M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
General Discussion of the Intricacies
Moderator: CCGHQ Admins
M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by juzamjedi » 11 Jun 2009, 06:13
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
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
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by Kl3p_co. » 11 Jun 2009, 17:26
Sorry to interrupt you, but we already have 2 threads with it, and I dont think there is a need for more
Always outnumbered. Never outtrolled.
-
Kl3p_co. - Posts: 209
- Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 18:45
- Location: /b/
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 0 time
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by frwololo » 12 Jun 2009, 01:30
This one is the thread for "new rules and how they will interact with our software that integrates rules enforcement". Let's keep it.Kl3p_co. wrote:Sorry to interrupt you, but we already have 2 threads with it, and I dont think there is a need for more
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
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by telengard » 12 Jun 2009, 01:57
Ouch, that's a lot of re-writing. I'm surprised they removed mana burn. I kinda liked that, gave the game some theme.frwololo wrote:This one is the thread for "new rules and how they will interact with our software that integrates rules enforcement". Let's keep it.Kl3p_co. wrote:Sorry to interrupt you, but we already have 2 threads with it, and I dont think there is a need for more
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 (happy his game is 'dead' so no new rules rewrites)
Author of Dreamblade:
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=1215
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=1215
-
telengard - DEVELOPER
- Posts: 379
- Joined: 23 May 2009, 23:04
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by MageKing17 » 12 Jun 2009, 03:07
But that's already been brought up in the other threads.frwololo wrote:This one is the thread for "new rules and how they will interact with our software that integrates rules enforcement".
Oh well.
-
MageKing17 - Programmer
- Posts: 473
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 20:40
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by Incantus » 13 Jun 2009, 15:21
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)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
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by MageKing17 » 13 Jun 2009, 19:56
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.Incantus wrote: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)
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).
-
MageKing17 - Programmer
- Posts: 473
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 20:40
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by Incantus » 14 Jun 2009, 03:15
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)MageKing17 wrote: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.
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).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).
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by MageKing17 » 15 Jun 2009, 19:06
Funny, I'd never heard that one before. It's surprisingly apt, however.Incantus wrote:I never liked the analogy that combat damage was like a lobbed grenade
-
MageKing17 - Programmer
- Posts: 473
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 20:40
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: M10 - Magic 2010 rules changes
by juzamjedi » 17 Jun 2009, 23:50
#1 it is also noteworthy that the UI for mulligans will need to be updated. It should be a pretty easy fix though.
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Magic Rules Engine Programming
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests