only 6th ed. rules

Discussion in 'CPA Voting Forum' started by Spiderman, Apr 12, 2000.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    1) Have you learned Magic solely under 6th ed. (Classic) rules? If yes, continue. If not, stop here. :)

    2) If so, have you later learned any of Magic previous rules sets (5th ed or earlier). If yes, continue. If no, stop here.

    3) What is your opinion between the two or more rules versions?
  2. galtwish Loudmouth

    I've played under Revised, 4th, 5th and 6th edition rules. The 6th edition rules are no less arcane than 5th, and no easier to learn. Eliminating Interrupts and Mana Sources may have streamlined card design, but it actually complicates the game. i think it was a lot ewasier for knowledgeable people (good judges) to determine the legality of a play under 5th edition rules, due to the defined windows of response and irrevoacable steps (i.e. creature damage). The only real problem I had with the rules was the "check for player death at end of phase".
    With 6th edition rules, you can respond to anything, making for very convoluted stacks. This makes it hard to be a casual "nice" player, because timing is even more crucial now. You can really screw people on timing more easily if you hold them to what they declare, rather than helping them understand the sequence of events if they do X, Y, or Z. When I play for prizes or draft, it is a real quandry: even at 8k, I paid my $5 for the tournament and spent a lot of money (or time writing for StarCityCCG) to get these cards. Do I let a lesser player take back a poor play due to there misunderstanding of the rules? More importantly, do I let a decent player who is a jerk go back and do it again?
    In summation, 5th was much more concrete, and therefore intricate, posing a higher barrier to entry. 6th is much easier to learn, but harder to master, because the timing framework doesn't support absolutes like 5th did.

    Erik
  3. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Uhm, galtwish?
    Do you mean:
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The 6th edition rules are no less arcane than 5th, and no easier to learn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    or:
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>6th is much easier to learn, but harder to master.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    ?
    Anyhow, the second is more correct, and is as it should be.

    Also, we should not have posted to this thread, as neither of us qualifies, according to the "stop here" portion of the questions.
  4. The Magic Jackal Veteran CPA Member&lt;BR&gt;&lt;font co

    Realistically, the 6th edition rules make no sense. Think about it. I'll block your dragon with my angel and give it protection from red.

    Ok, before the prored resloves, I'll shock it and kill it. Does this make any sense? How freaky would that be in a battle?

    "oh, you shot me in the head with a bullet, but in response, I'll shoot you in the head. Therefore I'll die and you'll live." WTF is that?
  5. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    I don't qualify, but I'll comment anyways. รพ

    Jackal, I don't completely understand your example... I might be missing something, but here's the way I see it. Looking at your bullet example, what comes to mind is a pair of Tims, not a Shivan or Pro-Red. In the case of two Tims, the logic is perfect. I shoot you. In reponse, you shoot me back. I die. Then you die, 'cause my bullet is already in the air. This is identical to how the game functioned under 5th rules.

    An example reminiescent of your Pro-Red Shivan blocker thing would be more like this. A Dragon gets in a fight with an Angel. The Angel gets a little wall that blocks out the dragon. But before said 'little wall' gets to the Angel, a lightning bolt hits the Angel and kills it. Ok, that makes sense, right? Not _perfect_ sense (if you gave the Angel pro-red again, that wall would not only outrun the first wall, but the bolt too! :) ), but sense.

    I'm subscribed to that Mtg-L mailing list, which is basically a huge pile of rules discussions (did you know that a type changing effect is handled differently from _sub_type changing effect? Yeesh.). I've come to the conclusion that 6th rules are generally no worse or better than 5th. The addition of the stack isn't too complex, though I mourn the loss of interrupts and the Counterspell window.

    The other changes are pretty obscure (damage on the stack aside), and really don't matter to 99% of the casual players out there. I mean, who the hell cares if continious effects are applied in timestamp order or on dependancies.

    "Whoop-a-dee-do-dah."
  6. Gryphonclaw New Member

    I've also played since revised, and the only major change has occured with the switchover to 6th. So I'll just talk about that.

    The first difference is that, IMHO, it is a little simpler, a lot a complicated timing rules were removed, and most timing now can be dealt with by using the stack.

    However, a lot of cards are floating around that use the old rules and interact bizarrely with 6th ed, so there is still a lot of complexity, too much if you ask me.
  7. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Actually, there is ONE crucial rules change in 6th edition that has changed a LOT of how I play Magic.

    "Removing the source of an effect does not remove the effect."

    Under 5th Edition rules, if we both had a Tim, and you shot mine, I could shoot yours in response and mine would live.
    Under 6th Edition rules, once an effect is on the stack, it STAYS there (barring countermagic).

    Other than that, not much has really changed. Mana Sources and Interrupts have become Instants, a NECESSARY move with the invention of the stack.
  8. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Uhm, Istanbul?
    It's always been that way. It's the "Silver Rule of Magic."
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Umm... okay, so far there isn't ANYONE who first learned Magic under 6th rules....

    I definately did not want this to turn into a discussion AGAIN from the old-timers (i.e. people who've played before 6th rules) debating the merits of the rules.

    But what can you do.... &lt;sigh&gt;

    Maybe a web-sling around town will help...

    :)
  10. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    :( I'm sorry, Spidy. I'll shut up now.
  11. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Actually, I was taught originally that if I remove the source of an effect, I removed the effect. For example, I could Swords your Royal Assassin in response to you using it, and my tapped creature wouldn't die.
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Not your fault, Zadok. You were merely replying to other instigators &lt;glaring around&gt;

    &lt;mumbling&gt; I should web 'em up...

    Istanbul: You had a BAAAD teacher. That's been a rule since day one.

Share This Page