Subject: [ISSUE] 6E rules - a different view
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:41:17 +0100
From: malinder@algonet.se
To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

To all whom it may concern.

The new 6E-rules is causing a great stir in the magic-community. People
seem to speculate, curse and scream out their opinion just as
loudly as before P. Adkinson wrote his explanation of the new rules. Let's
take a look at commonly used arguments against these new
rules:

1. No more Interrupts

One of the most common arguments against this is that counterspells would
be useless. I know, it can be hard to understand that people
can be that stupid, but they are. Of course, since Adkinsons explanation,
the use of this argument has lessened significantly (thank God).

Popular opinions now are for example:

"Interrupts aren't complex at all, everyone understands them". If you say
this, you are only showing that you do in fact not understand
them completely yourself. Interrupts are more complicated than just casting
a spell and then interrupting it, although those situations don't
come up as much in play. I estimate that less than 10% of tournament
players have a full grasp of the rules for interrupts.

"Certain cards, like Power Sink and Interdict, would be weakened". Well,
sure they would. But this is not the first time a rules-change
has altered the power of a card, so what's the problem this time? And
besides, the weakening of Power Sink would be less than marginal.

"The Zuran Orb-Armageddon trick will be too risky". Can someone please
explain to me what's bad with this? Calculating risks with
each play should be a central part of the game. Sacrifice as many lands as
you dare...

"The timing will be too complicated". I can't for the life of me understand
this one. Instants are far easier to resolve than
interrupts/instants mixed. Just use the LIFO rule, and nothing can go wrong.

2. No Damage Prevention phase

Emphasis on *phase*. You will still be able to prevent damage, just not in
an extra phase. So please do not give me arguments like "All
COP:s will be useless!".
There is one imporant thing to bear in mind. No one knows how this will
work. Don't come up with ridicoulus contructed examples of
how you think it will work, and then complain about how bad it is. Wait and
see. If you still think it sucks when they explain it, complain
then.

3. Tapped artifacts no longer shut off

Common arguments:

"Waah! My Icy/Winter Orb combo is wrecked!". Don't worry kid, they'll
probably errata Worb so it'll work as before. And even if they
don't, what's the problem? Just when it the last time you saw a situation
with this rule in effect? Icy/Worb is soo hot...

"Removing the rule takes away variety". In fact, the opposite effect. Now,
the R&D can *choose* wether or not the artifact should work
when tapped. With the rule, it's always the same. How's that for variety?

I say, why does artifacts shut off but not creatures, lands and
enchantments? The rule is completely illogical, and should therefore go. As
simple as that. It's rules like that which makes the game hard to learn for
beginners. Not that it's hard to understand, but it adds to the
quantity of rules that must be learned. There is absolutely *no*
disadvantage with printing it on the card instead.

Summary:

Most people bitch about these changes just because they are just that;
changes. I doubt there is a more conservative person than a
gamer. Wouldn't you complain about new rules that made the game more
complicated, too?

"Everything should be just like it is now. I don't want changes."

No one really says this, but I believe that's what they think.

If it really is the simplification, and not the changes, you were against,
how do you like this rules-addition (I'll mail it to Adkinson as a
suggestion for 6E):
---
Sorceries can now be tapped as a fast effect after they are successfully
cast. This changes the target of the sorcery to any other tapped
card in play, provided the new card was *not* a legal target before.
The other player may counter this tapping of the sorcery by responding to
it and then interrupt the spell he responded with. If he does
not interrupt it, the first player may do so and by this untapping all his
creatures in play. The creatures are, however, only untapped is the
half their total power exceeds the number of artifacts in play at your
opponents side, all artifacts currently being targeted not counted.

A new phase is added between untap and upkeep. It's called "rewind" and has
the following effect:
As a phase effect, you may tap a permanent to tap another one of your
opponets'. The permanent being tapped as a cost must differ
from the one tapped as the effect as following:
If the permanent tapped as cost is an artifact, you may only target creatures.
Cost: Creature - Target: Enchantment
Cost: Enchantment - Target: Land/Enchantment depending on color of the
enchantment, read more in the "advanced play"-section
Cost: Land - Target: Creatures with less thoughness than 3/Artifacts with
casting-cost more than 1
---

All these rules could be used, if it's really complex rules we want.
However, I prefer playablility. The strategy/complexity should lie in the
cards, not the rules.

Thank you for reading,
David Linder
malinder@algonet.se