What You Need to Know About Magic's Change to Combat!

Wizards is tweaking how the combat step works! Join me as I share my thoughts on what this means for limited players (ok fine, constructed players too)
Limited Level-Ups Patreon: / limitedlevelups
Limited Level-Ups Discord: bit.ly/jointhedischord
Limited Level-Ups Podcast:limitedlevelup...
Alex's Coaching Email: [e-mail]
#ruleschange #magicrules #mtgrulechange #limited @draft

[@CharlotteMimic]

GREAT explainer!

[@punkypinko2965]

Clearest explanation I've heard so far. Subbed. Thanks!

[@smalltownmoon]

Cheers Alex, really clear - and will share with my limited group

[@EvanHobson]

Thanks, Alex! That was really helpful.

[@bmccarthy9]

It's very funny that it seems like many people thought it already worked like this, so to explain what changed they have to learn the old rule that doesn't matter anymore. There are three levels of change this causes: Logistical change where you just use the rules differently when a double block happens. Functional change where it changes what happens concretely in combat. Potential change where your look ahead of what might happen in the game sees a situation where you have a functional change, regardless of whether that functional change matters or not. My sense is that logistical changes are going to happen a decent chunk of the time and just be a nice simplifying of the rules. Regarding functional and potential changes: given that every situation with the change involves double blocks with effects after blocking for one or both players, and that blocking is something both players have to opt in to, I expect the vast majority of potential situations this comes up in to not actually concretely happen (a lot of which is not down to the change but just how risky opting into combat is with your opponent having mana open, or alternately that the trade you get from combat might shift in value but remain too bad for the same player). I can't get a sense without playing how often you actually have potential changes though. The short version: you're going to have to think about this a lot more than it's going to actually happen.

[@milanmartin4407]

Thanks for the explanation! Just a little nitpick, before the rule change, the attacker could still choose to divide damage as he saw fit, provided he assign lethal damage in the order. This is a rule not a lot of players are aware of, because it comes up very rarely. It's relevant for example if you attack with 2 menace creatures, and there is a blood artist effect on the opponent's board. If one creature gets blocked with 2 1/1, you can choose to assign all your damage to the first creature, to prevent the second one from dying. This always seemed strange to me, and at least now it's cleared up. I think the change is good for new players, and whatever for enfranchised ones.

[@stefanobermair2761]

The best video i found on this topic

[@jchikes247]

Thanks

[@ohcoolstorybruh8842]

I don't think this is a drastic change, but I do still feel that it slightly buffs aggro strategies and slightly nerfs blocking/control strategies. I think you're also gonna feel it when you're trying to plan future turns in a game, since this seems like it will somewhat discourage double blocking now which would influence decision making. I'm not sure I like it or think it's good for the game, even if one argument in favor of it is that this helps reduce the complexity of the game, that 'simplification' comes at the cost of some player agency for the blocking side. Hopefully I'm wrong though and it ends up being a positive change!

[@JeremyHoffman]

I thought, in the old system, you had the option of assigning excess damage to the earlier creature in the order -- 4 damage to the 3/3 and 1 damage to the 2/2, in yoyr example.

[@heavenlyevan]

Yes. You had to assign lethal damage to the first blocker before dealing any damage to the second, but you could assign more than lethal damage if you want. This was relevant in situations where someone double blocks with creatures that deal damage on death. You could choose to just kill one of them so that they don't get the benefit.

[@DoctorOctoconapus]

Thank you for explaining the change, I couldn't figure it out from news posts. The funny thing is I've been playing magic for more than a decade and I thought the *new* way was actually how the game has always worked. I only play paper magic. I distinctly remember playing this new way in limited events and my opponents and I thought this was how combat worked 😅

[@taylornewman9561]

Must mean it’s a solid change if that’s how people normally do it frequently anyways! Anything to make Magic as initiative as possible is great!

[@travisrose2277]

This is how combat USED to work (and IMHO how it SHOULD work). And I'm a control player, I just have to admit the new update is the more intuitive way to handle damage/blocks.

[@voltmatt]

Hey Chords! Deathtouch seems like it will be identical. But will Trample be? I’m guessing you still won’t be able to assign 0 damage to creatures and all to face right? (A boy can dream🤣) Firststrike I’m guessing you just assign firststrike damage then have priority passed between players for combat tricks then go to regular damage after? Also I think it will make turns ever so slightly faster since it will go declare attacks / declare blocks / effects / damage. And will be less confusing for newer or slower players. Was interested to hear your thoughts soon as I heard about this. Thanks for always keeping us up to date!

[@limitedlevel-ups]

Yep! Basically nothing changes with any combat keywords

[@hj70ft]

Wasn’t it an odd choice to use “Fear of the Dark” as the attacking creature to illustrate combat tricks? The opponent as far as we can tell doesn’t have a Glimmer creature so the attacker gets Menace and Deathtouch so casting to Giant Growth to try to save an ordered blocker wouldn’t work anyway. This means assigning lethal damage of 1 is good enough. The attacker doesn’t have to assign all 5 to the first blocker that has become a 6/6 after combat trick.

[@МихаилВолченков-е9в]

Hello Alex, thanks a lot 4 video. Are you going to rate foundations cards, like the last time you did it with duskmourn?

[@limitedlevel-ups]

Yep!

[@nicholaschun5918]

Do you know how this goes with an attacker with trample, and a modifier like City on Fire? For example, a 6/6 trampler blocked by 2 3/3s while City on Fire is on your field: how much max damage can you deal to an opponent?

[@aritsunes]

510.1c "When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt." I doubt the above rule will change with FDN. Trample damage has to be assigned at the same time as damage to creatures; City on Fire won't apply until after that, so the best you could do is deal 9 to each 3/3 and 0 to the opponent, so the answer is the same as before the change, except you could I guess decide to deal 3(1x3) to one 3/3 and 15(5x3) to the other one, for fun.

[@nicholaschun5918]

@aritsunes that makes sense. Thanks for that!

[@tonygibbons7996]

I understand how this technically changes how damage is assigned in double blocking, but unless the creature has menace, why would any one be double blocking anyway if you’re planning to flip a bigger morph or pump your blocker?

[@soamazzzzin]

I do that occasionally when I read the opponent might have their own pump spell to be sure their creature still dies and avoid the reverse blowout

[@dalipookah]

In my mind, with any established game, rule changes should be invoked to either close a perceived loophole in the rules which is being exploited or to fix a perceived issue with the flow of the game. I don't know how this change was announced, but it would be good to hear some commentary about what circumstances engendered this change. I agree that this change may only affect a few circumstances now, but we don't know what future mechanics might hold and this was a precursor for new mechanics. Back in the beginning of MTG, I was philosophically opposed to the concept of collectible card games on the theory that I didn't see a purpose in buying, for example, 60 chess sets in order to get a queen. Especially since rarity could be manipulated by the publisher (just as Beanie Babies became rare and common at whim of Ty. Now that we can play without massive expense, I can enjoy the strategy of the game. So I ask, what issue was this rule change made to address?

[@limitedlevel-ups]

It cuts out a step that they deems fairly unnecessary. It streamlines the game and makes it easier to teach without given up much strategic depth

[@arootube]

What prompted this change anyway?

[@hankwen]

Wizards is pushing for Foundations to be the beginners set for the game with products like the 'Beginner Box' as a supposedly improved method to teach new players how to play. During the process of figuring out how to best explain the rules for these products it's likely they thought of making this rules change to streamline this part for beginners.

[@mvdplas8145]

Less clicks on Arena

[@tychoMX]

I like that this helps reduce the incidence of some situations where the board stalls - sure, you kill the attacker but at least it gets to somewhat trade itself for something or at least prevents an offensive blowout.

[@Sanchy]

2:29 Fear of the dark has deathtouch if the opponent doesn't control glimmers. That means you could deal 1 to each and kill them all?

[@reidyo5404]

You could always do this because death touch makes the 1 damage lethal damage.

[@kmo9790]

So is Banding making a comeback? lol

[@Crazimir]

Bring back The Stack!

[@migsho]

So double block now sucks?

[@evankraabel5415]

This is a pretty huge change, IMO. There are a lot of instances where it matters, between the three scenarios you laid out. I think there are some activated abilities itll nerf in combat too, such as the Warren Elder ability (+1+1 to team), though im not positive on that. The biggest negative i see is the combat trick part, because casting a combat trick in a defensive double block is so risky to begin with, it should get to have a big payoff when you dont get blown out. Letting them kill one of your creatures anyway makes it still a 2 for 1 every time. Cause, the positive outcome for the blocker is still only a 1 for 1, its just at a major mana advantage. So I desagree that this doesnt make tricks much worse, it basically says you need to only put tricks in a deck that can alwasy be attacking, rather than just usually attacking as it is now.

[@TherealLaserdog]

Big nerf to defensive strategies in limited sets that are already too aggressive -_-

[@traviswichtendahl5648]

We laughed, but in the end, Banding won.

[@MrCaptainJack2]

You did not explain how this new system works with trample. In fact there is no way that trample won't cause serious confusion now, since assigning lethal damage to a blocker is no longer a necessity. In my opinion, any change should have very good justification. Nothing I have heard from you or wizards convinced me that this was necessary. Are there more existing players or new players? To me it's clear that the existing playerbase is bigger than any potential influx of players due to foundations or universes beyond, so you will confuse millions of players in order to -maybe- (not even convinced this is the case) simplify one fringe rule for 10s of thousands.

[@FiboSai]

Trample is not affected. The rules state that you still need to assign lethal damage to all blockers before you could assign damage to players. You can't just not assign damage to creatures to deal the full amount of damage directly to the player.

[@buggsport]

I still miss damage using the stack...game has gone downhill since mid 90s.😂

[@36424567254]

I think this is a bad change. Casting tricks on a double block is now a 2-for-1 against yourself *even when the opponent doesn't answer your trick*. This makes tricks much much worse on defense (and they already were not very good), and makes attacking much, much safer. The only positive I see is that it may reduce long board stalls where nothing happens until someone draws an unanswerable bomb.

[@runedust9875]

So a deathtoucher like Sheoldred can now kill 4 creatures by doing one damage to every creature. That's crazy! I already don't like this change.

[@limitedlevel-ups]

This was always the case! Since death touch means 1 damage is lethal damage, you just have to deal one to each blocker in a multi block

[@runedust9875]

@@limitedlevel-ups But if all of those creatures were a 6/1, only one creature would have died. Sheoldred would fight and kill the first creature (according to blocking order), and that creature would fight and kill Sheoldred. Four creatures would not fight. With the new system, Sheoldred would deal one damage simultaneously to each creature and they all will die. Or am I wrong?

[@ZeroFate643]

​​@@runedust9875You're wrong. Deathtouch already made any single damage lethal when assigning damage, and all damage was already dealt simultaneously.

[@runedust9875]

​@@ZeroFate643 Okey thanks. I had this wrong in mind (probably bcause MTGArena assigns combat damage automatically)

[@davidevaldani1571]

​@@runedust9875 you can change that in the settings on arena to avoid that. I think it is actually pretty important to do it to avoid feel bad moment