M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes

[juzamjedi]

There are some major rules changes announced today on the Wizards site. Go to the official announcement if you have not already seen it.

Terminology changes will cause a lot of Oracle text updates, but overall not too many real impacts (mainly "exile" zone for the Wishes).

Confirmed: mana burn rule no longer exists for any card.

The biggest change in my opinion is damage on the stack. Poor Mogg Fanatic

[Kl3p_co.]

Sorry to interrupt you, but we already have 2 threads with it, and I dont think there is a need for more

[frwololo]

Sorry to interrupt you, but we already have 2 threads with it, and I dont think there is a need for more

This one is the thread for "new rules and how they will interact with our software that integrates rules enforcement". Let's keep it.

I'm happy with the rules for Deathtouch and lifelink (easier to code).
I'm less happy with the changes in the combat mechanics, that will have me rewrite 90% of the combat mechanism

[telengard]

Sorry to interrupt you, but we already have 2 threads with it, and I dont think there is a need for more

This one is the thread for "new rules and how they will interact with our software that integrates rules enforcement". Let's keep it.

I'm happy with the rules for Deathtouch and lifelink (easier to code).
I'm less happy with the changes in the combat mechanics, that will have me rewrite 90% of the combat mechanism

Ouch, that's a lot of re-writing. I'm surprised they removed mana burn. I kinda liked that, gave the game some theme.

~telengard (happy his game is 'dead' so no new rules rewrites)

[MageKing17]

This one is the thread for "new rules and how they will interact with our software that integrates rules enforcement".

But that's already been brought up in the other threads.

Oh well.

[Incantus]

Im happy with the rules for Deathtouch and lifelink (easier to code).
I'm less happy with the changes in the combat mechanics, that will have me rewrite 90% of the combat mechanism

Actually, i feel the other way for Incantus. Deathtouch and Lifelink were relatively straightforward triggered abilities to code (in fact, getting multiple lifelink triggers that referenced the same damage to work correctly was one of the main drivers to redesigning the ability framework - that and spells like swords to plowshares that reference earlier actions they did.) Now ill have to change core engine code to make them work. The combat changes, on the other hand shouldn't be too bad (mainly the UI to show the ordering - but I have some ideas)

[MageKing17]

Now ill have to change core engine code to make them work. The combat changes, on the other hand shouldn't be too bad (mainly the UI to show the ordering - but I have some ideas)

Having to add an SBE just for Deathtouch will, indeed, be a bit annoying... unless we rewrite the SBE system to be more modular. Which, come to think of it, may just be worth doing, if it lets us do Brothers Yamazaki and Mirror Gallery, which I could think of a few systems that would.

The combat changes might be a bit more tricky than just the UI for ordering blockers. We also need to ensure that damage is assigned properly (including the exception for Deathtouch... another thing less straightforward about it!), and that the SBE code won't call the destruction function more than once each check (according to Mark Gottlieb, if two SBEs want to destroy the same thing, it's only destroyed once, and only needs to be regenerated once).

[Incantus]

Having to add an SBE just for Deathtouch will, indeed, be a bit annoying... unless we rewrite the SBE system to be more modular. Which, come to think of it, may just be worth doing, if it lets us do Brothers Yamazaki and Mirror Gallery, which I could think of a few systems that would.

Yes, making the SBE check modular might be a good idea. It would be easy to split each individual check into a separate function (although definitely add a lot more overhead - it seems the more we try to implement, the farther away we get from efficiency)

The combat changes might be a bit more tricky than just the UI for ordering blockers. We also need to ensure that damage is assigned properly (including the exception for Deathtouch... another thing less straightforward about it!), and that the SBE code won't call the destruction function more than once each check (according to Mark Gottlieb, if two SBEs want to destroy the same thing, it's only destroyed once, and only needs to be regenerated once).

Well, the lethal damage check is already done for trample. That code could probably be cleaned up and generalized. The new combat damage rules would simplify some of the code, since the way combat damage is put on the stack is a hack (both at the rules engine level and the UI level). It also goes along with their logic for non-combat damage (I never liked the analogy that combat damage was like a lobbed grenade).

[MageKing17]

I never liked the analogy that combat damage was like a lobbed grenade

Funny, I'd never heard that one before. It's surprisingly apt, however.

[juzamjedi]

#1 it is also noteworthy that the UI for mulligans will need to be updated. It should be a pretty easy fix though.