Rules Changes

[Rob Cashwalker]

Forget the bounce part of Gando's scenario. It's accurate, just not necessary for the basic concept.

Primarily, if the first blocker is Giant Growth'd, then the attacker must assign more damage to it, thereby not assigning as much damage to the second blocker. Another way to think about it, is that attackers have an inherent "trample" ability, in that damage has to "trample" past the first blocker to the second blocker, and so on. (Just not to the player, even if the blockers become removed from combat, they were still declared as blockers in the first place. A rule thread at MTGSalavation uses the statement, "once blocked, always blocked", short of any other effect that makes the block null and void.)

Sakura-Tribe Elder will work slightly different. Current rules: Against a 1/1, Sakura would block, deal 1 damage and then sac for the land. The 1/1 would die. New rules: Against a 1/1, Sakura would block, then EITHER deal 1 damage OR sac for the land. The 1/1 would EITHER live or die, but the player still doesn't get 1 damage from the attacker.
Against bigger creatures, nothing much changes, Sakura's just a chump-block. Though under the current rules, you could Giant Growth it, and possibly kill the attacker, AND get the land. In the new rules, it wouldn't matter, if you sac it for the land, giant growth wouldn't make any difference.

[GandoTheBard]

Forget the bounce part of Gando's scenario. It's accurate, just not necessary for the basic concept.

Primarily, if the first blocker is Giant Growth'd, then the attacker must assign more damage to it, thereby not assigning as much damage to the second blocker. Another way to think about it, is that attackers have an inherent "trample" ability, in that damage has to "trample" past the first blocker to the second blocker, and so on. (Just not to the player, even if the blockers become removed from combat, they were still declared as blockers in the first place. A rule thread at MTGSalavation uses the statement, "once blocked, always blocked", short of any other effect that makes the block null and void.)

I tried to keep it simple.

[Rob Cashwalker]

It's funny... the only people who can "keep it simple" are the players.... The Rules team couldn't explain it in a simple scenario.

[DennisBergkamp]

These changes boggle my mind...
I still don't really understand how the new combat model is supposed to work
Do we just get rid of the "Combat Damage is on the stack - Play instants and abilities" step (phase? What's the difference anyway?)?

Hmm, I liked blocking 1/1s with a Sakura Tribe-Elder, fetch a land and kill it in the process

[Rob Cashwalker]

Do we just get rid of the "Combat Damage is on the stack - Play instants and abilities" step (phase? What's the difference anyway?)?

Yep, it goes away. But move the stop into the declare attacker step, because it's more important that we can set up blockers to have flying before declaring blockers.
The phases are groups of steps. Beginning Phase, is Untap Step, Upkeep Step and Draw Step; Main Phase 1 is just one step; Combat Phase is Declare Attackers Step, Declare Blockers Step, Combat Damage Step; Main Phase 2; End Phase is End of Turn Step and Cleanup Step.

Hmm, I liked blocking 1/1s with a Sakura Tribe-Elder, fetch a land and kill it in the process

We all did... though for that matter, I HATED getting 2 for 1'd by Mogg Fanatic....

[MageKing17]

For MTGForge, there is the "multiple lifelink doesn't stack" thing to deal with.
You can only get lifelink once, no matter how many copies of Battlegrace Angel you have in play.
In MTGForge, having 2 angels means getting double the life, that will have to go.

Dennis actually had to put Lifelink as the exception to the filtering of keywords when added to cards that already had them. It's not the original intent that any keyword should "stack". So that's actually a simple change, as I noted.
I am quite ticked that my Bant deck with Battlegrace Angel, Rhox War Monk and Loxodon Warhammer will become useless... I better get to FNM to pilot it at least once before dismantling it!

While you may have had to make an exception, in Incantus lifelink stacked naturally as a result of it being a triggered ability (you put lifelink on, it triggers when it deals damage. You put lifelink on three more times, it triggers four times, because you've got four abilities that trigger on damage). There's nothing unnatural about triggered ability keywords stacking. If the only change you have to make to have lifelink work under the new rules is to make it "not stack", I have to think it was coded wrong to begin with (the difference between a triggered ability and a static ability is vastly more than just "not stacking").

[Rob Cashwalker]

Of course it was coded wrong to begin with.... This is MTGForge! (quickly ducks as Dennis takes his swing)

[DennisBergkamp]

[zerker2000]

Hmm...Hitchhikers' Series...Man from Mars...I seem to have started a book-quoting competition .

[Rob Cashwalker]

Hmm...Hitchhikers' Series...Man from Mars...I seem to have started a book-quoting competition .

Magic Programmers are more likely than most folks to be um.. geeks, who are known to quote books... especially sci fi ones....

[GandoTheBard]

geeks? not me...I have my towel handy though and I am ready to roll. Otherwise known as 42.

[mtgrares]

So long and thanks for the fish. Hm...the restaurant at the end of the universe, sounds tasty. I can't think of a funny quote from Dune, "Melange will help you live and program longer." Lame but I couldn't think of anything.