EVERYTHING you need to know about the NEW Foundations Combat Rule change - MTG Rules

[@rikunacelandletsplayuncut4534]

*casually pumps up the jam*

[@attackoncardboard]

I'm glad at least 1 person got that reference 🤣

[@rikunacelandletsplayuncut4534]

​@@attackoncardboardIt's still early, more will get it 😁 Also love your Dropout / Um, Actually references by the way 😊

[@roadkill2104]

Damn, I missed that! 😆

[@rifRIPley]

@@attackoncardboard +1

[@aribdis]

Too unlimited!!

[@pkrdy3]

So you're saying I've been playing the game wrong for years, but if I keep playing it that way it will soon become actually correct.

[@gmfreeman4211]

Same here. We were ahead of our time.

[@waffles5088]

Same!

[@spencerme3486]

Eh, I think that’s how it was before the 2010 rules change. I played competitively in the early 00s and it was like the “new” change

[@jodystewart2693]

I came on here to say the same thing. I've been playing his new rule since 1994. I never even heard of this "damage order" rule, Despite playing regularly amongst casual players, comic shop groups, & serious players over the last 15 years.

[@josephjarvis8228]

People know how to play this game correctly?

[@soltari2007]

ME: Alright, damage on the stack. Now I sac my Mogg Fanatic to do 1 point of damage to... THEM: Okay grandpa, let's put you to bed.

[@oliverashworth8431]

I literally experienced this yesterday. Lent a deck to play for the first time in years. Someone attacked me with a 4/4 god with a lot of mechanics including trample on it. I blocked with a 3/3 and flashed in something that phases out a creature. I said with damage on stack I take 1 after blocking 3 and phasing. No. I took 4. Not gamechanging in that moment but yeh I have a bit to pick up.

[@nickfanzo]

The way you’re playing is better and more of a skill test vs this modern bs they keep doing.

[@nickfanzo]

@ I’m there is skill in a fantasy card game, hence the price structure. Why are you throwing personal insults at me? It’s not my fault wizards is scrambling to not lose money on their game, due to a horrible merger with Hasbro, and horrible business decisions. I don’t need she ra and mega man in my magic cards

[@nickfanzo]

@@oliverashworth8431 damage hasn’t used the stack in several years

[@savingark1528]

@@billmoney1 are you stupid? Of course there is skill in mtg

[@jasper265]

So basically, the rules were reverted to what they were pre-1999 rules for combat damage (except for trample). It's interesting how they changed combat damage three times, only to end up closer to what it was in the beginning. And the main driver was always the corner case of combat tricks when double blocking, but we got Mogg Fanatic shenanigans at the peak of the effect the changes had.

[@nathancorso4067]

Thank you for confirming that, because i remember that it was so back in the day. I even remember the first (or one of the first) mtg videogame by microprose (based on 4th edition) would let the attacker choose the assignement of every point of damage: very useful with creatures with abilities like poison or death touch.

[@jasper265]

@nathancorso4067 Shandalar! I love the single player campaign of that game, and I just so happen to have been playing it the past two days! (both an original-like version and one with new cards) Deathtouch always worked. You could divide any combat damage in original era. You could divide it when putting it on the stack in the moggtastic era. Now you can again divide it as it happens. In the congaline-era, they specifically introduced a rule to fix deathtouch ("any damage from a source with deathtouch is lethal damage"). That only leaves deathtouch-like creatures that never got erratta'd for some reason and only during the congaline-era. Bonus anecdote: way back when video was barely possible on the internet, they did an exhibition match between Richard Garfield and Jon Finkel, who was one of the two most dominant pro players at the time and arguably ever. Garfield thought he had won the first game, but he was using the original trample rules as he designed them, but this was actually in the moggtastic era, so he was mistaken...

[@derkylos]

@@nathancorso4067 Deathtouch, Provoke, Regenerate creatures with high power or some effect that gives them +5/+0 or so, and then you wipe the opponent's field...

[@GrimAngel01100]

I was born in 97 but my first deck was and iceage deck from 95 lol so I've always had issues figuring this step out because of this reason

[@MiaaaaaChan]

This is a wild change, gonna be a huge deal especially in limited where combat tricks are super common

[@MiaaaaaChan]

In general it makes attacking much better

[@SupahGeck]

​​@@MiaaaaaChanyeah I liked the blocker ordering and the occasional blowout you could get from it, it doesn't come up every game but when you got your opponent like that it felt so good. I don't want limited games to be slanted even more towards aggression, they've said they actually want to slow limited down a tick so idk. I could see an argument that reducing the defensive capability of combat tricks could make aggro ever so slightly weaker to midrange decks that can out body them but only time will tell.

[@shootercade1299]

Does this mean "blocking" is no longer a thing?

[@jkdeadite]

@@shootercade1299 No. It means the defending player loses a window to blow out the attacking player {after ordering blockers but before damage}. Currently, attacker says "I want to kill this one first." Defender can respond by pumping that creature and maybe not lose anything. The change now gets rid of the requirement to assign an order. If the defender pumps a creature to save it, the attacker can just say they put the damage on the other creature so it dies. Another way of saying it is that the defending player never knows which creature the attacker wants to kill until it's dead.

[@DinoBoy31]

​@jkdeadite i feel this just buffs aggro decks that are already a problem. Almost no point in holding mana for interaction. At least during combat phase.

[@lVideoWatcherl]

Excuse me, what? You _don't_ *have* to assign lethal damage to blockers to damage other blockers anymore? That is crazy and indeed has very big implications for direct damage spells.

[@ifitisntjmo]

Gives attacking death touch a huge buff since if you have 2 or more power you dont have to get through toughness to split the damage.

[@countsuperc4997]

@@ifitisntjmo You already could split the damage with deathtouch, because you only need to assign 1 damage for it to be lethal damage (even if the creature has indestructible).

[@leonmrs16]

its weird, so basicly every creature with death touch has "standard first strike"? Glissa is useless?

[@TheShadowflare789]

​@@leonmrs16 No, because attackers and blockers still deal damage at the same time. The only difference is when the choice happens on the part of the attacker (before they would choose the order of the blockers when blockers were declared, now they choose the distribution of damage when the damage is dealt). First Strike + Deathtouch is still a huge deal because your attacker would deal damage in the First Strike damage step, before the regular damage step. Since it has Deathtouch, all blockers that take damage from it would die, and won't get a chance to deal any damage back to your attacker. Nothing about that interaction is changing.

[@Executorkronos]

​@@leonmrs16first strike still matters with death touch because the opponents stuff without first strike will still die in the first strike phase of damage.

[@stevenglowacki8576]

This is quite an interesting change, as it's a continuation of the attempt to solve the "double block problem". Pre-6th edition, you couldn't pump your creatures after damage was assigned, but you could still play damage prevention effects during the damage prevention window. A major part of 6th edition rules was getting rid of the separate windows for different spell and effects, so they decided that the "damage on the stack" was the way to go to let blockers know how damage was going to be assigned. People knew this was weird, and they eventually realized the whole "sacrifice a creature after it assigns damage" needed to go, so they put in the blocking order rules in M10 to give the blocker player similar information in a way that didn't allow for the same "damage on the stack" shenanigans. Now, they decided that double blockers don't get any notification at all of where the damage is going, which makes it a little like the pre-6th edition rules, but without even a damage prevention window. This makes blocking and using tricks even harder than it already was. Using a trick as a blocker requires keeping mana open after you've passed the turn, while the attacker has their whole mana available by default and can choose to use it on tricks or to play new things, while keeping up your mana as the defender may have meant not developing your board when you could have. Double blocking is also risky because if you don't have a trick yourself, the attacker having a trick makes you liable to get 2-for-1'd. While this will only come up in limited most likely, it definitely tilts things in the favor of the attacker. This will improve aggressive limited decks as well as those with larger creatures that might have often been double blocked in the past. It makes double blocking an act of desperation even more than it already was. You might as well not bother double blocking and just chump when your life total is critical.

[@CriDragonrider]

Thanks for this explanation. For some reason I've been having a terrible time properly understanding this new change and your comment is the first time it started to click for me.

[@rubyriches]

​​@@CriDragonrider Essentially to which defending crearures the attacking creature/s will give damage is known only to the attacker until damage is done vs the defending players choosing which of their creatures is damaged. Combat tricks for doubled blocking, etc now are gambles for the defending player vs the old rule of defending players pumping their first denfending creature to live & attempt to kill the attacking creature while assigning 0 damage to a second blocker. Any questions?

[@Shadowbane0]

I recently read about this rule change in an article. I thought I fully understood how the change work, but was slightly worried I may have misunderstood something, as I am better gleaning information by conversation then reading. I'm glad this video was able to clarify that I did fully understand the rule change

[@attackoncardboard]

The article that first announced this change originally had incorrect information about the current rules. It was only updated today. I almost broke thinking I had been playing combat wrong this whole time 😂

[@Shadowbane0]

@@attackoncardboard Thankfully the article I read was from a 3rd party, and they described the rules change exactly has you had

[@A1Authority]

Unfortunately, gleaning will also no longer be allowed in MTG, as of of November 15th, at which point Study Group classes will be available both online as well as at community colleges, at least until Wizards Seminaries are fully up and running.

[@Shadowbane0]

@@A1Authority fast forward to the dystopian magic future where you can only play magic if you went to an accredited wizards college and gotten your masters in magic

[@Xxzzertt]

@@attackoncardboard I think I read the same article; I was having a hard time understanding the rule change before watching this, and I thought the rule change was significantly different (basically letting defender assign all damage a la banding).

[@PrinceOfGeists]

One interesting wrinkle that I feel like people aren't talking about with this rule is how it interacts with the old "basilisk" ability that creatures like Thicket Basilisk and Stone-Tongue Basilisk had before we got deathtouch (whenever this creature deals combat damage to another creature, destroy that creature at end of combat). The end of combat thing made it worse than deathtouch with multiple blockers because under the old damage assignment rules you still had to assign full damage to something rather than a single point to each like deathtouch does. Now that you can allocate damage however you want, those old creatures pretty much have deathtouch now and are much more powerful.

[@tuber0808]

Just means you shouldn't block basilisks with more than one creature. You never wanted to multi-block a basilisk anyways though.

[@blazindaily5889]

By chance does this also affect Phage the untouchable? And would it make giving her trample more viable im relatively new to mtg and its one of my decks I own.

[@stephenschneekloth1535]

I haven't played in a while, do they still have that stupid Death Touch/Trample interaction where you could just assign one damage to the defending creature because Death Touch would kill it and then the rest to the player?

[@PrinceOfGeists]

@@stephenschneekloth1535 Correct. Deathtouch and trample is still a deadly combination

[@GrizonII]

@@blazindaily5889It should affect Phage in the case of multi-blocking (e.g. if two 2/4s block Phage, you can assign 2 damage to each (or 1 and 3, etc) and both will be destroyed) but (unless they also change a bunch of other rules) it won't combo with trample the way deathtouch does since you still need to assign lethal damage to all blockers before assigning trample damage to the defending player, and even with a triggered ability soon going to be put on the stack to destroy them they don't actually have lethal damage marked.

[@kitchenlattice]

Now defending player has no information about damage assignment before playing tricks. This is entirely new and a drastic change. While this is a reversion to the old damage assignment rule, that rule existed when damage used the stack and defending player could respond to damage assignment. So the information was still available to the defending player to make the smart play. Now, combat tricks are to be played in the blind and cannot give much advantage. Imagine 5/5 attacks into two 3/3s. Pre 2010: Passing to damage, attacking player declares damage assignment. Damage on the stack, defending player can see if the creature getting lethal is one they don't mind losing (say, the one without infect). Let the damage resolve and keep the preferred creature. But if the preferred creature is getting lethal, cast a pump to save it. Still a 1for1, but spell for creature instead of creature for creature. 2010-Foundations: Attacker orders blocks with damage assignment implicit (lethal cascading down). Defender now knows how much damage each blocker is expected to take and can cast spells in response, potentially saving a preferred creature. It's a 1for1 again. Post-Foundations: Defending player MUST cast their trick to save their preferred creature since damage assignment is totally unknown. Attacker THEN assigns damage to the unpumped creature and it's a 2for1 -- pump spell and creature for the attacking creature. This was never the case before.

[@gg-dy6cf]

its like they came in and moved my couch to an awkward spot and told me to just get used to it

[@liviousgameplay1755]

The most real comment

[@leovalenzuela8368]

They moved it to an objectively better spot. That you don’t like it is more on you. I promise that a year from now, you’ll be thanking wotc for this change.

[@thisisobviouslybait]

@@leovalenzuela8368 You don't know what the word objectively means so you should really stop using it. Makes you look like an idiot when you use a word in the most incorrect possible. The fact that you don't see why this also has downsides doesn't help you much either.

[@BrianSavoie-qw6iq]

​@@leovalenzuela8368Unh huh... Did they ask judges, do surveys, anything?

[@icedragon9097]

​@leovalenzuela8368 better how?

[@V1C10US]

Having quit MTG from around 2007 (Futuresight) to 2023, I never even knew this was a thing.

[@76magg]

Exactly! Old MTG rules (around 2000-2005) was that you as attacker decide how to deal damage. To use trample, you just need to kill all defenders. Then they decide to use defender to choose how damage is split between his creatures. And now they are going back to old school! Btw. Banded creatures as defenders were able to split damage between them as defending player decides (as far as I remember).

[@SeanJ-jd6gt]

Ya, this is just how damage was dealt for years. I never even knew this change happened. I played from 94 to about 2000. So the current rule is so weird to me. Then again I couldn't play when they got rid of interrupts either.

[@kateslate3228]

​@@SeanJ-jd6gtBruh

[@spybloom]

Same. This new rule just looks like the original rule. I didn't know they ever changed it

[@Pathogen7]

There's a crucial difference here with the old rules: damage went on the stack after being divided up, and there was a window for a response. Here there's no window, damage is divided up and dealt immediately.

[@laytonjr6601]

So if I attack with a 6/6 and it's blocked by two 4/4, I can now decide to assign 3 damage to each creature and not destroy any? Neat.

[@MrFlibbleflobble]

I thought that's already how this worked...

[@laytonjr6601]

@@MrFlibbleflobble How it worked before, you can only assign damage to another creature if the first one has lethal damage. Exemples: A 6/6 Vs two 3/3: you can assign damage as follows: 3-3, 4-2, 5-1 and 6-0. That's it. A 5/5 trample against two 2/2: 2-2-1, 2-3-0, 3-2-0, 4-1-0, 5-0-0. A 3/3 deathtouch-trample against 2 indestructible 4/4: 1-1-1, 1-2-0, 2-1-0, 3-0-0

[@lcai9846]

Glizza the sun slayer can kill 3 creature at once now. that's pretty neat!

[@laytonjr6601]

@@lcai9846 It always could

[@IronWillVril]

​@@lcai9846 Glissa could already do this with the old rules. Deathtouch changes what counts as lethal damage to any creature to be 1 damage. It's what makes pairing deathtouch with trample such a scary combo

[@lloydnoid6506]

Why would they nerf the combat tricks like that? They were already a kinda weak card type.

[@nicodemuseam]

They're like one-turn flash-speed auras; Playing them into possible interaction is always a risk. If nothing else, this rule change takes away the incentive to block with multiple creatures when one creature + combat trick will do.

[@NuSocTheKelDor]

​@nicodemuseam which, even in limited, is the correct move 99 of 100 times

[@leonmrs16]

what? have you ever played standard against mono red? thankGod they banned leyline of resonance 😂😂😂

[@user-co6ww2cm9k]

​@@leonmrs16 only in arena lol

[@Timorio]

Because blocking order was an unintuitive rule. I still remember recoiling from this rule when I first learned about it.

[@bmprosser]

Grats on your rise in viewership over the last year. One unrelated thing I would love to see you to go over is “dies/goes to graveyard/in graveyard”… essentially, when do things go to graveyard such that they can be seen there? Best example being sky fisher spider whose “exile” clause seems to suggest he saw himself in the graveyard (thus gaining you 1 life for himself) though this is not the case. Instants and sorceries that resolve and count # of instants or sorceries in graveyards too. Tokens dying/ going to graveyard. All nuanced stuff that my playgroups tend to get wrong

[@attackoncardboard]

Thanks! It's been a lot of hard work but 2025 should be even bigger! 😁 That's probably something I can cover. I've got some notes up around rules for Graveyard stuff that's been in the works for a while, I could certainly work that in. Skyfisher Spider will gain 1 life for themselves though? They go to the graveyard, triggers goes on the stack, trigger resolves and you can life equal to the number of creatures in your graveyard (which includes the spider), if you did resolve that ability, then exile the spider. You sowed a seed of doubt, so I ran this on MTGO just to double check. I had a single creature in the graveyard and spider in play, I sacrificed the spider, trigger went on the stack, I resolved the ability and I gained 2. Let me know if you have any other questions.

[@bmprosser]

@ I certainly believe you in that I erred; hence, why it may be useful to cover. So if a creature has a dies trigger that says, return a creature from your graveyard to your hand, it could target itself?

[@attackoncardboard]

@@bmprosser It depends on the wording of the card. If a card said "When [this creatures dies], return target creature in your graveyard to your hand." You could target itself. The ability would go on the stack once the creature is in the graveyard. Usually they get around this by saying "Return another creature".

[@bmprosser]

@ thx yeah I looked it up and there is always some clause on the card to prevent self recursion. Interesting!

[@Secondary_Identifier]

All I need now is control over the order of resolution for replacement effects I control affecting other players, and Torbran can be The King of Redfell.

[@andrewb378]

That change is never going to happen. Replacement effects work intuitively in 99% of situations and it's only weird when it comes to damage adders *combined* with damage multipliers.

[@Secondary_Identifier]

@@andrewb378 Well that's the thing right? 99% of the time the controller of the sources generating multiple simultaneous effects choose the order they occur in even if they affect another player. Like, if I have multiple combat triggers that resolve when I damage a player, I still get to choose their order. But weirdly, when it comes to damage replacement, the controller of the sources does not get to choose. The ruling goes out of its way to work against common sense and the game's overall design.

[@andrewb378]

@@Secondary_Identifier This just isn't true. Your combat damage effects don't affect me, they affect you. They tell you to do things. *You* draw cards, *you* gain life, *you* search for a land. Those are your effects. When an effect *actually* affects another player, like Primal Vigor or Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider, the player being affected chooses. If I control a primal vigor and a vorinclex and you try to put a +1/+1 counter on one of your creatures, you get to put 1 on, because you can choose to do primal vigor first and *then* vorinclex. This is the way it *has* to work if we're going to have games with more than 2 players. If I have a Tok-Tok Volcano Born, my friend has a furnace of rath, and his friend bolts you, how much damage do you take? Going by turn order doesn't make sense because then you would take 8 damage from player 3's bolt, but if it was my friend, player 2's turn, player 3's bolt would actually deal 7 damage instead. Surely it makes more sense for that lightning bolt to always do 7 instead of sometimes doing 8 and sometimes 7 based on whose turn it is.

[@Secondary_Identifier]

@@andrewb378 Well, there *are* effects on damage dealt to players that trigger effects to players other than the controller of the creature. Saskia the Unyielding, Bloated Contaminator come to mind. For the rest? Honestly, that all sounds good to me. Simultaneous effect variance in a game consisting of more than two players controlling effects determined by turn order sounds like a more fun feature than what exists now rather than a bug. And by my own opinion, letting the controller of both Vorinclex and Primal Vigor determine the outcome sounds good to me, and would enable more viable variability in constructing decks with those cards. Suffice to say, the game would still work, just slightly differently than it does now. I'm not seeing a genuine problem that would prevent it from working, and I like the way the change sounds.

[@Karonar]

It's so fun to see people over and over proudly saying: I don't know how rules work. :D

[@PhoenicopterusR]

Judging by this comment section, you mught have to quickly go over how trample, deathtouch, and banding work. Seems like half the people here were taught wrong or didnt check rules before asking questions.

[@Vok250]

Some of the comments explain why WotC made the change. Seems that many commander pods already played this way and WotC is just dumbing the game down for that crowd.

[@JamesSamson487]

@@Vok250 To those commander pods, I say "Thanks for ruining my game".

[@kyzer42]

​@@JamesSamson487 I mean, you can still play with the old rules if you want.

[@MarsBarszs]

@@kyzer42not in comp play

[@PhoenicopterusR]

@@MarsBarszs comp players aren't strangers to things changing, though. I'm sure they'll survive.

[@ArcDragoon]

This does complicate things though, it complicates Online MTG. Say you attack with a 6/6, and your opponent now chooses to block with 6 1/2(s). You now have to run the timer to choose and select the amount of damage you want divided among all the blockers or until all damage assignment has finished.

[@wraithflaire1639]

I noticed that problem too. I like the change from a paper format. But I'm apprehensive because I rarely play paper nowadays.

[@nuke21216]

that's already happening though? They will just shortcut it the same as it is right now and if you have a different line you can change it.

[@Derael]

I think the default assignment will still be the same? E.g. you would still be able to order the creatures and then reassign the damage if necessary.

[@alexandereastwood1]

I was thinking the same thing for online too but right now you have to assign order then assign damage anyways so we get rid of a step. That said order matted more than damage as online they tend to order things poorly some of the time and the current system damage assignment is basically automatic unless something triggers when taking damage witch is rare. Now I feel we just switched the ordering part with the damage part and it'll probably assign it right most of the time but now we have to check damage closer witch I think will take more time but double blocking now is less good so it'll happen less often. I just hope they have an option to Auto assign damage when a creature isn't blocked by multiple creatures otherwise this change is going to be annoying online if you want to do big brain blow outs like the video's brothers hood end example.

[@marvinhubregtse5776]

yes it changes from "assign dmg in groups of 2 " to "assign dmg" .... SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED HOWEVER WILL WE BE ABLE TO DO THIS

[@zachwilson768]

They are going to have to make combat trick spells better to compensate for this change because this is going to make a difference in limited environments.

[@shryque]

This does no such thing. Your generation of magic players had combat easy. This is a ROLLBACK to post Classic Sixth Edition combat MINUS damage on the stack.

[@CoL_Drake]

@@shryque ofc is does and it has nothing to do if its a rollback it changes sthings of course

[@shryque]

@DaxRaider I've been playing since the end of 4th edition... I OBJECTIVELY know you are wrong.

[@badmangames5735]

You are the kind of player that makes this game worse. You don't know who you are talking to. Whether they are new or possibly alpha players, it doesn't give you the right to be so spiteful and ridiculous. Chill man.​@@shryque

[@shryque]

@@badmangames5735 lmao, weakling. Did I hit a nerve? What's the saying kids are using? Get Gud.

[@Hayao0569]

Does this affect banding at all?

[@patsen29]

We'd have to see the updated CR wording, but it probably will, since assigning damage like this is mostly how it worked pre-6E. The main advantage with banding is that the side with banding gets to decide damage assignment instead of the attacker. Which is why it's so good at being anti-trample.

[@Gaswafers]

Yes, but not in a functional way. It takes part of banding's rules(allowing freeform damage assignment) and makes it standard behavior instead of a special case.

[@danacoleman4007]

😂😂😂

[@goingtosleep4580]

Rest in peace banding… You will be missed.

[@MonoKabi]

@@Gaswafers Nope, banding allows the *side with Banding* to choose who takes what damage on their creatures, regardless of who's dealing the damage.

[@DONUTT360]

Thanks for explaining this in depth!

[@MakeVarahHappen]

Did they explain why? This feels random.

[@Metal_Maoist]

What is and is not considered "lethal combat damage" can be weird and counterintuitive (like how Trample & Deathtouch interact for example), so just letting you assign what you want is less of a hassle.

[@FM-96]

@@FirewynnTV It could already do that. For creatures with deathtouch, any amount of damage is considered lethal. (I think you just proved their point about the current rules being unintuitive.)

[@MakeVarahHappen]

@@Metal_Maoist okay but this doesn't change that

[@Metal_Maoist]

@@MakeVarahHappen It does though? You don't have to know if damage doubling or deathtouch or something technically makes something "lethal damage", you just assign however much damage kills the thing

[@christopherbelanger6612]

@@Metal_Maoist Any amount of deathtouch is lethal damage though

[@fluffyfang4213]

Second video I've seen on the topic (greatly appreciated btw) and the comments are almost entirely made up of either: 1: omg this is terrible why would they do this? Combat tricks are useless now. 2: Oh. I've already been playing like that. The second group implies that's what's already intuitive to newer players. Personally, I feel like this is mostly a buff to creatures with menace and that it makes way more sense for combat damage to be assigned when damage actually happens. Getting to split damage however you want instead of assigning lethal damage in order is.... interesting. That part I'd need to happen naturally a few times to form an opinion on.

[@kalierdarkekd]

Not even intuitive to new players, this is how it was for a good while before M10 as well. A lot of players never knew it was changed and new players often learn from established players.

[@eyeless7772]

Shows you who knew how to play honestly.

[@seandun7083]

It also buffs Pyroclasm effects and damage doublers while making the later more intuitive. Previously, if your 4/4 menace was double blocked by two 4/4s while you had a gratuitous violence, you couldn't actually kill them both since damage needs to be assigned first, then is doubled as it's dealt. Since you had to assign 4 damage to one to count as lethal, you couldn't assign any to the other, then you deal 8 to that one. Now, you can split it 2 and 2, then both will be dealt 4.

[@ArcturusAlpha]

It's only intuitive because people are teaching them badly. Just show them damage order once. It's not complicated.

[@ceroluthor]

I'm part of the third camp, the original combat mechanic was 100% intuitive, how can you start fighting the second guy if you haven't taken down the first. The only thing this rule change does is buff death touch to an absurd degree

[@kritikverloren1814]

Thank You for this really really good Explantation

[@sadiepeebles205]

Interestingly, the removal of damage assignment order actually makes banding a little more intuitive

[@seandun7083]

Exactly. Everything else is just catching up to how Banding worked all along.

[@garak55]

Is this a sign they will reintroduce banding in 2025? Jk

[@seandun7083]

@@garak55 we can hope.

[@donovanberserk4993]

@seandun7083 Even better, we can band :)

[@HevonCZR]

What is banding? (new player here)

[@ravenknightvincent2722]

TIL you have to decide damage order when blocks happen.

[@zkyz5437]

Amazing explanation ! thank you!

[@mtgplayer8385]

I think it will be fine just like when they removed damage on the stack responses.

[@Anti_Immigration]

damage on the stack was awesome rewarding to be good at mtg, I hate when they simplify things

[@MistaHoward]

Nah this barely changes anything. Removing combat damage from the stack drastically dumbed down the game and removed all the depth from combat.

[@orena932]

When is the next un set coming out? We need a creature named "the jam" so we can pump it up!

[@theparagonal]

This doesn't help, but Yugioh has "Frog the Jam".

[@pokegard]

@@theparagonalI cast wish

[@93Hexer]

I would Like a new un-set. The Name should be a really Bad pun like its Always Something Like Un-Finished and all cards feel Like only halfway done they could Bring Back Host or Melding cards where you need multiple to build a full one.

[@Zuva_Deity]

@@theparagonal They changed its name to "Slime Toad" so they don't to keep printing "Except Frog the Jam" on cards referencing frog effects now

[@grahamwenz2363]

The Time Machine theme from Ape Escape 2 was a Goated choice for bg music!

[@masterrocket31]

Gonna be honest. This made me realize I've been doing combat wrong for the 25 years I've been playing and no one has called me out on it. Me and my play groups have been playing it the new way by mistake. So for us... Nothing... Has... Changed?

[@RMWestcott]

Same! I'm like wtf, has it not always worked this way!? 😮 Oh well guess I'll continue on like I'm normal

[@Echodonut]

Same here. I bet there are more rules that we apply wrongly at kitchentable magic. Whenever we play with my brother present, who is our Rules Lawyer®, we always discover something new.

[@bt5087]

Yo! For real! I'm thinking in my head, I already do this? Since when do people Stack The Defenders one at a time behind the attacker?😂 No, you assign your blockers and then I choose who gets lethal damage first. Nothing has changed

[@spybloom]

The rule that's changing was put in place in 2010. What it was before then is pretty much the same as what the new rule will be, so if you've been playing that way for 25 years you've only been doing it wrong the past 15 😉

[@seandun7083]

​@@spybloomthey didn't bring back damage on the stack, but you are correct that you used to be able to divide things how you want.

[@julianhugen8760]

Even that I don't personally liked. It's make the game way easy to understand, specifically of how deathtouch works.

[@foxmulder4560]

Thank you for the update on the rule changes

[@puracy3452]

Kinda funny to see people react so strongly on this, if think of "the olden days" when damage on the stack was still a thing 😅

[@kikiishii8454]

Just here to read about the damage on the stack thing... good old times... good old mogg fanatic😂.

[@GamingManual]

Yeah and the game played like a beta test until they fixed how combat worked. Mana burn was the single-dumbest idea in all of MtG.

[@FreshLeafyVegetables]

This goes in favor of cards like Torbran entirely because you no longer have to assign full damage to a creature to move on to the next one before the damage calculations.

[@seandun7083]

Yes. It's still awkward with trample though.

[@scarfhat1]

First off. I appreciate the "pump it up" music everytime you say pump up Second: holy shit this is huge. This got explained very briefly at my prerelease but i didnt hear properly and assumed it would be minor enough that I wouldn't need to care. This is actually a pretty big change though

[@pj-wille]

I actually had no idea this was a thing this whole time...

[@attackoncardboard]

You're not the first person I've heard say this. Very surprised. Usually you learn about this current combat rule when you're learning about a Deathtouch attacker and multiple blockers.

[@pj-wille]

@@attackoncardboard That always seemed intuitive to me that I could just assign 1 to each blocker. Most people I know just assumed you could spread damage as you wanted anyways and never knew about the order and restriction of killing the first creature. We only knew we needed to deal lethal to creatures to hit the player, not the other creatures in the order. edit: we actually used it sometimes to avoid killing someone's stuff if we were forced to attack by spreading damage non-lethally

[@joedoe7572]

​@@pj-willeyou can if the attacker has deathtouch

[@mateumitjans5281]

@@attackoncardboard this stuff is always easier to learn in MTGA cause there is very clear and you don't have the remember the details. Its something i recommend for everyone new to learn basics. If never played in arena, its not that intuitive

[@Linguistic1]

​@@pj-wille right. For me, that was like the First Main/Second Main thing Six months ago.

[@izme1000]

Apparently, I've been playing wrong. The new way is what I already do.

[@Coyote05WRX]

Same

[@MyNameIsEgan]

@@izme1000 it's how most players already do it intuitively, which is why it's a good change and uncomplicates combat rules. you will normally not double block anything unless it has trample anyway, but for instances such as menace, this rule gives an slight advantage to the attacker by essentially making there not be a response window before damage is assigned. i rarely ever see a defender utilize the priority given before damage goes through

[@TheJacklikesvideos]

you were playing just fine; the rule was junk and nobody else had a problem with your damage assignment to correct you. this is the way it used to work and i never really paid any attention to the rule change. it only came up a couple times where it mattered and people would remind me to assign differently; of course i complied. the lack of control felt stupid, and there's still opportunity between blocker assignment and damage assignment for players on both sides of the table to whip out "tricks."

[@GamingManual]

@@MyNameIsEgan How does this "uncomplicate" combat rules? All it does it make instants that boost you/slow down your opponent during battle completely irrelevant. Why is it a good thing that my opponent now gets to see beforehand which Massive Growth creature to avoid vs getting sprung with it while they attack? That was one of the most exciting elements of modern MTG.

[@mrcatchingup]

Thank you for the examples.

[@jakubkovac9339]

This is so funny :D In this video I discovered that I was playing Magic "wrong" for last 15 years, and that they are changing the rule to be EXACTLY the way me and my friends played it whole time. amazing! Thank you :D

[@seandun7083]

Yeah. I think your experience it pretty common and is probably a big reason they are doing it. It is much more intuitive.

[@MartB-tx5lb]

Been seeing a lot of MtG lately, after selling off over 5,000 cards from just after revised up to Urza’s for 2k(just post COvid), I’m almost tempted to dip back into the pool

[@attackoncardboard]

Big upcoming year to get back into the game!

[@MartB-tx5lb]

@@attackoncardboard which set is the most broken to throw some $$$ at?

[@attackoncardboard]

@@MartB-tx5lb Purely based on power that's recent? Modern Horizons 3. Otherwise Duskmourn has some absolute bangers.

[@kateslate3228]

​@@MartB-tx5lb Look up some decks and buy singles.

[@hironobu64]

Good explainer. Thank you.

[@kevinj4204]

Interesting this, because I've apparently been doing Foundations new rules for the last 30 years since I started. Though, to be fair, he did say the combat damage rule was introduced with Core 2010... guess my groups are just too old school to care.

[@jame.paints]

i dont think the changes are a massive deal but... why change? i think magic should try to be as stable as possible considering how big it is and how long the rules have worked the way they did. i feel like any fundamental rules changes should only be done to address massive massive problems.

[@kindred84]

They've changed before. Damage stack and mana burn were big changes to remove

[@CaptScrotes]

Excellent use of the ape escape time station track ❤

[@attackoncardboard]

It's my "Hey listen up I'm explaining something" music 😅

[@Tera_GX]

Hmm, it already feels pretty unfavorable to use multiple blockers. This makes it all the more intimidating. But that does indeed mean the rule already hardly ever applied in our group.

[@snowhusk]

2:27 Ah, a fellow Philomena Cunk enjoyer

[@attackoncardboard]

I was aware of the song before that episode but yes, that certainly comes to mind 😂

[@An_Ian]

in short now damage is divided after instances and abilitys are resolved meaning attackers can more easily clear opponents defenses. Sounds like a rule change to discourage stall tactics but as a commander player of loves playing token decks I highly doubt this will affect me much if at all. Still this will make for a fun conversation topic next Commander Night

[@Morathor]

I know it's been fifteen years but I genuinely never liked or got the point of damage assignment order. I know they wanted combat damage to stop using the stack, but I don't understand how "trample but for blockers" was necessary to make that rules change. Just deciding how you're going to divide your combat damage is so much more intuitive and I'm looking forward to going back to it. (Also, only tangentially related, I get that "new players don't understand the stack" is a genuine concern, but the stack only becomes more complicated the more you introduce exceptions and outliers that don't use it.)

[@DerekJeffries-xp1jd]

Just because a bunch of newer players are too lazy to look into the stack, doesn't mean WOTC should keep taking steps to eliminate it. If someone is too lazy and dumb to ever learn how something actually works, maybe it's not for them.

[@GamingManual]

@@DerekJeffries-xp1jd This is exactly what I'm trying to argue in comments above. This rule change destroys the surprise and strategy element of instants during combat, aka a HUGE element of the game/where massive shifts can take place. The stack was the only thing they got right IMHO. Constantly changing rules is a sign of a poorly constructed game overall IMHO, and I say this as a die-hard MTG fan boi. It's like this is a step backwards with no upside at all.

[@E.F.W.]

Ghyrson Starn is going to love this change. Spreading one damage to blocking creatures left and right. It’s beautiful.

[@eewweeppkk]

Note that you still need to assign all combat damage - still not really an issue

[@ThunderPaladin]

Very wrong ​@@eewweeppkk

[@eewweeppkk]

@ThunderPaladin 510.1a buddy. Creatures asaign combat damage equal to their power - no more no less. If you want Ghyrson starn to work you either have to be blocked by the exact number of creatures equal to the power of whatever is attacking or you have to assign more than one damage into something that's blocking it. I've had a banding deck for years - I know the combat step pretty intricately, even for things that don't typically seem yo matter such as assigning all combat damage.

[@ThunderPaladin]

@eewweeppkk under the new rule, the point of the video, if you have multiple blockers you can assign one damage to at least one of them and guarantee a Starn proc.

[@eewweeppkk]

@ThunderPaladin ...but notably you still need to assign damage equal to the TOTAL power of the attacker. If you have a 3 power creature such as Ghyrson Starn himself and he is blocked by 2 creatures, you must assign 3 total damage, you can't assign 1 damage to each creature - you can either do 3-0, or 2-1 to either of them. That was the only thing I stated in my original comment even you claimed was wrong. I'm not saying you can't assign 1 damage to something, I'm saying that unless you were blocked by exactly the damage number of creatures as you have power then you must assign more than 1 damage to something even if results in less damage overall.

[@hardusdippenaar9557]

OK now I get it. At first it didn't make sense but , now thanks for the explanation

[@johncollins8070]

i honestly don't like this change, this just feels like its removing some of the mind gaming and strategy of combat

[@salvadortoscano2534]

Moving everything to Control and Combo decks. Why am I not surprised

[@GamingManual]

That's exactly what the rule does and the majority of the player base seems to be missing this massively important fact. Before, instants during combat could be used defensively or offensively (Massive Growth). Now you're telegraphing during your turn which instants you're going to play. Wild Growth is now only useful when attacking, instead of both/either or. The stack was the best mechanic for combat IMHO, and I don't see why we can't combine the best of both worlds here.

[@Aetmero]

Its crazy how everyone decided they became experts on the mtg rules as soon as something changed. So as a recap for people who don’t get it. Combat tricks still work you just cant blow people out as easily. Deathtouch is practically UNCHANGED, it always worked like this. But you can change your mind on what you are killing if your opponent plays a combat trick. Trample still needs to apply lethal to all blocking creatures before damaging the opponent. To my knowledge they haven’t changed how lethal is determined.

[@cuddlequeen3225]

I do like that you can assign your damage to blockers in any way you want instead lf having to deal full damage to one creatire before moving onto the next one

[@MrFlibbleflobble]

Guys... i I've been playing the "foundations" way this whole damn time. Your telling me for the last 10 years I've been playing mtg, that's NOT how it's worked!? Never heard of this ordering thing.

[@Ent229]

I know! I have been playing commander for a decade and mistakenly assumed damage gets assigned/divided when it is dealt rather than when the blocks are declared. I am glade the rules are changed to match the intuition.

[@HauntedCorpseGaming]

Guess this means Banding is back in 2025.

[@seandun7083]

Hopefully. This change does let you assign damage with your creatures in all the same ways that banding let you assign it with your opponent's creatures after all.

[@HabitualJoker]

lol I love that you started Technotronic when you said “pump it”.

[@telepathicdragon]

Is this really how magic has been played for the past 15 years? cause i guess i skipped this change as i only played 1 official wotc event during that time, which was a khans prerelase event and that's it. never dawned on me that defenders got this kind of advantage, since that's kind of op

[@Nouxatar]

thank you philomena cunk for letting me understand the reference

[@prufrock1977]

Interesting. I’ve been out of the loop, so this is good to know. It makes sense, so I’m cool with it. It does change the game, but in a reasonable way.

[@Sil11235]

I love these changes! I think this makes attacking less risky in games with more creatures and complicated board states. As it stands attacking first can easily lead to a complete blow out. I think anything that moves in this direction is a good idea. I did think the old interaction was cool, and I will miss it.

[@espnjason07]

To the creator of this video, thank you, and I'm sorry for all the ignorant comments from people who either didn't understand the rules before, or weren't able to comprehend your video.

[@attackoncardboard]

🙏 It happens. I'm just here to teach people the rules of the game. If people don't want to listen or just complain that's fine 😅 I know I'm not infallible, I'll always admit if I'm wrong or made a mistake and address it in another video or pinned comment. I'll always try to do right by the viewer.

[@dungeoncorps]

Using a tiny 1/2 second sample of Pump Up The Jams when they show the Giant Growth is wild

[@attackoncardboard]

Make my day 🎶

[@JohnSmith-vk9ds]

As someone who prefers decks win conditions other than combat this is an insanely bad change. The attacking player already has a huge amount of agency over the board state due to being an offensive threat and now the damage assignment step hands them even more control over the pace of the game. Under the current rules with the given the scenario present in the video, the mere threat of a combat trick like Giant Growth would mean the attacker would have to actually stop and consider the board state as well as the cards in both players hands before attacking. If advancing their plan required removing at least one creature from the defender's board, even at the cost of his own, Giant Growth means he cannot do so. At the end of combat, both players are down one card (attacker the Vastwood Gorger, and defender the Giant Growth) but the defender may have the advantageous board state due to still having both creatures. Under the new rules, there's no reason for him not to swing since he's guaranteed to remove at least one creature. In fact, playing Giant Growth in the presented scenario would be a definitively bad play, since that would mean the attacker would net one card over the defender in the exchange by simply killing whatever creature does not get pumped. Not only is this change a severe nerf to single-target combat tricks be removing their ability to protect your board state, but it also encourages the playstyle of mindlessly swinging into your opponent in every scenario that you have slightly more power on the board. The defender under the new rules is now forced to telegraph their combat tricks to the attacker during the declare blocker step by only pushing a single creature forward.

[@Graye007]

I believe that was the intention: to advocate for more aggression. Combat tricks are now, no longer, a defensive tactic: you don't pump with Giant Growth to save your creatures, you utilize it on your combat stage to destroy your opponent's creatures. Personally, I dislike the change as a primarily Arena (online) casual player who enjoys EDH alone in paper; the meta has always emphasized aggression and I feel it detracts from the tactical aspect of the gameplay.

[@47slogra]

The thing is in this example you can still block with just 1 creature and use giant growth, this rules only change the interaction with multiple blockers

[@JohnSmith-vk9ds]

@@47slogra There are countless possible reasons why you may want to (or must) push multiple blockers, such as if the attacker has menace. This is directly a nerf to single target combat trick cards which were already the weakest tactic in the game, and I honestly don't see how anyone can defend it as an improvement.

[@davidmaxwell4696]

@47slogra Yes, you can still do it. But *why* would you? In the video example, double blocking under the new rules just handed the attacker a free kill. You’d be better off blocking with a single creature and not exposing the rest of your board.

[@rix1602]

​@JohnSmith-vk9ds It's a nerf to single target comnat trick only in fringe case when damage assigment in a multiblockers scenario does matter. It's pretty damn rare. Be honest with yourself, did it happen more than twice in your games recently ? And I rather see people actually have to make decision in both sides. The defending player can't have it both ways. If he chose to multi block, then he should face the risk of losing a creature even if he uses pump spell. If somehow he couldn't do anything but multiblocking, why would you take that from the attacking player ? He made strategic decision (and spent ressources) that lead to an opportunity, and now you're saying "well, the defending player should have one more chance". It seems a bit unfair to me.

[@ConorCondor]

I understand this change makes the game less confusing for new players, but it also makes it easier for "bad" players, taking agency away from players who think through every action that they make. I like when magic feels like a puzzle you have to solve, if you just want to play without thinking you might aswell be playing Hearthstone at this point...

[@seandun7083]

I feel like this adds more decisions than it removes. If I attack with my 4/4 menace and you block with two 2/2s and are holding up a Giant Growth, even if I know about the Giant Growth, it doesn't matter how I order blockers. Either way you make the obviously correct choice to pump the first one in damage assignment order which lets you save both. Under the new rules, you now have the meaningful choice of which one you want to save and have to take into account that I can assign damage based on your actions.

[@GG-bi8tb]

if you want to make a rewarding puzzle put damage back where it belongs, on the stack

[@GamingManual]

This new rule completely obliterates combat surprise strategy and nukes a huge portion of the excitement of games turning around fast due to instants during combat.

[@seandun7083]

@@GamingManual you can still use combat tricks just fine while single blocking or attacking.

[@GamingManual]

@@seandun7083 The new rule makes it sound like if you're playing something like Wild Growth as a defender, you're now just telegraphing what to avoid to the attacking player. The new rule makes it sound like ALL combat is now telegraphed, even for 1V1 encounters.

[@Jeison-Nunes]

Thanks for the video, I can actually understand it now lol And looks like I'll be removing my combat tricks that pump creatures for protective ones and actually make my deathtouch only creatures deck I have been brainstorming xD

[@manuelzlopez9652]

Oh.... We were doing this at my table because we thought that's how it was 😅

[@koytru]

Im not gonna lie, I have always been playing with the "new" rules for about nine years now. Not only have I been taught this way, but the random people I play with at my LGS every week or so use this trick too. It's bizzarre that the old, correct way never reached my ears before

[@nzephier]

Idk if anyone else noticed the ape escape bg music but i did and i love you for it.

[@KassKnights-bi9zd]

I’ve played commander casually for over a decade and my playgroup always assumed this was the logical way for it to work. Never knew we were playing wrong and now we’re not 😂

[@jakebennett9130]

I thought it was already like this in combat lol. (the foundation rules I mean.)

[@philipboardman1357]

I like this change. It reminds me more of the way we used to play in the '90s. My only small critique is that I wish the phrasing was simply that the attacker can reassign damage in response to other actions.

[@johnmartorana196]

This is better. Now, the only change I want to see is combat damage going on the stack, the way god intended.

[@GG-bi8tb]

oh hell yeah

[@Fabiundso]

Hapatra with wither creatures likes this change. And i'm sure there are some other cases where you dont want to deal lethal damage at all to some creatures.

[@justinhunt3141]

Haven’t played magic in a while but I do like this change. Less tricks sure but makes more sense.

[@Auron3991]

Huh, well I've been playing combat wrong for a long time now. Markedly, I think 2009 was one of my dropped periods and this situation doesn't exactly come up a lot, but I've been playing like this for years. In my defense, when I got back in, I was only told combat damage no longer used the stack. Really though, it is basically a return to the general pre-Sixth Edition combat flow. Minus some of the wonkiness.

[@shineypooface8401]

im pretty new to magic but i like this change, just makes battle steps a little more straightforward, everybody declare your stuff, do your shenanigans, do math/fight, move on.

[@viix3815]

I hope you drop out of magic. Cause you're dumb if you think this is fair with things like deathtouch and other abilities.

[@Melkorios]

Yeah, this is already causing some confusion. I was in a Commander game the other day and a person I was playing against thought this meant that I couldn't use an instant effect at all after blockers were declared.

[@attackoncardboard]

You can direct them to my complete combat phase guide that I just released 😁

[@uiron5755]

As a long time player, I actually like this rule, I've felt like the old rules punished engaging and was sometimes frustrating for new players.

[@RaunienTheFirst]

This new way is so unintuitive. What do you mean the attacking creature can deal damage however it likes? What, is it dual-wielding? Triple-wielding? Does it have an Uzi? It makes so much sense that an attacker has to actually finish off a blocker before it can move on to the next one. Like it's charging through a shield wall. Or, I suppose, choosing which opponent to fight first because only a crazy person would actually try to take on multiple people simultaneously. And the defending player not knowing how damage is going to be assigned before they have a change to respond is very unfair. It removes agency from the defending player to give agency the attacking player didn't need. It's also unintuitive. Obviously I would be able to see which of my guys your guy is running towards and respond appropriately. *And* it makes combat maths harder for the defending player because they're going have to try to guess where the attacking player is going to assign damage, adding several layers of "what if" to an already complicated game. Ridiculous change. Unintuitive on two fronts and makes combat exponentially more challenging for the defending player while adding little tangible benefit for the attacking player.

[@seandun7083]

I feel like "split the damage how you want" is simpler than "first, when they declare blockers, you need to choose an order for all the creatures multi blocking one of yours. Then once we get to damage, you can only assign damage to one of the ones later in the order if you first assign lethal to the ones before it. If they cast a combat trick to save the first one, you can't decide to kill one of the other blockers instead even though your creature has enough power to do so. If you have a damage doubling effect, too bad. You still need to assign lethal to stuff before we take that into account."

[@Dafastso]

it feels like it was made by people who dont play the game

[@SinfulTitan]

Yep, like in my mind, the best way to think about it is like in one of those old kung fu movies where Jackie or Bruce is taking on a group of say 10 guys, they don't all attack him simultaneously, because you can't physically do that, there's not enough Jackie/Bruce to be attacked by 10 different angles so as everyone's just standing there waiting their turn in the defender wall, as Jackie/Bruce is taking them on one at a time, Jackie/Bruce is just throwing a punch into the air off to the left and then one of the guys standing around waiting their turn to attack just magically gets hit and taken out of the fight.

[@attackoncardboard]

Sir, this is a Fantasy TCG, realism isn't their priority.

[@seandun7083]

@@SinfulTitan those one by one first scenes have always been considered cheesy for a reason.

[@zanis_summers8284]

Basically, it’s the opposite of Banding - now they can bring banding back since it isn’t as complicated as people claim it is.

[@Ent229]

Yikes, I have been playing it wrong for years (I was using these new rules for a decade)! I am glad this rule change has been implemented.

[@michisauer]

It's funny, my main tables houserule gets official. We always played like this, because it seemed more logical to us.

[@matthewyip8695]

Being an old school MTG player... I had to explain priority of each step to my now wife who i taught magic by drafting packs 😂. This was one thing i taught her during combat and she became very good at this part! I like the rule change as it does give a little edge to the attacker who should get a small advantage for taking the risk by attacking!

[@shea455]

This is closer to the way the game played prior to putting on an assignment order. I've always felt that rule was clunky.

[@Scud422]

This isn't really a change to a new rule, but reverting to the original rules. Before the BIG rules changes that happened in 2010, this was how you assigned combat damage. Personally, I've always preferred the old rule, because I didn't like how it pumped combat tricks and nerfed spells like Pyroclasm. To everyone that's complaining, just deal with it. Many of us had to accept more drastic rules changes in 2010, and it wasn't that big of a deal, and it didn't take long to get used to.

[@NickKostalas]

EXCEPT damage used to go on the stack, and you could respond to it. HUGE difference. The new rule is nothing like the original rule in that regard.

[@Scud422]

@@NickKostalas You're right. I didn't think about how many combat tricks like the ones that give indestructible or have the creature come back were printed after and because of the 2010 changes. Before then, almost all combat tricks were +x/+y so they were almost always played before damage was put on the stack. But this change will only really effect "flashback" limited, I would bet good money that from Foundations forward, all tricks that give indestructible or a revive will also give deathtouch or a power boost, so you would only single block anyway if you had a combat trick.

[@Illusmare]

Good that I stumbled o this video. We play casually with some friends and seems we have been playing it all wrong. In our games defending player decides how dmg is dealt and not the attacker. Seems this rule has changed with 6th edition in 1999. I guess it's cause we played in mid 90s and didn't play for most of 2000s. We have been playing now for maybe 10ish years, but our rules seems to be very outdated.. atleast we know manaburn isn't a thing anymore.. :D Edit: Just noticed this was only how it worked with "Banding", so seems we have played it wrong even with pre-6th edition rules. Luckily we are so casual that it doesn't really matter. But we will go by the new rules from now on.

[@Chemrmnce1234]

*sarcastically insert generic doom message about how the game is now dead that has been parroted across every rules change across the history of magic*

[@attackoncardboard]

Magic is dead. Long live Magic.

[@wingusdingus1019]

I saw Giant Growth nerfed in the thumbnail and was so ready to get mad, but I actually like this. It gives more agency to aggressive plays, which IMO is usually a good thing

[@tinytrtle5681]

Hmm, when I saw the news I was worried; but tbh I think I like the attacker having an advantage like this.

[@maciejwawrzyn4674]

I love thisnrule change as inalways thought the riles were as they now will - intuitive.

[@nefreetman]

Huh. Interesting. This "new rule" is how I've known it to be since... Probably way back when combat damage was removed from the stack

[@Sephiroth517]

Yeah, to veterans players this change got some "Do not cite the Deep Magic to me Witch, I was there when it was written." vibes ^^

[@najoheuer]

This is basically how it worked pre-2010, they're just putting it back, but not ALL the way back to the Damage-on-the-Stack era.

[@RetroMaticGamer]

For those of you young kids that weren't with the game since it came out in 1993, they put the combat back to the way it was in the beginning before they changed it for no apparent reason in 2009. You'll get over it, this was how the game was originally designed to work.

[@antoniotalamantes7522]

Damage was not unchanged from 93-2009. Considering damage stacked from 99-2009 ish.

[@Hunters_Dawn]

That seems more in line with how combat damage was generally played by most players. It's not a bad rule change

[@CrosswaIk]

Changes in Magic always bring me back to the early 00's when a card shop owner said he stopped playing Magic because they stopped printing Lightning Bolt. I kind of get it now

[@sangelititan1171]

Turns out I've been doing combat wrong for the last 10 years, and now WOTC has changed it to how I've always done it. Wild

[@TLG1255]

Feels alright to me. Seems like wizards was looking for a place to simplify rules where it wouldn’t be horrifically damaging to the game. This seems helpful for new people learning and I’m not mad

[@TheJacklikesvideos]

this is old rules and they never should have been changed in the first place.

[@ADeatonic]

You may think I don't hear that Ape Escape in the background at the beginning but I do.

[@myceliumbug]

what? I THink that I've always used the Foundations rules without even knowin, glad they introduce that it make lot more sense, compared to the post 2010 rule

[@kalierdarkekd]

Yeah, the "New rule" is not so new, it's just how combat worked between 6th and M10, and a lot of players never knew it was changed in the first place.

[@myceliumbug]

@@kalierdarkekd oh I see but it's changed when the damage where not anymore a thing that go on the stack? like Mogg Fanatic thing that was able to kill 2 X/1 creatures with old rules. so yeah the first part of the video is about how the rules are right now? cause I think I've always used the rules explained in the second part of the video 🤣🤣

[@kalierdarkekd]

@@myceliumbug yeah, 6th changed it to not use the stack (formerly named Last In First out, aka LIFO) then M10 changed it to the rules currently used on Arena and supposed to be used in paper (but I've never seen anyone do it that way and I've played since Ice Age. Never knew it was changed)

[@myceliumbug]

@@kalierdarkekd oh okay, cool. ty for the answer