In reality, No creature in mtg (unless they have provoke) ever attacks another creature.

The berserker in your scenario is actually charging toward the plainswalker (IE your opponent), and the person in turn summons up his defenders to protect him/her self. In this sense, choosing the order of blockers makes more sense. This is why when you don’t block, you lose life.

Yeah, it might be the focus of a lot of decks, but guess what? Stack and sac is so abundant BECAUSE they were the top cards of most formats!
Creatures ARE their abilities, and once you take away a fundamental ’skill’ of the creature, then the creature is useless, and will be replaced with something that hasn’t been neutered.

The changes that have come up definitely warrant adjustment in card valuation and the way that various cards are used. Am I sad that my 1/1 one drop doesn’t give me the potential to get a 2 for 1? Maybe a little. Maybe I’ll just switch to Festering Goblin instead. I’m definitely not sad that Aquamoeba is no longer a functional 3/3. Does it make sense to me that my creatures now have to kill off creatures, rather than plinking each of them a little to set up for a Pyroclasm? Yes, it absolutely does. Warriors don’t fight to injure, they fight to kill.

What is going to happen to combat tricks now? Well, in practice, how many combat tricks do you see in most constructed games? How many double blocks? The majority of stack and sac tricks were effectively a ‘free move’, which led to less overall decisions. If I know my Sakura Tribe Elder represents a free block before setting up my mana, I will take it 100% of the time.

Limited will be the place rocked harder. Call to Heel is definitely not as exciting as it was, and here the tension of multiple blocks and the tricks that could cause them to come undone were palpable. The tension hasn’t gone though. It has just shifted around a bit. Now combat tricks are more of a gamble, and go down in value compared to honest to goodness removal spells, but they still have the potential to mess up combat math as they always have. Instant speed removal remains the best combat trick. Will regular pump/prevention get sidelined in favour of other picks? Maybe. Everyone has the memo on auras now as being likely sources on card disadvantage, but the good ones still see play, and I would imagine that the same will be true of giant growth effects.

Sure, things have changed, but seriously, quitting the game because of it? Boycotting releases? If the only thing in Magic that you found fun was tricks involving the stacking of combat damage, then you were doing something wrong.

I actually think it’s disrespectful to rant and rant about these changes that have been thoroughly tested by some very talented people who are looking out for us players, without having tried them yourself.

Lastly PLEASE stop using the pyroclasm example… I play a LOT of magic and it’s been at least a year since someone has assigned 1, 1, and 1 then clasmed me, and it’s almost never something I play around so there’s not much skill to making that play.

While it is always interesting to take an unpopular position, the arguments for your viewpoint are very weak.

Your first point suggesting that players who understand and utilize stack rules are somehow “abusing…stack tricks” to win games against newer or less skilled players is arguably your most absurd asertion. You’re basically waving a socialist flag on magic when you suggest that rules should be altered to even the playing field for beginners. Come on - should the Olympic Diver be penalized because his 12 year old understudy hasn’t yet mastered the tuck roll-off trick? As a newer magic player, what motivation is there for me to learn more about the game and its rules if I can go head to head with a pro and face no new challenge or surprise? Some of the best memories I’ve had playing this game have been when I thought I had the attack in the bag and my opponent surprised me with something on the stack I hadn’t anticipated. Not only does the element of surprise make the game more fun, it forces me to be a more forward thinking and aware player.

On to your next point…it is one thing to ban certain cards from the game when they are broken because they are too powerful but it is quite another to change the entire framework of play with rules changes that are unecessary. If Wizards really wanted to make the game more streamlined they could control the future of limited events by printing new types of cards and not introducing as many 2 for 1s. If you recall, Wizards did attempt a dumbed down version of the game to appeal to the newer player back in 1997 with the Portal expansion which was unpopular with veteran players. I’d much prefer to see an occaisional ‘expansion outreach’ to newbies than to see the rules of a game I enjoy altered so a newer player doesn’t have to work as hard to compete.

To your third point which is really a series of emotional pleas to the conscience of the ‘big bad pro player’ these rule changes will make the term ‘combat trick’ an oxymoron. The only thing I agree with you on here is that decks will have to adapt if by adapting you meaning pulling out all your instants and replacing them with big ass creatures until Wizards gets around to printing some cards that will make combat interesting and (oops!) complicated again.

Actually, it’s moving magic from poker and aproaching it to chess, as now you have more visibility over the options your opponent has, but there is no clear optimal play and you have to think of the different scenarios of his decisions.