouch cant i already just poke each blocker with 1 lethal damage making the rules change irrelevant?
5 if i still have to cast my instants first after blockers are declared you still get to see my 'tricks' before deciding if you want/need to use your own right?
Exactly. People are overreacting to a pretty small rules change which makes things a bit more intuitive for new players.
should have known you'd be straight on this AoC! Great little update for me as I ate my breakfast
I love it I may have to get back into modern again after release
I like how it gives the choice to the attacker of where you put damage selectively so that they can combo with AOE damage. BUT i think you should still have to assign that damage before and allow instants to be cast after. The nerf to combat tricks is unnecessary and unwarranted imo
I like the opportunity to get creative with my damage assignments, instead of "assign lethal damage in order."
Yup, the second main phase damage spell stonks have just gone up 📈
What if I decide to unsummon my creature after declaring it a blocker? Is the attacking player going to be able to assign damage to me, the player instantly?
Not unless it has trample
Nah, it'll still be considered blocked
Here’s the thing - great explanation- Maro ranked banding as worst mechanic ever (just for meme value) - this rule change in effect makes every attacker banded with itself??? Because the main benefit of attacking in a group of creatures with at least one of them had banding was exactly this result- attacker got to assign damage as regardless of damage order.
This isn't removing the end of combat step right just the damage step?
It's not removing the damage step or the end of combat step. It just means you don't order blockers during the declare blockers step and can assign damage however you want during the damage step rather than having to assign lethal to one creature before moving on to the next.
The only thing that is being removed are the two rules I mention within the declare blockers step. Everything outside of that step works as normal.
I do believe the attacker deserves more agency, the game intrinsically should reward proactive gameplay and midrange/combo/control are already sufficiently uninteractive to the aggro player as it stands. This makes combat tricks less of a massive blowout, braking those awkward aggro vs aggro stalemates. And again, there’s enough opportunity to blow out combat math with declared blockers and instant speed.
So this makes the card defensive formation even better word.
They just keep making terrible mistakes don't they....