Subject: Re: Why 6E will not even injure MTG Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:17:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Barclay To: Frank Kusumoto I'm replying to Russell Linnemann's posting, mainly because it brought up nearly all the points that I keep seeing on the 6th Edition issue. The four rules changes discussed in Peter Adkison's letter to all Magic players are not the only four changes that will occur in 6th Edition. When the full set of rules are taken as one coherent document, it's easy to see that those four rules changes do make sense in the context of the other rules that have been improved. Please bear this in mind when you're discussing the 6th Edition changes. Also bear in mind the fact that most of the people involved in creating the 6th Edition rules have a salary that is only paid because the game of Magic: the Gathering exists. We're not going to kill the game, because that would lose us all our jobs. Which, as far as we're concerned, would be a Bad Thing (tm). > >Folks, there really isn't any secret here. We've been saying for a > >long time that our goal is to make Magic: the Gathering a classic > >game like Chess or Go. What makes Chess and Go classic is that they > >have very deep strategy while having relatively easy rules. I'm sure > >that many of you would agree that Magic has very deep strategy, while > >many of you would also agree that the rules are not easy. > > Trying to make MTG like chess and go is ludicrous. MTG, like every card > game I've seen, is a game of luck. There is strategy involved, > obviously, but when two players play perfectly, the outcome is > decided solely by luck. Technically, this is true in Chess, too (well, either that or the outcome will be a draw of some sort). Magic is in a completely different category of game than Chess for two reasons: 1. It's a proprietary game. Nobody else can make it. 2. The element of luck involved is identifiable. However, these reasons don't prevent it being a classic game. Monopoly, Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit are all classic games. All involve luck to some degree. Magic will end up in this category. The difference with Magic is that it has the potential to become even greater than these games, due to its incredible depth and complexity. Increasing the number of people that play is how this can happen. I'm looking forward to the day that it does. > >1. No more interrupts. This is true. But this doesn't mean that > >counterspells will go away. Counterspell and all other old interrupts > >will be played as instants. This has very little effect on game play. > > Oh, interrupts were SO complicated to begin with. I have NEVER heard a > new player complain that interrupts were in any way difficult to > understand or play correctly. That's because (a) most new players don't bother with Interrupts, and (b) the majority of people _think_ that they understand the parts of the rules that are percieved to be simpler, even if they don't actually understand them. Can you state _all_ the differences between playing Interrupts and playing Instants? > Saying this change has very little effect on game play is misleading at > best. Peter was 100% correct with that comment. This change will allow a spell to be countered after it has been responded to, but that's about the sum total of changes here. I'm afraid that you're going to have to take my word for this, though, as I can't give out any more details on this. > >2. No more Damage Prevention Phase. This is true, but it doesn't mean > >no more damage prevention. You'll still be able to play Healing Salve > >in response to my Lightning Bolt and prevent the damage. > > The damage prevention phase does get some questions, but it's not very > complicated. All that is needed is a clear explanation of when the > damage prevention phase is being entered. Damage prevention is _very_ complicated, compared to what it could be (why do different kinds of DP happen at different times, why do creatures die later than they should normally do, etc.). This rules change will not really affect gameplay at all, but it makes understanding the rules a whole lot easier. > >4. Tapped artifacts will function normally. (A tapped Winter Orb will > >still be turned on and have its normal effect.) This is true. We've > >decided to remove the rule from the rulebook and instead add it to the > >cards. Expect to see artifacts like "As long as this card is untapped, > >creatures can't attack." > > Why? Are the old cards going to get errata? This isn't hard to explain > to a new player. Untapped On, Tapped Off, the clapper. It's very difficult to explain the exceptions to this rule to new players. It's one of the ruless that I find hardest to explain to people, along with describing all the differences between Instants, Interrupts and Triggered Abilities. And yes, many old cards will recieve errata. > Nothing new is being added by the new rules, but a lot of old ideas > are going out the window. Can this be good for the game? Without hesitation, the answer is: Yes, it will be good for the game. The aim for 6th Edition has always been "removing confusion while retaining complexity". I know that this aim will be met. Oh, and the new rules definitely will add some new strategic options to the game. > Second, these changes aren't going to do much of anything except annoy > experienced players and confuse people who are in the middle of learning > the game. If you want to see what rules are misunderstood, read the > questions in Scrye and InQuest every issue. You really think that we don't do this? The people reviewing the 6th edition rules include Dave DeLaney (Usenet NetRep), Dan Gray (Judge list NetRep), Collin Jackson (Inquest Stumpers columnist), Bethmo (Rules Manager) and myself (MTG-L NetRep), as well as the WotC US customer service team, and the Magic: the Gathering development team. Between all of us, we have seen every single question that has ever been asked about Magic: the Gathering. We do have a very good idea of what rules are generally misunderstood. We also have a very good idea of the areas that are not misunderstood because they are too hard to grasp. > If you want to make MTG a simpler game to learn, then here are some > suggestions that are a whole lot better than gratuitously fiddling with > rules that weren't a problem to begin with. > > 1) Print a good rulebook. Let Dave DeLaney write it. Make sure it has > a glossary with every relevant term included. It will be. He is (along with the rest of us, and several other important people). It almost certainly will do. > 2) Check the cards before they are released. Lots of mistakes are > caught "in translation". This is inexcusable. I agree with you completely here. Mistakes can't be eradicated, but they can be minimised. A new process is being put into place at WotC to try to solve this (especially after all the problems with Anthologies). > 3) Template cards so that they can be written in plain english and > understood intuitively. Raze from US is a step in the right direction. Again, I agree with you (and I think that you will be pleased with the results in 6th Edition). We'll also be providing a full template guide for 6th Edition (If it's not in the rulebook, I'll be writing one myself). > >We are not trying to alter the game for the sake of fiddling or to > >cater to beginner players at the expense of our valued and loyal long > >time players and fans. I hope that players can understand and > >respect why we wouldn't want to introduce or discuss the rules > >changes at this time since it would cause confusion in the play > >environment. > > If you think that the MTG community (especially those who follow the > dojo and similar sites) would have been confused by discussion of > proposed rules changes, then you think we're a bunch of idiots, and I > don't appreciate that. I do think that the community would be confused by the discussion of the proposed rules changes. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. What would undoubtedly happen is that myself, Dave DeLaney, Dan Gray and Stephen D'Angelo would become utterly bogged down with endless questions about the rules set, and have no time to actually provide any input. Then, we'd change something, and the questions would happen all over again. > There is no good reason why these changes could not have > been proposed and commented on publicly. You would have gotten feedback > from 10,000 people about what they wanted. You would have gotten ideas > about how to make things work. Ideas are something that we have no shortage of. Choosing between the different ideas is what has taken up most of the time spent on this project. Note that almost no companies ask all of their customers to review the design or content of their new products. There are some very good reasons for this, mainly due to the fact that any such survey would require a huge amount of dempgraphic and other data to make it statistically valid for people who are not currently customers, or did not reply with comments. > You would have had every rules guru in the world examing your new > scheme to see if there were any rules problems. I can say, with absolute certainty, that every rules guru in the world who wished to review and comment on the 6th Edition rules has done so. There are less than 20 people in the world who can truly be classed as "Rules Gurus". Paul Barclay. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Churchill College, Cambridge, England CB30DS -- (Tel: 0958-980-180) - - Official MTG-L Network Representative for Wizards of the Coast, Inc -