Subject: Strategic implications of CONFIRMED 6E changes Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:43:36 -0600 From: Jim Dougan To: MTG-STRATEGY-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM Now that Peter has clarified the 6E rules changes (and again, I thank him for doing so) I have had some time to think over the implications. In general, I think we will lose some strategic depth, but we will also gain some strategic depth. It all depends, of course, on exactly how the mechanics end up working....right now we are still speculating. In particular: 1) Interupts will become instants: Depending on how this works out, Blue will actually *gain* a lot of power. The most resonable scenario is that a counterspell will be able to counter any spell in the active stack. If this is the correct, then blue players will gain a great deal of "bluff power." Why? If the active player wants things to resolve in a stack, then the active player must play all instant-speed effects before knowing if any of those effects might be countered. This will require the active player to play more conservatively in many cases because a blue player, countering an early spell in the stack, can disrupt events far more than under the current rules. This will occur anytime that playing a spell/ability late in a stack depends on the successful resolution of events earlier in the stack. The most obvious examine is Armageddon/Zorb (or Balance/Zorb) - the active player must decide whether to sac lands before knowing if the Armageddon (or Balance) will actually go through. Depending on your opinion about blue, this increase in blue power may be a good or a bad thing. However, it does add a level of strategic depth which (all else held equal) is a good thing. The loss to blue is relatively minor. Power Sink will still function asa counterspell, but will not be able to be used to tap the opponents lands. We will have to see what happens with Interdict - it will probably retain its ability to counter an activated effect, but those effects which do not require tapping or sacrificing could be played again as instants within the stack because they will resolve before the interdict. Of course, the above assumes that you will be able to target any unresolved spell in the stack. If you will only be able to counter the most recent spell in the stack, then blue loses LOTS of power. This is because the "active player" rule would allow the active player to "protect" a spell from being countered by immediately casting another spell. (Of course, this assumes that the active player rule remains unchanged). Assuming that any spell in the stack can be countered, this change is probably positive overall because it adds some strategic depth and cleans up some confusing timing rules, at the cost of reducing the power of a small number of cards (e.g., Power Sink and Interdict). 2) There will be no damage prevention phase: I think, overall, that this is a negative change. The damage prevention phase adds a fair amount of strategic depth, particularly because only damage prevention/redirection effects are allowed (with the exception of counters...). Because of this limitation, players must make all non-prevention decisions before reaching damage prevention. This is important. At present, a COP and one untapped land effectively neutralizes TWO pumpable creatures because pumping decisions must be made before damage prevention. Likewise, the same COP neutralizes instant-speed creature enhancements because those enhancements must be played before damage prevention. Consider the following scenario: Attacker: I attack with these two creatures Defender: I use my COP on creature A Attacker: In response I cast Giant Growth on creature B This is not possible under the current rules, but will be possible without damage prevention phase. Overall, I see this as a loss in strategic depth - and a significant reduction in power for damage prevention cards/effects. 3) Tapped artifacts will function as normal (this mechanic will be added to card text). Overall, I think this is a good change ASSUMING that cards like Winter Orb and Howling Mine, etc, have this text added in 6th edition. If the text is added to the cards in which this option is useful, there will be no real loss of strategic depth. (If the text is NOT added, there will be a loss of strategic depth, which I would find troubling...) Some have argued "why bother then..." I think that this change DOES eliminate one of the most confusing rulings in MTG: Why does tapping a Mana Crypt turn off its ability, whilke tapping a Mana Vault does not? I have memorized this ruling (and read the justifications) but it still does not make sense to me. If the new rules can remove contradictions like this, great! (again, assuming that there is no loss of strategic depth). 4) No Mana pool: Again, I am *so* happy that this rumor turns out to be false. Floating mana is such an important part of the game! Numerous cards would cease to function, and numerous deck types would be eliminated. Thank god this wasn't true. I *do* wonder why we need to add the "Ok to announce spells before tapping" rule - unless it is to ease the transition of Portal players (where there is no mana pool). Unfortunately, the new rule is subject to abuse. If all casting decisions are not announced immediately (and if lands are not tapped beforehand) then an over-eager opponent can rush in with an effect (typically a counterspell) before important decisions are announced - putting them at a strategic disadvantage. The most obvious example was the Hovi/Mills incident from PTLA II, in which (some thought) Mills intentionally witheld tapping lands until he knew whether Hovi was planning to counter. An analagous incident happenned to me recently. My opponent casts a spell, I say "I will Forbid that..." and before I could finish my sentence (which would have been "with buyback." my opponent jumps in and says "I counter the Forbid!" Now, I have a problem. If I am honest, I say "I was going to buy that back, so I need to discard two cards now...." - but I am not sure I really *should* be honest here because my opponent himself made a play mistake by jumping in too early. Nothing in the new rule requires such situations to happen. However, it means that both players will need to play a tight game, making sure all announcements/payments are done before there is any reaction. It also means that an unethical player could try to use the new rule to gain an advantage - which is certainly not a good thing. Well, enough of my ramblings. I will be interested in hearing people's reactions. -- Jim Dougan