SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 30 2009 05:05 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

No. I'm saying we need a zone name that accurately describes its purpose. RFG fit that criterion. Exile does not.

If it is "removed from the game", how can it come back into it?

That does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Chewbacca lives on Endor you MUST change the name of the zone!

Posted: May 31 2009 07:56 pm

We were discussing this earlier, and Black Zarak brought up a good point: how does this make the game easier? Let's assume the best case scenario for a moment. Let's assume that the new 2010 terminology is both helpful and exciting to new players. It increases their interest in the game so much, that they go out and buy three boxes of 2010 apiece. Then they decide to start buying cards from some of the other sets released over the last 15+ years. Now, they are completely fucked. Because try as the might, WOTC can't change the words already printed on cards. So there are still 15+ years worth of cards that say "remove from the game", not to mention "play" and "in play". So now, the new player is going to quickly learn that what a card says on it and what the DCI says a card does are two very different things. So now, that player is going to be forced to look up every single pre-2010 card they encounter on Oracle to see how that card works. This will piss them the hell off, and they'll end up quitting.

Granted, this is already a major problem with the game.

But 2010 does nothing to help the situation. Instead of making the game more accessible to new players, it puts them even further behind the curve than ever before and further tests the already short patience of the poor unfortunate veterans who get stuck playing against them at FNM.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2009 08:18 am

True. But I don't see it being a big issue. Veteran players bitch about everything, form the major (Sixth Edition Rules Change, Grand Creature Type Update), to the minor (changing card frames, Stramflogger Boss). This will not ruin the game, and in fact, will not affect it much at all.

It may not make the game easier, but it does help it make more sense. The "Play/In Play" thing was a serious problem for learning the game, and so was the "Removed from game but still in it" thing. It doesn't seem that way to us because we've been playing the game for so long, but if a name change helps the game make a little more sense, I'm okay with it, no matter how "stupid" it seems (I think the terms "library" and "graveyard" are stupid too, for the record, nobody complains about them).

In my mind, there are only two things you can do to a game that will seriously hurt it: change the card backs, or change the rules to make older cards unable to be played. Incidentally, the game I left Magic for 10 years ago (Legend of the Five Rings) did both of these.

Posted: Jun 01 2009 11:46 am

How is "play/in play" confusing? You play a spell and if it's a permanent, it stays in play. Not confusing. And that's not because I'm a "veteran", it's because I understand simple wording and am not a retard.

Posted: Jun 01 2009 11:53 am

"play/in play" is confusing in one respect.

Some creatures have abilities that triggers when you "play" them, others have abilities that triggered when they "come into play". The first type triggers even if the card is countered, the second one does not. That is slightly confusing. Other than that, not so much.

And Usa, I submit to you that Steamflogger Boss was printed PRECISELY to irritate players. Future Sight was a real set, not fucking unglued.

Posted: Jun 01 2009 12:16 pm

Black Zarak wrote:

How is "play/in play" confusing? You play a spell and if it's a permanent, it stays in play. Not confusing. And that's not because I'm a "veteran", it's because I understand simple wording and am not a retard.

Honestly, the excessive use of the word "play" is confusing to a lot of players. Of course, I think that changes "play a spell" to "cast a spell" solves 99% of that confusion. Reasons it was confusing before:
Playing a land doesn't use the stack, but playing spells does (You will still play land, but now you cast spells)
There's a difference between play and put into play. This is the biggest point of confusion for people. If I use Elvish Piper to put a creature into play, invariable there will be people asking if it triggers things that say "When you play a creature spell".

I really like them changing play to cast, but not the other ones really.

Posted: Jun 01 2009 02:18 pm

Alright, I'll concede that point because there have definitely been occasions where when putting a creature into play without hard casting it, I've wondered if it triggers "comes into play" effects or whether things like Kicker can be paid even though the actual cost was not. Though I learned the right way to use Kicker a long time ago, no more using Defense of the Heart to find Thicket Elementals then paying the Kicker cost for me!

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2009 04:15 pm

Quote:

And Usa, I submit to you that Steamflogger Boss was printed PRECISELY to irritate players. Future Sight was a real set, not fucking unglued.

I thought it was funny myself.

Posted: Jun 01 2009 09:28 pm

I'm still hoping contraptions and riggers are in an upcoming set...

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 02 2009 03:31 am

Black Zarak wrote:

I'm still hoping contraptions and riggers are in an upcoming set...

Riggers were. Smile

Posted: Jun 02 2009 03:55 am

Changeling doesn't count. And neither does Moriok Rigger.

Posted: Jun 02 2009 07:58 am

I doubt contraptions will be in an upcoming set, at least not for like a decade. The card was printed as a joke, and the only reason they're even considering doing contraptions is because people have begged them to (Though even more people have begged them not to)

Posted: Jun 02 2009 08:20 am

The main thing here is DON'T BUY ANY MAGIC 2010.

When a set - or entire block - sells poorly, R&D gets all hysterical like a panicky girl fending off a spider, and decides that the game needs to be changed in some fundamental way in order to get more people to play.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 02 2009 09:03 am

Quote:

When a set - or entire block - sells poorly, R&D gets all hysterical like a panicky girl fending off a spider, and decides that the game needs to be changed in some fundamental way in order to get more people to play.

I'm sorry, but what fundamental change is being made here? There is none. It's name changes. Even the Mana Burn thing, which I don't like, doesn't change things in a meaningful way.

I kind of like how the people who complain about how it "changes the functionality" of cards like Spectral Searchlight have probably never used Spectral Searchlight.

Posted: Jun 02 2009 09:30 am

It looks like Magic 2010 is gonna have a ton of really good cards though. Also, there was a lot of anger when they changed the rules in 6th ed and when they changed the legend rule. They know there's gonna be a bunch of Magic players whining, but they'll get over it.

Posted: Jun 02 2009 10:05 am

DO NOT WANT! DO NOT WANT!

Posted: Jun 02 2009 10:25 am

I figured I'd post it here since I know BZ never reads my blog, but today's entry is on the lack of mana burn:
http://dr.jeebus.sydlexia.com/manaburn.htm

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 02 2009 10:39 am

I want the following rule written in as a compromise.

If any opponent ever tries to correct you by telling you you're saying something wrong, you are allowed to pick their deck up and fling it across the room.

Example.

Me: "I play Grizzly bears."
Them: "You mean you cast Grizzily Bears..."
Me: "Sorry, new rule." *Fling!*

Yes, I know people like this.

On a side note, what I really don't like about M2010 is the new release schedule. Having the core set come out every other year not only made for a more stable environment, but forced them to innovate in the off-years (Un-sets, Coldsnap, Lorwyn/Shadowmoor). This way, it will be "Big-small-small-core" every year, and that would get boring.

EDIT:

Mark Gottlieb wrote:

No more mana burn — Mana burn is a case of a lot of complexity for a very small payoff. New players have almost no way of being aware of it. Very few cards even mention mana burn at all. Seven. And one of those is from Unhinged. And two of the others only mention it in reminder text. We’ve decided that it just isn’t worth it to keep it in the game. We realize that this reduces the functionality of Spectral Searchlight. But it’s better for the game in the long run. From now on, mana just vanishes at the end of a phase.

Jeebus, how do you respond to that? I find that a pretty convincing argument.

Posted: Jun 02 2009 10:44 am

It did give them the chance to innovate, but Lorwyn destroyed standard, the Unsets sell horrifically poorly (I bought a box of Unhinged for $20 about a month after it was released in a retail store that's known for overpricing things), and Coldsnap was pretty terrible as well. This also gives them more opportunity to correct standard by removing problem cards from the core set ever year.

Title: Alexz Aficionado Joined: May 21 2008 Posts: 2889

I never found Mana Burn that hard to figure out. You have excess, it hurts you. The end. Doesn't even need entries upon entries in their errata and rules books.

It's not a game shattering rule change, but it changes a fundamental game rule since the game's creation, which is where I think the uproar would be.