Did you guys ban Mike from the podcast for acting up in the last one?

Fantastic follow-up to Zvi’s article.

Even better to finally hear you again on a cast, Matt. Hopefully we’ll hear you again when you buy cake, right?

…..right?!?

I don’t think it is fair to say that the only design space this opens up is “First Defender.” You have some excellent Magic minds commenting on the matter. But to say that in just a few short days they have exhausted all possible new areas by these changes, and they found the only new area is First Defender….. is a bit near-sighted.

Sure, we’ll probably see some First Defender cards at some point. In truth, we almost have already. Take a look at Tenth Edition even, Kjeldoran Royal Guard. Doesn’t that act pretty much like First Defender? A tad different, but very close.

It would have been nice to see a bit more point-counterpoint, as Zvi is quite vehemently against the changes, and makes very few concessions. At the least, why not address some of the bigger areas that many players feel strategy is heightened.

Under the old rules, if your opponent is attacking you with a Dross Crocodile while your lone defense is a Sakura-Tribe Elder, there is exactly one play worth considering. Black, stack, sac. It is the correct play nearly every single time, save for some small corner cases too trivial to even discuss. Under the new rules, you actually have to make an evaluation and decision based upon the game state. You must consider many factors including cards in hand, in library, and both your own path to victory as well as your opponent’s. This situation gives the truly superior strategist the upper hand in the game. The old rules, in this situation, merely served to punish new players for not knowing an unintuitive rule.

Didn’t Finkel say something along the lines of “there is the correct play, and everything else.” I think figuring out the correct play in creature combat is now a more interesting situation.

I welcome the M10 changes, and the truly interesting decisions to come.

Is it possible damage prevention is simply dropped in favor for +0/+X? This ability is already something White is able to do (Shield Wall and Fortify come to mind off the top of my head) and becomes potentially powerful in M10 as has been discussed. It could easily become Choose one - prevent next X damage dealt to target player this turn or target creature gets +0/+X until end of turn.

I mean, prevention effects are already hardly played in either format, Limited or Constructed, mostly because unless they are sweeping (Holy Day, Shelter) they are simply too narrow to consider. Giant Growth can double as a Lightning Bolt or even a Terror (2/2 fighting a 4/4 gets Giant Growthed) but damage prevention is only ever protecting a guy from dying, and not even all the time if the opponent smells something is up and overkills. It just seems that damage prevention is so terribly bad (since it gives your opponent a choice, now, where before that choice was one they already made) that it can’t really continue in its current form.

@Zvi, a couple times you state that everything uses the stack (and by extension, combat damage should as well). This isn’t really true. In fact, in old rules (M9?), combat damage was the ONLY “game action” that used the stack. Untapping doesn’t. Drawing a card doesn’t (anymore). Declaring attackers and blockers doesn’t. Now in M10, spells and abilities will be the only objects that will be on the stack.

I’m not sure there are too many different ways to handle combat in a way other than ordering blockers, as long as you’re removing stacked damage, which is certainly the intent of WotC. The actual reason, whether for simplicity, player retention, or other, is irrelevant.