Magic 2010 Rules Changes
As we set out to create the forthcoming Magic 2010 core set-which is a
completely new approach to the core set ideal, as announced earlier this
year-we opened up everything about how we make Magic cards to scrutiny in an
attempt to make that set, and the game as a whole, more accessible.
Every Magic set we release-perhaps each individual card-adds complexity to
the game. New terms are introduced, new bits of lingo, new names to
memorize, new potential gameplay scenarios that hadn't existed before. This
"complexity creep" is all but impossible to stop; it is the nature of a game
with ever-expanding content. Just because we can't stop the constant
addition, however, doesn't mean that we shouldn't take occasional long hard
looks at everything and try to find ways to strip complexity out of the
system. As we can't "unprint" cards, the best way to accomplish that goal is
through updating the rules-clearing out and cleaning up overly confusing
bits.
Magic's rules haven't gone under any radical changes in a decade; the last
big shift was attached to the release of the Classic Sixth Edition core set
in 1999. With all the re-imagining we put into Magic 2010, we took time to
reexamine the rules as well. While the changes we arrived at don't approach
the scope of the Sixth Edition rules changes, we did find room for
improvement in a few fundamental areas.
The Sixth Edition changes were meant to bring order to a disordered system.
Our goal this time was much more subtle-to change the most unintuitive parts
of game play such that players' first instincts were more often correct.
Because Magic is a game most often played without access to a rulebook,
players without contact with our fine network of judges often have to make
decisions regarding how they think the game operates on the fly, and we want
them to get things right more often than they get them wrong.
To figure out exactly where the problems were, we got into the mind of the
casual player-not the player knee-deep in regular sanctioned play or Magic
Online, but rather the one who plays our game at home, at school, or at the
small local shop. We drew upon our own experiences and those of our
co-workers. We ran focus tests. We went out in the field and played against
such players-players who love, love, love Magic but don't have the need or
desire to devote themselves to learning all the ins and outs of the rules.
So why is it important to make sure these players' intuition is most often
correct? Aren't they content playing with their own messy version of the
rules? They are-up to a point, and that point is when they leave their
circles and joins the larger, more rules-compliant crowd. Maybe it happens
at Friday Night Magic, or a Prerelease, or a convention. Maybe new players
enter the group. However it happens, we want to make sure those players
don't find out they've been doing it all wrong, find out the game doesn't
make as much sense as they thought, find out that they don't like the way
the rules really work.
All of the following changes-there are seven of note, some with multiple
relevant pieces-have been tested rigorously here in R&D and by other Magic
players of all varieties here at the company in many play formats, ranging
from Sealed Deck to Standard to Elder Dragon Highlander to the forthcoming
Planechase format. The biggest surprise was how often we played our games
without noticing anything different. The new rules came up in every game,
but in most situations, they were covered by the same shortcuts people
currently use during any given game of Magic. In situations where we did
zoom in past the shortcuts and encounter the changes, all involved parties
generally agreed that the new way felt natural.
We don't do this flippantly; we don't do it often. We want nothing but
continued success and growth for the game that we all love playing, and
sometimes that means making changes. Some of the games you play will end
differently because of the new rules. Some of your cards will become
slightly more or less powerful. In the end, the game will be just as deep
and skill-based as before, and it will be more intuitive and understandable
going forward.
These rules changes go into effect on July 11, 2009 (the first day of Magic
2010 Prerelease events) and are scheduled to take effect on Magic Online on
July 29.
Rules manager Mark Gottlieb will be assisting me in outlining the seven
changes and how they affect game play. His sections have a blue background.
1) Simultaneous Mulligans
The Reality: Outside of tournament play, most players do not obey the
by-the-book protocol for handling mulligans in which one player resolves all
of his or her mulligans before the next player resolves any of his. Instead,
players mulligan more or less at the same time.
The Fix: Mulligans will now officially be handled simultaneously. This will
significantly cut down on time spent shuffling before each tournament game.
The Details: The procedure will work like this. Starting with the player who
will take the first turn of the game and proceeding in turn order around the
table, each player announces whether he or she will take a mulligan or not.
Then everyone who said they would take a mulligan does so at the same time.
(If no one's taking a mulligan, the game proceeds onward.)
If any players took a mulligan, then just those players repeat the process
to see if any of them will take a second mulligan: First they announce yes
or no, then all the yeses shuffle and redraw at the same time. This
continues among the mulliganers until everyone's satisfied with their
starting hands.
Once you decide you're not taking a mulligan, your starting hand is locked
in. You can't jump back into the mulligan process later.
2) Terminology Changes
While Magic is full of flavorful and resonant terms (graveyard, library,
spell, sorcery, combat, etc.), some of our terminology is generic, vague,
and/or misleading. We are making four distinct terminology changes, both in
printed card sets going forward and in Oracle, to make the game both clearer
and more evocative.
2A) Battlefield
The Reality: Some players are confused by the subtle difference between
"play" and "put into play." The name "in-play zone" breaks the metaphor the
rest of the game tries to establish.
The Fix: The in-play zone is renamed the "battlefield," which brings it in
line with other flavorful zone names like "graveyard" and "library."
Permanents now "enter the battlefield" or are "put onto the battlefield" as
opposed to "come into play" or "put into play."
The Details: As you may expect, this will require errata on roughly
thirty-eight bazillion cards. (Over two thousand, at least.) A lot of cards
say "in play," "to play," or "into play" on them! However, this is a
straight-up terminology swap. No cards have functionality changes as a
result of this.
One thing to keep in mind is that, as Aaron stated, "When this creature
enters the battlefield" is the equivalent of "When this creature comes into
play." This kind of ability triggers when the creature it's on hits the
table, not when it enters combat.
2B) Cast, Play, and Activate
The Reality: Again, some players are confused by the subtle difference
between "play" and "put into play." The term "cast" was retired from game
rules at the time of Classic Sixth Edition for reasons I no longer believe
are relevant-to streamline the rules and condense the number of terms down
at the cost of flavor. Most players today who played pre-Sixth (and some who
didn't!) still use the term "cast." It makes sense for spells to be "cast"
as opposed to "played."
The Fix: "Cast" is being reinstated as the verb used when referring to the
act of playing spells or types of spells. "Play" is being kept as the verb
associated with lands (and with cards of unspecified types). Activated
abilities are also no longer "played" but rather "activated."
The Details: This change will also require a lot of errata, but there won't
be any functional changes. We're only changing the words.
To illustrate Aaron's point, a ton of players were confused about the
interaction between Phage the Untouchable and Elvish Piper. Here are their
Tenth Edition wordings:
Elvish Piper: , : You may put a creature card from your hand into play.
Phage's first ability: When Phage the Untouchable comes into play, if you
didn't play it from your hand, you lose the game.
The distinction between playing a card from your hand and putting a card
into play from your hand was subtle to the point of unintelligibility. We
want people other than Level 3 judges to be able to understand the game.
Here's what the wordings of these cards will become:
Elvish Piper: , : You may put a creature card from your hand onto the
battlefield.
Phage's first ability: When Phage the Untouchable enters the battlefield, if
you didn't cast it from your hand, you lose the game.
Much better. In the new world, you'll play lands, cast spells, activate
abilities, and play cards that might be lands or spells (as with Mind's
Desire).
2C) Exile
The Reality: "Removed from the game" is increasingly a misnomer as we design
more cards that use the removed-from-the-game zone as a temporary holding
cell for cards that are very much still in the game. Like the "in-play
zone," the name "removed-from-the-game zone" does a poor job of maintaining
the game's fantasy metaphor.
The Fix: The phrase "remove from the game" is being changed to "exile,"
which is shorter, more flavorful, and not at all misleading about actually
being in the game. The zone is now called the "exile zone" and cards in it
will be referred to as "exiled cards."
The Details: This is, for the most part, another cut-and-paste terminology
change. Every card that removes something from the game, from Jester's Cap
to Astral Slide to Identity Crisis, will be getting errata to use the word
"exile" instead. But none of these cards are functionally changing.
However, the acknowledgment that this zone is, in fact, fully within the
game does bring about functional changes to the six Wishes, Ring of Ma'rûf,
and the Research half of Research // Development. These cards let you get
cards from "outside the game," which has been ruled to include your card
collection (in casual games), your sideboard (in tournament games), and the
removed-from-the-game zone. That's no longer the case. Exiled cards are not
outside the game (and you could argue that they never really were), so these
cards will no longer be able to access cards in that zone. Their primary
functionality-getting cards from your collection or sideboard-remains
unchanged, of course.
2D) Beginning of the End Step
The Reality: The subtle but important difference between the phrases "at end
of turn" and "until end of turn" in our card templates is a constant source
of confusion for players. "At end of turn" really means "at the beginning of
the end-of-turn step," which is not the actual end of the turn. In fact, it
is often strategically correct to take certain actions during the
end-of-turn step after "at end of turn" triggers are processed, which many
players have trouble wrapping their heads around. Compounding this is the
fact that "until end of turn" effects, like that of Giant Growth, last until
the actual end of the turn.
The Fix: This one didn't involve the creation of any new terminology.
Instead, it involves a minor rules update (changing the name of the
"end-of-turn step" to the "end step") and a change in how we are templating
cards. We will now refer to the time when such triggers happen as what it
actually is: "at the beginning of the end step." Hopefully this will more
clearly convey the existence of a window in the turn after these triggers
occur during which more spells and abilities can be used. "Until end of
turn" will still be used for effects with durations such as Giant Growth.
The Details: Indeed. This way, "at the beginning of the end step" triggers
will more closely match "at the beginning of upkeep" triggers. Once again,
no cards are functionally changing. We're just issuing errata, and changing
card wordings going forward, so they more clearly convey what their
functionality actually is.
There's a further change that escaped our notice before the Magic 2010 set
was printed, but it'll be implemented on new cards starting with the
Zendikar set. Where this issue gets really confusing is when a spell or
ability that resolves during the end step has an "at end of turn" delayed
triggered ability appended to it. Rakdos Guildmage's second ability is a
perfect example. Here's what it says currently:
Rakdos Guildmage's second ability: : Put a 2/1 red Goblin creature token
with haste into play. Remove it from the game at end of turn.
It boggles the mind that if you activate this ability during the end step,
after "at end of turn" triggers have already triggered, that you'd get to
keep the token through nearly the entire next turn. This was called the
"end-of-turn loophole," and it wasn't a problem for power reasons-it was a
problem because it was ridiculously unintuitive. I think that confusion is
alleviated not only by using the new template, but by adding the word "next"
within it, like so:
Rakdos Guildmage's second ability: : Put a 2/1 red Goblin creature token
with haste into play. Remove it from the game at the beginning of the next
end step.
That makes so much more sense it makes my toes curl. But that covers just
one of the changes to this ability's wording. When it's fully updated, it'll
really look like this:
Rakdos Guildmage's second ability: : Put a 2/1 red Goblin creature token
with haste onto the battlefield. Exile it at the beginning of the next end
step.
Now that's an ability!
3) Mana Pools and Mana Burn
3A) Mana Pools Emptying
The Reality: Many players can't clearly distinguish between phases and
steps. The fact that mana remains in pools from step to step but not phase
to phase is arbitrary. The concept of floating mana from step to step is
hard to understand. Mana pools, in general, should be empty most of the time
that players pass priority for ease of keeping track of the game state.
The Fix: Mana pools now empty at the end of each step and phase, which means
mana can no longer be floated from the upkeep to the draw step, nor from the
declare attackers step to the declare blockers step of combat.
The Details: This is mostly a change on the rules side. Currently, rule
300.3 of the Comprehensive Rules says "When a phase ends (but not a step),
any unused mana left in a player's mana pool is lost." That'll change to
"When a step or phase ends, any unused mana left in a player's mana pool is
lost." A few cards, such as Upwelling and Sakura-Tribe Springcaller, will
get minor errata to their "mana doesn't empty from mana pools" abilities
just to specify that the mana doesn't empty when steps end either. Other
cards affected by this change, such as Radha, Heir to Keld and Braid of
Fire, will not receive errata.
3B) Mana Burn Eliminated
The Reality: Many players aren't aware of the existence of mana burn as a
game concept. Discovering it exists, especially via an opponent manipulating
his own life total for gain, can be jarring. Its existence impacts game play
in a negligible way, whereas its existence impacts card design space
somewhat significantly.
The Fix: Mana burn is eliminated as a game concept. Mana left unspent at the
end of steps or phases will simply vanish, with no accompanying loss of
life.
The Details: It turns out that eliminating mana burn from the game is
surprisingly easy. I delete three sentences from rule 300.3, strike the
glossary entry, and modify a few other rules that mention mana burn, and
it's gone. Six cards will get errata to delete their references to mana
burn, since "This mana doesn't cause mana burn" text will be pretty
redundant all of a sudden.
What happens during a game? Let's say Heartbeat of Spring is in play, and
you add four mana to your mana pool, but you spend only three of it. At the
end of the current step or phase, the extra mana vanishes. That's it. No
penalty; it's just gone.
By my reckoning, the elimination of mana burn will functionally impact about
40 cards, some for the better and some for the worse, some directly and some
indirectly, because no cards are getting errata as a result of this rules
change. That's right: We're not maintaining current functionality for these
cards; the whole point of getting rid of the mana burn rule is to get rid of
the mana burn rule.
Some examples of cards that will work differently:
.Cathodion, Tolarian Academy, and Mana Drain are better, since there's now
no drawback to adding unspendable mana to your mana pool.
.Spectral Searchlight and Valleymaker are worse, since you can't use them to
cause your opponent to mana burn.
.Spur Grappler and Well of Discovery are better, since you can basically tap
all of your lands for free now.
.Citadel of Pain is worse, since your opponent can basically tap all of his
or her lands for free now.
.Hidetsugu's Second Rite is better, since your opponent can't dodge a life
total of 10 by mana burning down to 9.
.Magus of the Mirror, Convalescent Care, and Pulse of the Forge are worse,
since you can't intentionally (and easily) mana burn yourself down to a low
life total.
In 99.9% of Magic games, of course, you'll never even notice mana burn is
gone.
4) Token Ownership
The Reality: The current "token ownership" rule is poorly understood, mainly
because it doesn't make a ton of sense. Currently, the owner of a token is
"the controller of the effect that put it into play." That means I own the
tokens put into play under your control due to my Hunted Dragon or Forbidden
Orchard, which allows me to do unintuitive tricks with cards like Brand or
Warp World. Few people are aware of this rule, and assume that the owner of
the tokens is the player under whose control they entered the battlefield.
The Fix: We are matching most players' expectation by changing the rule such
that the owner of a token is, in fact, the player under whose control it
entered the battlefield.
The Details: The rules change is as Aaron described it. As for the
ramifications, there are three kinds of situations when this rule comes up:
1.When someone is trying to exploit it. (Sorry, Warp Worlders.)
2.When a naturally occurring game situation makes it matter who owns a
token. This is pretty darn unusual. For example, my Hunted Lammasu creates a
token under your control, I Repeal the token, and one of us controls Azorius
Æthermage. Whose hand did that token return to? Under the old rule, mine;
under the new rule, yours. But without that Æthermage on the battlefield, it
doesn't actually matter.
3.In a multiplayer game. My Hunted Lammasu creates a token under your
control, then I lose the game. Under the old rule, I take my token with me
when I leave the game. Under the new rule, it stays right where it is.
5) Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack
The Reality: The intricate system via which combat is currently handled
creates many unintuitive gameplay moments. For starters, "the stack" is a
difficult concept, even after all these years, so it is no wonder that many
players go about combat without invoking it at all. Second, creatures
disappearing after damage has been put on the stack leads to a ton of
confusion and disbelief: How is that Mogg Fanatic killing two creatures? How
did that creature kill mine but make your Nantuko Husk big enough to
survive? How can you Unsummon your creature and have it still deal damage?
While many of us may be used to the way things are now, it makes no sense in
terms of a game metaphor and only a bit more sense as a rule.
The Fix: As soon as damage is assigned in the combat damage step, it is
dealt. There is no time to cast spells and activate abilities in between;
the last time to do so prior to damage being dealt is during the declare
blockers step.
This was a particularly tricky change to implement, as it had the potential
to create bad experiences in situations where double blocking occurs and the
defending player has access to a damage prevention ability (or anything
similar). If damage was prevented to one creature, the attacker would just
kill the other, which is unintuitive. Players expect to be able to use their
healing spells to save creatures that are actually going to die. To solve
problems like these, during the declare blockers step, if a creature is
blocked by multiple creatures, the attacker immediately announces an order
in which that attacking creature will be assigning damage to the blockers.
When it comes time to actually deal the damage, lethal damage must be
assigned to the first blocker before any can be assigned to the second, and
so on. Now, in complex combat situations there will be some foreknowledge of
which creatures are in the most danger before damage is dealt.
This is not as sweeping as it sounds. In the majority of cases, creatures
attack, creatures block, and combat looks the same way it did before-minus
the chance for counterintuitive tricks after "damage on." The majority of
the explanation below covers multiple blocks.
The Details: This changes what happens during the declare blockers step and
what happens during the combat damage step.
Combat Phase
.Beginning of combat step
.Declare attackers step
.Declare blockers step
.Combat damage step
.End of combat step
The first thing that happens during the declare blockers step is that the
defending player (big surprise!) declares blockers. This works the same as
before, with an addition. If multiple creatures block the same attacker, the
attacking player orders those blockers to show which is first in line for
that attacker's damage, which is second, and so on. This is all part of the
"declare blockers" action. Once that's done, players can cast spells and
activate abilities.
The first thing that happens during the combat damage step is that combat
damage is assigned. If an attacker is blocked by multiple creatures, the
attacking player can divide its combat damage among them. The player starts
by assigning damage to the first blocking creature in line. If that creature
is assigned lethal damage, further damage may be assigned to that creature
and/or the next one in line. If lethal damage is assigned to the second one,
the attacking player can move on to the third, and so on. This works very
similarly to trample.
So ... what is "lethal damage"? For the purposes of damage assignment,
"lethal damage" is the amount of damage necessary for a creature to be
destroyed, ignoring all abilities and damage prevention effects. In other
words, it's that creature's toughness minus any damage that's already been
dealt to it or that is simultaneously being assigned to it. It doesn't
matter whether that creature has protection, is indestructible, will prevent
the next 8 damage that would be dealt to it, etc.
Even though you announce your damage assignments sequentially, the
assignment process is treated as though it's simultaneous. It's like
declaring attackers or blockers: A player announces what he or she will do,
then the whole shebang is checked to see if it's legal. If it's not, it's
all wiped out, the game backs up, and the player starts again. Once everyone
has announced legal damage assignment schemes, the damage is immediately
(and simultaneously) dealt. Then state-based effects are checked, so
creatures that have actually been dealt lethal damage are destroyed.
Finally, players can cast spells and activate abilities.
If you want to activate regeneration abilities, cast damage prevention
spells, pump your creature's toughness, or do any other kinds of combat
tricks, you now need to do so during the declare blockers step. At that
time, combat is deterministic enough to give you a good idea of what's
coming. You'll be able to tell whether you need to regenerate your blocker,
for example.
The declare blockers step is also the time you need to determine whether you
want to Unsummon a creature, sacrifice Mogg Fanatic, sacrifice a creature to
pump up Nantuko Husk, or the like. An important aspect of the new combat
damage system is that only creatures that are still on the battlefield-and
still in combat-get to deal combat damage. A creature can no longer start to
swing its fist to punch, vanish from the battlefield, and then have that
punch land.
This new system has a number of corner cases associated with it. I'll touch
on a few here.
.If a creature has the ability to block multiple attackers, and does so, it
uses the same order-and-assign system for dividing its damage among those
attackers. In this case, the defending player orders the attacking
creatures.
.If multiple creatures are blocking an attacker and one of them leaves
combat, the relative order of the other creatures doesn't change.
.If one or more creatures is blocking an attacker and a new creature enters
the battlefield blocking that attacker (I'm thinking of Flash Foliage), the
attacking player inserts the new creature into the existing order wherever
he or she wants. It can be first, last, or somewhere in between. The
relative order of the other creatures doesn't change.
Let's look at an example. I attack Aaron with a 10/10 Skyshroud Behemoth.
Aaron blocks with Angel of Mercy, Wall of Swords, a Standing Troops that's
already been dealt 2 damage this turn, Suntail Hawk, and Savannah Lions.
That's how I order them.
During the declare blockers step, I cast Terror to destroy Wall of Swords,
Aaron casts Shelter to give Angel of Mercy protection from green, Aaron
activates Ghost Warden's ability to give Suntail Hawk +1/+1, and Aaron casts
Bandage to prevent the next 1 damage that would be dealt to Suntail Hawk.
During the combat damage step, I start by assigning the Behemoth's damage to
Angel of Mercy. I can assign anywhere from 3 to 10. Since all the damage
will be prevented, I choose to assign the minimum, which is just 3. Next is
Standing Troops. Since it's already been damaged, just 2 more is lethal, so
that seems like a good number. Then comes Suntail Hawk. I need to assign
just 2 damage, but I might as well assign 3 so it'll be destroyed. Finally
comes Savannah Lions. I have 2 damage left to assign. The Behemoth doesn't
have trample, so I can't assign any of its damage to Aaron-it's all got to
be assigned to the creatures blocking it. I assign 2 damage to the Lions,
even though that's more than enough to destroy it. The blockers that are
still in combat assign a total of 8 damage to the Behemoth, then all damage
is dealt. Standing Troops, Suntail Hawk, and Savannah Lions are destroyed.
That may have seemed really complicated. But let's look at that again. After
I Terror the Wall, the Behemoth is being blocked by four creatures. The
Behemoth has 10 power. It takes only 9 power to assign enough damage to kill
all the blockers, even though the one with protection won't die. So I do.
We know this will take some getting used to. Not only is it the biggest
single change to the rules, but it actively makes cards such as Mogg Fanatic
worse. (Or, if you prefer, it returns Mogg Fanatic to its original
functionality. Combat damage didn't use the stack when Tempest was
released.)
We've been playing with this change for months, and we've found that the
first part of the change (having combat damage not use the stack) is a
positive move for the game as a whole, and the second part of the change
(doing different things with double blocking) comes up amazingly
infrequently. That's the more complex part of the change, but it matters
only when there's a double block, someone has a combat trick, and the
situation falls somewhere between "kill all blockers" and "kill just one
blocker."
6) Deathtouch
The Reality: There are two problems with deathtouch. One, the fact that it
is a triggered ability leads to instances where a single creature needs to
regenerate twice from a single source with deathtouch, which is
unnecessarily hard to intuit. Second, the deathtouch ability as currently
worded doesn't work well under the new combat rules. If a creature with
deathtouch, like Kederekt Creeper, is double-blocked by two 3/3s, the new
rules wouldn't allow the division of damage between the blockers, which kind
of defeats the point of the card and fails to live up to expectations of how
deathtouch should function.
The Fix: First, deathtouch is becoming a static ability. Creatures dealt
damage by a source with deathtouch will be destroyed as a state-based effect
at the same time lethal damage would kill them. As a side effect, multiple
instances of deathtouch will no longer be cumulative. Second, deathtouch
allows a double-blocked creature to ignore the new damage assignment rules
and split its damage among any number of creatures it's in combat with
however its controller wants to.
The Details: I'm going to start on a tangent. The game continually checks
for certain messy game conditions, and then immediately deals with them to
clean up the game state. For example, if an Aura is on the battlefield but
not attached to anything (because the enchanted creature went away), the
Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. If more than one legendary permanent
with the same name is on the battlefield, they're all put into their owners'
graveyards. If a player has 0 or less life, that player loses the game.
There are more, and these results are called "state-based effects." I like
to think of the game constantly checking for, and scrubbing out, these messy
conditions as the Magic equivalent of the fleet of automatic cleaning robots
that silently sweeps through my subterranean lair every few seconds or so.
The next edition of the Comprehensive Rulebook will contain a new
state-based effect, which I'll paraphrase here: "A creature that's been
dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based
effects were checked is destroyed." As Aaron stated, this is the same
process that the game uses to destroy a creature that's been dealt lethal
damage. The two events will now look exactly the same.
There are two ramifications to this. First, if you want to regenerate your
creature (or bounce it, or sacrifice it, or whatever), you better do so
before it's dealt damage by a source with deathtouch. The grace period that
used to exist while the deathtouch triggered ability was waiting to resolve
is gone. Once that damage has been dealt, state-based effects will wipe out
that creature immediately. Again, this is the same thing that happens if
your creature is dealt lethal damage.
Second, if your creature is dealt lethal damage by a source with deathtouch
(for example, if Drudge Skeletons is blocking Moonglove Winnower), a single
regeneration shield is enough to keep it alive. Two state-based effects are
trying to kill the Skeletons (one that deals with lethal damage and one that
deals with damage from a source with deathtouch). Since all state-based
effects are processed simultaneously, one regeneration effect will cover
them both.
The new rules care whether a damage source has deathtouch, which leads to
notable changes in certain scenarios. Let's say a creature has both
deathtouch and a damage ability, like a Prodigal Pyromancer equipped with
Quietus Spike. If the ability is activated targeting a creature, but the
Pyromancer leaves the battlefield before it resolves, then the game
determines the characteristics of the damage source by checking its last
existence on the battlefield. If the Spike was still equipping the
Pyromancer at the time the Pyromancer left, then the source has deathtouch
(just like the source is red, and the source is a creature). The creature
that's dealt damage is destroyed. (Wither already works like this in similar
situations.) Under the old deathtouch rules, this wouldn't have happened
because deathtouch wouldn't be around to trigger.
Moving on to combat .... If a creature with deathtouch is blocked by
multiple creatures, the declare blockers step works the same way. The
attacking player still orders the blocking creatures to show which is first
in line for damage, which is second, and so on. The ordering is irrelevant
to the creature with deathtouch, but it's still done because the creature
might lose deathtouch before combat damage is assigned.
When it comes time to assign combat damage, a player can divide damage from
a creature with deathtouch as he or she chooses among any of the creatures
blocking or blocked by it. (If that seems familiar, that's how all creatures
operated under the old system.) You can ignore the ordering.
Let's look at an example. I attack Aaron with Moonglove Winnower, and he
blocks with Horned Turtle, Wizened Snitches, and Drudge Skeletons. I order
them like that. Now, during the declare blockers step, Aaron has to decide
whether or not to activate Drudge Skeletons's regeneration ability. He
doesn't know whether I'll assign damage to them, but he knows that I could.
Let's say he doesn't. When the combat damage step starts, I can divide
Moonglove Winnower's damage however I want among the blockers. Let's say I
have the Winnower assign 1 damage to the Snitches and 1 damage to the
Skeletons. As soon as combat damage is dealt, Wizened Snitches, Drudge
Skeletons, and Moonglove Winnower are all put into the graveyard at the same
time.
One last thing. Now that "deathtouch" no longer means "When [this permanent]
deals damage to a creature, destroy that creature," Cruel Deceiver and
Venomous Fangs will be getting errata to revert to their printed
functionalities. The rest of the deathtouch cards were actually printed with
the word deathtouch on them, so they'll change over to the new
functionality.
7) Lifelink
The Reality: The fact that lifelink is a triggered ability leads to
situations where the controller of a blocker with lifelink dies from combat
damage before lifelink can grant that player enough life to stay alive. Many
players get this interaction wrong; the subtle difference in timing is
unfortunate.
The Fix: Lifelink, like deathtouch, is turning into a static ability. If a
source with lifelink deals damage, its controller gains that much life as
that damage is being dealt. This brings the timing much closer to spells
like Consume Spirit and Lightning Helix. As a side effect, multiple
instances of lifelink are no longer cumulative.
The Details: As with deathtouch, this will incur functionality changes in
some cards and errata (actually, un-errata) in others. If a card was printed
with the word "lifelink" on it, its functionality will change to the new
lifelink. However, a bunch of cards were printed with the ability "Whenever
[this permanent] deals damage, you gain that much life" on them and got
errata to say "lifelink" a couple of years ago because the two abilities
were equivalent. Now that they're not, those cards will be reverted to their
original wordings. They'll work as printed ... but they won't have lifelink.
Only one card-Loxodon Warhammer-has been printed both ways. Since its most
recent printing says "lifelink," it will stick with that and have the new
functionality.
In my time as Rules Manager, I've added a few sections to the Comprehensive
Rules that I was surprised didn't previously exist. For example, I've added
a section called "Life" and one called "Drawing a Card." These sections
collect relevant rules that were previously scattered throughout the
rulebook, as well as including new rules on the subject. For the Magic 2010
rulebook update, I'll be creating a section on "Damage."
Damage is processed in two steps. There's no timing separation between these
steps; one immediately follows the other. They're separated just so
prevention and replacement effects can be processed correctly.
Step 1: Damage is dealt. Prevention and replacement effects that care about
damage apply here.
Step 2: Damage that's been dealt has its results. Replacement effects that
care about those results (like life loss or counters, for example) apply
here.
What are the results of damage? The list, updated through Magic 2010, is as
follows:
.Damage dealt to a player causes that player to lose that much life.
.Damage dealt to a planeswalker causes that many loyalty counters to be
removed from that planeswalker.
.Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither causes that many -1/-1
counters to be put on that creature.
.Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much
damage to remain on that creature.
.Damage dealt to anything by a source with lifelink causes that source's
controller to gain that much life, in addition to whatever other results the
damage has.
The fourth point is odd, since it doesn't seem to do anything. And, in some
sense, it doesn't. It just marks the creature with an invisible tag
indicating how much damage it's been dealt. The game keeps checking these
tags. If at any time the total amount of damage indicated by these tags
meets or exceeds that creature's toughness, the game (not the source of the
damage!) destroys it as a state-based effect. If the creature regenerates,
those tags are removed. As the turn ends, those tags are also removed.
The fifth point is what's changing about lifelink. Now the life gain is part
of the damage event. Let's say you're at 1 life, and you're attacked by a
pair of 2/2 creatures. You block one of them with a 3/3 creature with
lifelink, but you don't block the other one. As a result of the damage,
you'll lose 2 life and you'll gain 3 life at the exact same time (assuming
none of the creatures have first strike). You'll wind up at 2 life.
Just like deathtouch, the fact that the new rules care whether a damage
source has lifelink leads to notable changes in certain scenarios. Let's run
the same example. Say a creature has both lifelink and a damage ability,
like a Prodigal Pyromancer equipped with Loxodon Warhammer. If the ability
is activated targeting me, but the Pyromancer leaves the battlefield before
it resolves, then the game determines the characteristics of the damage
source by checking its last existence on the battlefield. If the Warhammer
was still equipping the Pyromancer at the time the Pyromancer left, then the
source has lifelink (just like the source is red, and the source is a
creature). The damage causes me to lose 1 life and the Pyromancer's
controller to gain 1 life. (Wither already works like this in similar
situations.) Under the old lifelink rules, this wouldn't have happened
because lifelink wouldn't be around to trigger.
The changes listed in this article aren't the only rules changes that are
taking place, but they're the most relevant ones to modern Magic play. The
rest include things like an update to banding to bring it into compliance
with the new combat damage rules, a radical streamlining of the phasing
rules that I've been working on, and various maintenance fixes deep behind
the scenes. More information will be made available about all these changes
as we near the rulebook's release date.
Can I Learn More?
I understand this is a lot to digest. These rules won't be going live for
another month, so there's plenty of time to process and discuss the changes.
Expect more content on this very site over the next few weeks about the
changes, both from our regular columnists and in our new judge column. Gurus
are available on our forums to answer rules questions, and you may also
contact our Game Support department if you need further answers.
I realize that some of these decisions will cause concern for our loyal and
enfranchised players. History alone indicates that will be the case; there
was a great deal of negativity from some quarters in response to the Sixth
Edition changes ten years ago. Players decried that the end was nigh and the
game would never recover. But most of us calmed down and learned the
changes, and now they're second nature to us. I anticipate this batch of
changes to go no differently. I am prepared to defend all of these decisions
and can say with a straight face, a clear conscience, and months of
firsthand experience that Magic will be improved as a result of them.
I hope you'll agree, and here's to not doing this again for another decade.
Scource: Daily MTG : Magic The Gathering Feature Article
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:45:48 +0100
author: NotC
|
