What Players Get WRONG About The Foundations Rule Change

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น •

  • @thatstranger6114
    @thatstranger6114 หลายเดือนก่อน +103

    One thing I learned from this rules change is how many people had no idea how deathtouch works.

    • @robertharp16
      @robertharp16 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

      Death Touch + Trample is a way of life

    • @andrewcullen2527
      @andrewcullen2527 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      I guess for me, I never asked WHY it worked, just accepted that a 2/X with deathtouch killed 2 things, 3 killed 3, etc

    • @hazchickgames2840
      @hazchickgames2840 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      100%. It reminds me of when I was watching a buddy of mine play Polukranos Unchained at a draft, and he had to stop the game and explain to his opponent why his 1/1 Deathtouch couldn't kill it.

    • @SLowMtG
      @SLowMtG หลายเดือนก่อน

      Nice video - yes if you have a way for a deathtouch creature to ping a creature (say equipping a basilisk collar onto a Thermo-alchemist) - you can mow down creatures at will.

  • @victortayupe8794
    @victortayupe8794 หลายเดือนก่อน +92

    the thing with banding is that if you put banding in your deck, you have to explain to the other players what banding does everytime you play with someone new

    • @seanhardner5842
      @seanhardner5842 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Maybe. But not until they attack with a 80/80 hydra with trample for what they think is lethal and you block with a 2/2 Grizzly Bears and give it banding with Helm of Chatzuk putting all the damage on the bears!! THEN you explain how it works… If you have a Unlimited Helm you can also explain how mono artifacts work…

    • @CatManThree
      @CatManThree หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      I mean, banding isnt really that complicated. It can just be difficult to explain on the spot due to how bizarre it is, and has a ton of rulings behind it in relation to specific situations usually wont come up. Usually.

    • @2rare2die26
      @2rare2die26 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      The first commander deck I ever made was a UW Ayisha Tanaka banding deck. My play group thought they were all judge level players, so I explained nothing.
      It worked for exactly 2 games before they learned how to attack around banding, but those 2 games were insanely glorious

    • @seanhardner5842
      @seanhardner5842 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @ Interesting. How did they attack around banding? What were you using as a banding defensive strategy? All creature with banding or something like Baton of Morale and what creatures were you banding together?

    • @2rare2die26
      @2rare2die26 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@seanhardner5842 as in: they weren't throwing 5/3 creatures at my 2/2 and 1/1, for example.
      It gets harder to do these banding tricks when an opponent knows how the tricks work

  • @michaelturner2806
    @michaelturner2806 หลายเดือนก่อน +20

    I think I noticed that banding got simpler to explain with this change. Once someone gets the concept "attacking player assigns damage how they want", it's not much of a stretch to say "banding player assigns damage how they want"

    • @seandun7083
      @seandun7083 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Exactly. It's always seemed weird to me that banding let you split your opponents damage in more ways than you could split your own.

    • @stephanreiken9912
      @stephanreiken9912 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Damage worked this way from the 90s to now for most casual players, and that is what banding did. Because this is what the rules were before damage went to the stack.

  • @Azeria
    @Azeria หลายเดือนก่อน +41

    "This damage assignment step is being removed entirely" is the phrase tripping the most people up I think. Damage assignment is still a step that happens, you just don't have to put blockers in an order anymore.

    • @CoNteMpTone
      @CoNteMpTone หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yeah but that step was called "damage assignment step" so its confusing and also a shitty change.

    • @w8ting4fri
      @w8ting4fri 9 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@CoNteMpTone its great

    • @CoNteMpTone
      @CoNteMpTone 9 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@w8ting4fri tell me more about why

  • @jacobesterson
    @jacobesterson หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    Recently my group has decided to allow non-legendary, and even non-creature commanders as long as you're given the thumbs up by each individual member. I'm building a deck with "Defensive Formation" as my commander, which is a 1 mana white enchant which basically gives all of your creatures banding while blocking. Building it has been a blast so far, and it seems like it's gonna be very fun to pilot.

  • @lightbearer313
    @lightbearer313 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    One thing this rules change does is restore how creatures like Pit Spawn and Voracious Cobra used to work to being what they were again.
    Voracious Cobra has an ability similar to deathtouch, but because it isn't actually deathtouch, it didn't have the benefit it used to have but this rules change gives it back its ability to split its damage between two targets. Voracious Cobra is a 2/2 with first strike and whenever Voracious Cobra does damage to a creature destroy that creature.
    Pit Spawn is a 6/4 with first strike and when this creature deals damage to a creature exile that creature. It got really nerfed by the 2010 rules change, but again this restores its potency.
    There is a rules change they haven't done that they do need to do, and that is to alter the way deathtouch and trample interact, as it has overpowered trample by allowing it to ignore abilities of blockers such as protection, indestructability, and can't be damaged; as they are assigned one damage with the lethal damage rule with the rest of the damage trampling through even though this is illogical.

  • @MTGSimplified
    @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    Yes that is canonically the sound a Blightsteel Colossus makes when attacking

  • @jules2899
    @jules2899 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Very good concise and well worded video, definitely deserves a lot more views than it has. Liking subbing and commenting so that the algorithm knows I enjoyed it!

  • @carlashirey8608
    @carlashirey8608 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Thank you. The rules confuse me. I appreciate how simple you make them.

  • @noneofyourbusiness3288
    @noneofyourbusiness3288 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

    Honestly with how rarely the blocker order mattered even experienced players benefit from the change. It just was a mechanic that came up very rarely..

    • @MaxDunk
      @MaxDunk หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      What games of magic are you people playing where blocker order rarely comes into play?
      I dont know if I've ever played a game against green or red that didn't involve me double blocking.

    • @noneofyourbusiness3288
      @noneofyourbusiness3288 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      @@MaxDunk Yes, but how often do you double block and have a combat trick and the order matters? That is the stars aligning. Most double blocks just go through and that is that.

    • @lukastillmann3994
      @lukastillmann3994 26 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@noneofyourbusiness3288 like every game i guess but every playgroup is different and you got a high variety of decks so yeah for your group maybe less for me as an example more often
      Good that there is rule zero and noone has to follow this who doesnt want to.

  • @quixoticmoth
    @quixoticmoth หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thank you! The graphics really help explain

  • @jessyjava
    @jessyjava หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thanks for making this!

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน

      I'm glad it helped!

  • @fmatax
    @fmatax หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you for explaining banding. I have been playing this game since torment and never understood what banding does.😅

  • @QuarantinedCapricorn
    @QuarantinedCapricorn หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    What about damage multipliers with trample? If a 2/2 with trample gets blocked by 2 2/2s and assign 2 damage to one creature, does it get multiplied to 4 and then trample over for 2?

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      I believe that because the damage doubling effects are not seen by the rules as lethal before they're fully resolved you wouldn't get the optimal outcome. You'd have to either split the damage or settle for overkilling one creature. You can't trample over unless all blockers are assigned lethal.

    • @QuarantinedCapricorn
      @QuarantinedCapricorn หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @ What about excess damage? Abilities that trigger off dealing excess damage?

    • @ScorpioneOrzion
      @ScorpioneOrzion หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@QuarantinedCapricornthose do trigger

  • @samuelvanetten4324
    @samuelvanetten4324 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I subbed only for the Makoto Theme 👍

  • @KamrynB
    @KamrynB หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The Scarlet/Violet background music 🤌

  • @MadManVan
    @MadManVan หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I Love the vid how it was explained but i was expecting something more. during combat damage step.
    1. does the defender have the ability to cast spell or activate ability?
    2. does the attacker only have the opportunity to cast spell , activate an ability during damage step?
    also a followup question on banding..
    what if the attacker has double strike and trample and i block it with 1/1 banding
    does the dmg tramples? since it will die from the 1st attack..

  • @pyrytspryt3100
    @pyrytspryt3100 หลายเดือนก่อน

    so with what your talking about at the 6:00 point how would that work if you had say an 8/8 with trample and double damage card.

    • @arcbinder
      @arcbinder หลายเดือนก่อน

      Trample doesn't look forward to what damage will actually be dealt, just at what damage is assigned. You would still have to assign lethal damage to each blocker before trampling over, so 2 on each bear and 4 to the player. Then when damage is actually dealt it'll double to 4 to each bear and 8 to the player.

    • @pyrytspryt3100
      @pyrytspryt3100 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@arcbinder ok thank you for the clarification, sad i was wrong but at least now i know, now i get the i told you so from my friend haha.

  • @dsproductions19
    @dsproductions19 หลายเดือนก่อน

    3:00 Wait, if deathtouch makes any damage lethal, and trample only requires lethal, does that mean that the new rules allow a creature with both to just assign 1 damage to a blocker and the rest to the opponent? Also, does that mean that a blocker with indestructible can never be trampled over?
    Like if a 3/3 deathtouch trample is blocked by 2 2/2 creatures, can you just assign 1 to each and 1 to the opponent?
    Before this change, I had assumed that trample required going over the blocker's toughness, but now it seems combining them would make blocking almost useless unless the blocker has indestructible.

    • @esb422
      @esb422 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Even in the old rules, a single point of DT (per blocker) would let the creature trample over the rest of the damage to the player. Oddly, an indestructible creature could and still can get trampled over. Doesn't make much sense, but number are numbers. Similarly, Protection from Trampler doesn't stop a trampler from just barreling through, either.

    • @dsproductions19
      @dsproductions19 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@esb422 Oh, I suppose I never realized that. Thanks for the clarification!

    • @seandun7083
      @seandun7083 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Deathtouch + Trample is strong enough that they haven't actually ever printed a creature with both.

    • @MaxDunk
      @MaxDunk หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@seandun7083 crystalline giant technically has both, its just a matter of turns

  • @mrboberson7424
    @mrboberson7424 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    BRING BACK BANDING. Please, I need more cards to round out my banding edh deck

  • @w8ting4fri
    @w8ting4fri 9 วันที่ผ่านมา

    In you first example couldn't the defending play cast giant growth after you declare attackers and just single block your horse?

  • @MAlanThomasII
    @MAlanThomasII หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I missed that part of the Deathtouch rules. That's me told.

  • @Hakapiks42
    @Hakapiks42 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Well done good sir!

  • @aaronfisher7513
    @aaronfisher7513 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    New player here... How does the opponents damage from defenders get distributed to my attacking monster. I'm just asking because the video makes it seem that a 3/3 attacking into 3 2/2s will live and that confuses me

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Howdy, yeah that'd be the same as it was before. It's just all dealt at one time to the attacker.

    • @aaronfisher7513
      @aaronfisher7513 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @MTGSimplified okay thanks I was slightly confused about that

  • @Niscate
    @Niscate หลายเดือนก่อน

    How does this new rule affect double strike? Can I split both damage phases of my attacker between blockers?

  • @meatrace
    @meatrace หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I've been playing MTG for 30 years and I have never assigned damage order, even at GPs, so I can't imagine this is a very well known rule. The change makes it much more intuitive.

    • @MaxDunk
      @MaxDunk หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Bro, how? I've been playing almost as long and I've had to assign damage hundreds of times.

    • @flamewing7851
      @flamewing7851 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I've been playing for about a month and have had to do it...

    • @lukastillmann3994
      @lukastillmann3994 26 วันที่ผ่านมา

      thousands

  • @jamesvp4391
    @jamesvp4391 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I actually have a commender deck that uses banding. In the blightsteel colossus example, if I wanted to use cloud shift to remove my creature from combat, am I correct in thinking that I cannot assign the 11 damage to my creature before I cloudshift it?

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Yeah you'd be right. The banding creature needs to be there when damage is getting assigned. Sadly no blink shinnanigans allowed.

    • @seandun7083
      @seandun7083 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You could double block with a banding creature and a Fog Bank then assign all the damage to the wall though.

  • @CatManThree
    @CatManThree หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    So simply put regarding banding: the change does not apply to it because the band is a single creature and not multiple. Youre distributing the damage taken by the band right when the "creature" is taking damage.

    • @haeilsey
      @haeilsey หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      it doesn't apply to banding because banding already ignored the old rule and worked like this due to an exception for it existing

  • @lonsmithicus
    @lonsmithicus หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Really good vid. I never changed. Also I didn't know the banding overrode trample

  • @flowbot159
    @flowbot159 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I love banding. Or "bands" as it was named on the cards (lol).

  • @anarcy69
    @anarcy69 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Does this effect pump spells after blockers are declared. I.e if i pump an unblocked creature or is that in a different step

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Hey! No this change is specifically only relevant when someone multi-blocks. So in your example nothing has changed.

  • @TheFabianoversiani
    @TheFabianoversiani 24 วันที่ผ่านมา

    How about deathtouch + trample? Can my creature assign 1 damage to a creature and the rest on the player?

    • @CatManThree
      @CatManThree 23 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Yeah.

  • @Htsangers
    @Htsangers หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    lets start a band

  • @formerdungeonmaster1232
    @formerdungeonmaster1232 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    02:29 it does make a difference, as per your example: after giant growth, the combat order rule makes it so that only the first assigned blocker receives damage, with the new rule you could kill both creatures assigning any amount of deathtouch damage to them

    • @formerdungeonmaster1232
      @formerdungeonmaster1232 หลายเดือนก่อน

      (assuming the attacker is a 5/5 w deathtouch)

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@formerdungeonmaster1232 So this would work out the same because 1 damage has always been lethal with deathtouch. Even if the first blocker was a 20/20 you can just deal 1 to it and then 1 to the next blocker.

  • @DemiHavok420
    @DemiHavok420 วันที่ผ่านมา

    So glad i don't play at shops anymore. Can smoke and drink all i want, while playing the game with the best of rules, with far better people, while not having to walk of eggshells. Can't really joke too much around kids and whatnot. Shops just aren't a fun environment to play games in, and the rewards for tournaments just aren't worth the treck anymore. I just order singles online if i see something i want.

  • @GrimAngel01100
    @GrimAngel01100 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I knew there was a reason I was getting confused on Arenas. I just redownlaoded it a few days ago and several times I was confused because I was expecting to get priority in a cerain order.
    Being a blue/control player with small creatures is gonna be a bit harder now it seems. Though I could be wrong since its been a while for me.

  • @JohnDoe-og2bt
    @JohnDoe-og2bt หลายเดือนก่อน

    If somethings benefit was ignoring a rule and that rule was removed, the best part of it is just vanilla now.

  • @Big_Dai
    @Big_Dai หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Okay, now make the "advanced implications" video, instead of an oversimplistic coverage of the mechanic.
    Will combat really be better for the aggressor? Does it actually speed up games?
    What does this REALLY mean for pump spells? Is burn post-combat better now? Pie- color balancing required?
    Are Bombs still good in Limited formats? Etc etc etc etc etc

    • @2LettersSho
      @2LettersSho หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      I gotchu! The "advanced implications" are it mostly only matters in limited (due to how rare double blocking with sized creatures is in constructed formats) and even there, very little. It does technically favour the aggressor but in such an insignificant way that 99%+ of games will not be faster.
      Using pump spells on defence is already a pretty sketchy plan so not having that option on the rare occasion it comes up is almost irrelevant.
      Splitting damage for the purposes of Shrivel and Pyroclasm type effects in main 2 is somewhat interesting but again, will come up extremely rarely and can still be played around in a lot of cases by not "over blocking" (which people already tend to do in 2+ block situations). The last time I can think of this being somewhat likely is Seismic Wave becoming slightly better against Imperial Oath in NEO but engineering the situation for this rule to matter even there is very specific and unlikely.
      As for colour pie and bombs and etc... Nothing changes? I don't see how a very tiny rules tweak could affect anything so broad or generic. Maybe that's a hyperbolic question but sarcasm is hard to convey in text :D
      Here's the biggest advanced implication though: when you're teaching a mate to play magic and you get to double blocking, it's way quicker and easier to understand! I'm sure that's something we can all get behind for the low low "cost" of weird board stalls being marginally easier to attack into.

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Yeah I agree with all of this.
      It's certainly possible these changes cause a larger impact over time but most likely the scale is small.

  • @artstsym
    @artstsym หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The argument that "this ruins the defensive edge of MtG!" completely ignores that the game is already stacked towards the defense by default. Because damage falls off at end of turn, blocking a nonlethal attack is a no brain move most of the time.

    • @Wolfirhart
      @Wolfirhart 26 วันที่ผ่านมา

      And yet, defensive decks become gradually more power crept by aggro decks as time passes. The game develops to a state of winning in such an incredibly short time, as compared to previous formats, and changing this combat rule, will only make aggro become even better than before.

  • @grandpretredesalpagas4665
    @grandpretredesalpagas4665 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Because this nerfs defensive tricks have been merged which slightly buff trample I guess, not that it's gonna matter a whole lot tho

  • @_RUSH_
    @_RUSH_ หลายเดือนก่อน

    Hol up, so the defending player doesn't get to choose which creatures are blocking which of the attacking playes creatures???? Is that not how it works???????

    • @MTGSimplified
      @MTGSimplified  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      No it's OK, as the blocker you still decide which creatures block what. It's just now the attacker has more control over where their damage is distributed.

  • @stephanreiken9912
    @stephanreiken9912 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    They changed damage to what it already was, what people actually play magic with.

  • @mitchhak2
    @mitchhak2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Nobody I’ve seen has identified the nefarious reason for this rule change. Wizards has been burying its enfranchised player base for going on a decade now, with its origins beginning in BFZ power creep cards. With so few veteran players around, there are whole droves of new players not understanding how the combat damage step works. They are altering the game to suit their new audience.

  • @zyibesixdouze4863
    @zyibesixdouze4863 หลายเดือนก่อน

    No! Don't gas banding! It's my EDH tech and if everyone starts doing it I won't be able to get the cards I want /hj

  • @Kokonutzlz
    @Kokonutzlz หลายเดือนก่อน

    6:37 is false.
    510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt.
    All damage being assigned simultaneously (for each step - double strike damage step all happens at once, normal damage all happens at once). The power of the blocking creatures is added and applied as one simultaneous instance of damage of that amount

  • @irou95
    @irou95 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This doesn't ruin the game but doesn't help it in any way.
    This game is already so much about draw vs play
    The one who is on the play is the one attacking
    This nerfs blocking especially double blocking plus tricks
    So it makes being on the play even better.

  • @LegiondaryBro
    @LegiondaryBro หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    hated the change at first but they've converted me to like it

  • @casually_lurking
    @casually_lurking หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    So in short, 1) combat tricks are useless outside of a 1 vs 1, 2) to simplify the game, blocking is suboptimal at best, just swing in, 3) me knowing the game was pointless in the face of the needs of the many.
    Glad the newbies can understand now at least . . .

  • @dankman239
    @dankman239 หลายเดือนก่อน

    More math equals less fun 😢

  • @xXYourShadowDaniXx
    @xXYourShadowDaniXx หลายเดือนก่อน

    I don't think your deathtouch point is true though, if I have a 2/1 deathtouch, you have a 1/2 and a 2/2 but you block with both to avoid combat tricks, currently if the 2/2 is first its the only one that dies (same if the 1/2 is first it would be the only death). Under new rules both blockers would die because you can assign 1 damage to each where in the old system you could NOT do this in this type of scenario.
    This may be a bad example of how the rule change DOES make deathtouch different but its the simplest first example that comes to mind, I'm sure there are even more examples where deathtouch is buffed that I cannot think of right now.

    • @seandun7083
      @seandun7083 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Deathtouch already allowed you to split damage.
      702.2c: Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage for the purposes of determining if a proposed combat damage assignment is valid, regardless of that creature's toughness. See rules 510.1c-d.

  • @zachdunlap4744
    @zachdunlap4744 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It's still not a good rule change don't give me it makes things easier crap either all this dose is give more advantage to attackers then defenders and that stupid attacker should never have the advantage this changed dumbs down any strategy outside of I am going to attack each turn i for one won't be using any of the new rules because i see it for what it is making the game dumb enough you can get little kids to annoy parents into buying it for them why do you think this rule change is happening right before SpongeBob is getting added to the game and before you say this good ask yourself what is hasbro record in making good decisions for magic