When I got back home from Honolulu, I connected to my Facebook account and saw something weird. Many of my contacts had a strange status, of which “RIP Magic” and “Thanks a lot R&D” were the most polite.
I opened my Live Messenger, and before I actually found out what all this was about, three different people asked me if I was intending to quit Magic.
While it’s true that I’ve performed badly in my recent tournaments, and that I’m not a huge fan of most the decisions that have been made lately (including the reinforcement of the random part of the game represented by Cascade), and even though I’ve been enjoying less Magic lately, I was not thinking about going that far. So what exactly was this about?
In answer, I was sent this link.
For those of you who are too lazy to read, let me sum up the most important points:
– Mulligans are now simultaneous.
– Lots of words change to make the game clearer (“comes into play” becomes “enters the battlefield,” “removed from the game” is now “exiled,” etc.)
– Mana burn disappears, while our mana pools empty at the end of every step.
– A creature must deal lethal damage to another when able. For instance, a 2/2 fighting a 2/2 and a 3/3 can’t deal each creature one damage (such as when you have a Pyroclasm in hand and want to get rid of both).
– Lifelink is not cumulative anymore.
– Lifelink and Deathtouch are now static abilities.
– And of course, the big change: damage no longer go on the stack.
When I read about these changes I felt pretty depressed, but instead of just writing about how much those new changes would ruin the game, I tried to analyze them and not draw too quick a conclusion. It’s for that reason that I’ve contacted Shuhei Nakamura and Manuel Bucher so we could share our thoughts on the subject, and hopefully introduce some new strategic thinking with the new rules in mind
Simultaneous Mulligans
Oli: How do you guys feel about the new mulligan rule?
Manu: The rumor was already there that it would be used in Grand Prix: Rimini. The up and down sides are pretty obvious.
Shuhei: It’s okay, but it is a little disadvantageous for tournament players, as the current system seems fairer.
Manu: Playing last now has another small disadvantage, but the time-saving aspect is something I appreciate
Oli: I agree on that. I like to play control, and sometimes my games take a lot of time. If I can save one or two minutes per round in each tournament, it makes me happy enough to compensate for the fact that it is gives a little more advantage to the player going first.
Most people think it is an advantage to know how many mulligans your opponent will take before you actually do. I actually think it is irrelevant 95% of the time. Many players tend to use their opponents’ mulligans to justify keeping bad hands, when this actually increases their chances of losing the game. Only the impact of discard spells changes depending on how many cards your opponent starts with… For example, Hymn to Tourach will be fantastic versus a double mulligan, while Duress has pretty good chance to miss in the same situation. Therefore, no matter what people say, I don’t think it will make a difference.
Terminology Changes
Manu: It’s something that will be awkward in the beginning, but it doesn’t make any difference as far as strategy is concerned, so I don’t really care about it. And we’ll get used to it pretty fast anyway.
Shuhei: I actually think it makes a big difference, because all players are confusing the words such as” play,” “comes into play,” ” when you play a spell,” “end of turn,” “until the end of turn,” etc. I think the new wording will save many misunderstandings in International events.
Mana Burn
Oli: What about the mana burn? I feel like I am the only one who’ll miss that.
Manu: First of all, R.I.P. Spectral Searchlight. Then again, I don’t think it has a big impact, as I think neither me nor an opponent of mine has taken mana burn in a year.
Shuhei:I feel sad about it… I like tap to opponent’s lands outside their main phases.
Oli: It’s true that if your opponent is free to take any mana in response to a land tapping – through Mistbind Clique, Opposition, or even to an Upheaval – those cards will be less efficient. And there are many other cards (Pulse of the Fields, Mana Drain) with power levels that change a lot. Also, once in a while I tap too much mana on purpose when casting a spell versus Blue decks. This way, they can pay the wrong mana for Broken Ambitions or Condescend, or even play Mana Leak when I can pay. That play has won me a lot of games online, even though I have almost never done it in real life, as I think it’s pretty lame and doesn’t help to form a clear understanding of the game for both players. But at least, if the opponent did realize what I was doing, or if he didn’t have the counter, I would take burn. It was just a gamble. Now I fear everyone will take extra mana on purpose when playing spells.
Manu: Yeah… you will always have to ask: “how much mana in your pool?”
Oli: If you must ask this on every spell, it’s gonna take forever.
Manu: True, true, true…
Deathtouch And Lifelink
Oli: Now here is another interesting change, which concerns deathtouch and lifelink.
Shuhei: I’m glad about the lifelink change, as double or triple lifelink made for some quite rude games. Concerning deathtouch, I think the change only makes it more confusing.
Oli: Agreed. Most of the new rules are not necessarily good, but they are at least simpler for new players, and more intuitive. However, I don’t really get why trample would change the way the ability works.
Lifelink is an ability that should, in theory, be defensive. However, cards like Rhox War Monk were mostly used to attack, as the ability was triggered. With the new rules, you can be on 3 life and be attacked by three 2/2 creatures. If Rhox War Monk blocks one you’ll go to 2 and not to -1 anymore. It means the ability, and therefore cards such as Behemoth Sledge and the 3/4, get better. However, Battlegrace Angel, now that Lifelink isn’t cumulative, gets worse in the meantime.
Concerning Deathtouch, one tech could be to sideboard cards such as Bant Battlemage against it. Let’s say your opponent attacks with Kederekt Creeper and your board is Cylian Elf , Matca Rioters (2/2), and Bant Battlemage. You should in theory lose two guys, but if you double-block with the Rioters and the Elf, and use your Battlemage to give his guy Trample, it will automatically have to deal lethal damage to one of your guys and let the other survive. It may not be very intuitive, but at least is it a new tricky type of play. [Gonna need confirmation on this one… – Craig.]
Let’s talk about the big deal…
Damage On The Stack
Manu: It takes away lots of good plays in the game. Cards like Mogg Fanatic or Siege-Gang Commander get worse.
Oli: The alterations we’ve discussed so far will change the face of the game a little, but they only are minor changes as they will modify our perception of the cards more than the way we will play them. However, the stack change is the only one that will affect both the quality of the cards and the way you will have to play them.
Manu: It doesn’t change Constructed that much. However, the impact on Limited is huge.
Oli: As a matter of fact, I fear it makes most of the games less skill intensive.
Manu: Yeah, I completely agree. You just have far fewer options.
Shuhei: Players are familiar with using the “before damage on the stack” or “after damage on the stack” indicator; it’s a pretty bad change for me.
Oli: I’ve always liked Limited more than Constructed, even though it’s a little more random format (such as your mana draws, booster pulls, etc), because it requests that you battle with highest level of skills needed in the game. One of the most fascinating aspects about Limited is how you can neutralize the opponents’ top cards with cards they’ve passed once or twice in the draft. Those cards are usually tricks. Even though they were getting less numerous and less powerful lately, seeing them becoming plain bad really saddens me. They will now have to be played before damage, so any removal will mean two-for-ones against you.
In order to try and avoid that, you’ll have to play a little differently. For instance, when your 3/2 fights their 2/2, don’t even try to save it. Just let it die, and keep your Giant Growth for a better opportunity (such as saving a guy from Red removal, or to kill a bigger guy, or to finish the opponent off). Concerning prevention spells: the problem is even more annoying as they are just pointless if you hold them, as they are less flexible than pump spells. Just don’t play them anymore, unless they are amazing.
What if you have Dawnray Archers and your opponent attacks you with a pair of Nacatl Savages? You can assume he has a pump spell, so instead of pinging one of them before damage and taking 3 or 4 more damage, just wait for damage to resolve and, finally, at the end of combat, shoot one of their guys.
Unfortunately, as combat tricks globally get a lot worse, I feel like Constructed will be the best format in Magic… and as I am not a huge fan of Constructed, this is a very bad news to me.
Shuhei: I agree. I like Limited more, and I really hope R&D is making more interesting cards to go along with the new rules.
Manu: If they could avoid an all Gold expansion, or a reprint of the Cascade mechanic, that would be fine by me.
Oli: At least I’m glad Cascade didn’t appear in Kamigawa Block. Umezawa’s Jitte would probably have had it.
More seriously, I think they will make cards that make mana burn less important (no more Pulse of the Fields or Spectral Searchlight anymore). Concerning damage on the stack, every time damage will resolve, I will think to myself “it was better before”. Also, I think, and hope, the trick cards are going to change a lot from now on. In the form they are at the moment, they are not that great anymore. However, they can become efficient again if they evolve. For instance, Healing Salve is pretty bad at the moment, but a card like Gallantry would compensate for the risks of making a one-for-two trade by making a two-for-one just as often. If trick cards can get to another level (just like they could in the Invasion block, for instance), the stack damage suppression may be not that bad.
Overall Feelings On The Announcement
Manu: I am not a huge fan. Maybe I am wrong, but the game seems to move more towards a luck based, than a skill based.
Oli: I fear I must agree on that. I fear “simpler” doesn’t necessarily mean “better.” I mean, the game is complicated anyway, the stack damage is just one of the hundred things you must learn in order to understand how it works. This is all quite confusing…
The global idea of making Magic the Game more intuitive is pretty good, but the damage on the stack thing is different. Yes, it will make the game easier to understand, but it won’t make that much of a difference for people who are only aiming at having fun with the game, while it seems quite disastrous for the competitive players.
It’s pretty obvious that Wizards’s main concern at the moment is selling booster packs and acquiring new players over making improvements to Organized Play, but the last few months (as far as tournaments of all levels, non-communication, and Cascade are concerned) have pushed away so many existing players that I can hardly believe such changes will make the number of players increase.
Manu: For beginners, simple is better… However, it doesn’t apply to the players that actually try to have as skillful a game as possible.
Shuhei: The stack system looks still okay. I hope somehow this change will have a good influence for Magic in general, and stirs a crop of new players into action.
Oli: You sure are one optimistic man! I guess it’s the right attitude. As we don’t have much else to say, let’s just hope and pray these changes don’t affect the game half as much as I think it will. As I loved the game before 6th edition, I guess I’ll learn to love it again when I get used to it. Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your time.
Manu: You’re welcome!
Shuhei: It is always a pleasure!
Until next time…
Oli (and Manu and Shuhei)