how are we all feeling about them? for folks who haven't been keeping up, they're switching damage to just be assigned as it's dealt, with no need for the attacker to pre-declare a damage order when they get double-blocked, and they're switching from using a card's name in its rules text to just saying "this creature" or "this spell" or whatever. I think the combat damage thing is great, it's how it should've worked the whole time and now that we're far enough away from the damage-on-the-stack days I think it's smart to flip to the most intuitive option. I'm less sold on the formatting thing, I think it loses a bit of narrative resonance but ultimately not a huge deal.

I like the blocking rules change.

I'm not used to the templating change yet and it seems completely random where they choose to deploy it. If new players were confused about the meaning of CARDNAME before, I don't think it'll help matters to keep using it, but inconsistently and less often.

yeah I haven't been following it closely enough to see how they've been implementing it, I just saw them say they were gonna do it.

looking through the release notes, though, the gate colossus example does highlight an aesthetic problem with the new formatting: the three abilities affect it in different zones, and thus refer to itself as three different classes of object. which, like, I guess is kinda the point, but I think it looks kinda ugly. might just be something that takes getting used to, though.

I think the combat damage change (or change back) is great. I don't like the "This (whatever)" wording very much and will probably still use direct references in YMTC for quite some time, but on the whole I doubt it will be all that impactful

The blocking damage thing is a nice change.

I feel that the wording change is their attempt to make a fixed number of words for names and stuff.

Does the "When this creature..." wording make copying a little bit more grokkable for new comers? I don't think it's a major difference but maybe slight.

I agree it should be one or the other.

I think it's consistent in that there is a rule. As per razorborne's note, cards refer to themselves as a "creature", "spell", or "card" as appropriate. It uses the card's actual name when it's ambiguous which term applies, like Serra Avenger's ability refers to itself both when it's a card and a spell, so it felt inaccurate to use either.

The big exception is legendary creatures still refer to themselves by name. But that's part of the rule. I don't see the randomness.

Taking a second look, I think what I'm noticing is that they haven't done any errata for the change, which I didn't realize. The only cards that follow the new rules are the ones printed in Foundations.

The "this" change seems reasonable. Bunch of people were already using something similar or have suggested such. WotC had been transitioning towards this direction with the "this spell" change that happened several years prior iirc. Although is it just me or does it seem a bit unnecessary/redundant to specify whether it's card/spell/(card type)? It's often seems implicitly clear - like the changing that specifier isn't ever going to change the functionality of a card if supposedly changed so it just seems like redundant syntax sugar tbh.

I'm more 'ticked' by the earlier ETB to "enters (the battlefield?)" change which is like going for more flavor and then taking two steps back while introducing more ambiguity. "Enters" where? You might as well go back to "comes into play" at this point since that would at least specify the zone - given that now it's clear that the whole "battlefield" is no longer the flagship 'oh-so-flavorful' feature of that wording change.

On the topic of these two points/paragraphs, I have thrown on reddit the idea of something like

Blocking damage change is pretty good, they might need to buff the instants that give a creature indestructible with no or a very small stat boosts a little since these are the biggest losers out of the.change and weren't that awesome even before.

I dunno, one-shot instant indestructible was usually pretty solid as Avoid Fate split with "Turn target trade into a kill or chump into a push". It rarely came up with multiblocking to trick out damage soaks.

Honestly seeing how I'm reacting to the multiblocker damage change I get why some folks weren't fussed about losing Mana Burn, even if I still want it back.

Wall of Halting
Creature - Wall (C)
Defender, stout (Combat damage must be assigned to this creature if able.)
"So that's it? This is some sort of... blocking order?"
—Gideon Jura
0/3

I'm torn on this, I agree that "battlefield" is useful flavor but "enters the battlefield" is also really long for such a common trigger condition. "enters" on its own is really awkward, though, similar to how they went with "add" for their mana keyword as a shortening of "add (X) to your mana pool" even though without referencing the mana pool it's extremely unclear what you're supposed to be adding that mana to. personally I think shortening ETB is valuable enough to be worth it, but in my wordings I've switched to saying "when ~ arrives" instead because it's a word that actually means what they want it to mean.

I feel like the "this" phrasing could have been more clearly executed by simply making all instances: "this".

For example:

Shock
Instant
This deals 2 damage to any target.

Phage the Untouchable
Legendary Creature - Something Something
When this enters, if you didn't cast it from your hand, you lose the game.
?/?

Squadron Hawk
Creature - Bird
Flying
When this enters, search your library for up to three cards with the same name as this, put them into your hand, then shuffle.
[1/1]

Most ambiguity can be cleared up via context, so there isn't a real reason to use the full phrase. It also future proofs possible issues with legendary persons being referred to as "this creature" from a flavor perspective, as "this" could also imply "this person as a creature/spell/card"

...

Actually one moment:

Bob the Butcher
Legendary Creature - Human Assassin
This creature has first strike as long as it is attacking.
Whenever this creature deals damage to another creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that other creature and create a colorless Food token artifact.
Most question his lack of taste; none question his lack of humanity.
[4/4]

Yeah, well before it was even on the map of custom designers, I ended up using "Produce (X)" as the new syntax for "add (X) to your mana pool". The strange thing is that "produce" as a term is already used for this meaning in current mtg cards and has been since the beginning of the game. For example, Break the Ice, Security Rhox, and Ritual of Subdual. I had a thread about it on MTG Salvation discussing the alternatives quite a bit, where for example "You get (X)" was considered but was a bit iffy IMO - especially as "produce" is already in the game as a term for this meaning and is more informative.

"When ~ arrives" is definitely a variant I've seen floated around. I think it has a similar thing where it could easily as well as be "when ~ arrives (graveyard)" - as in it could refer to any zone without context. So I don't really see the difference other than using a different verb..?

yeah, "produce" is probably the best mix of descriptive and accessible.

it's about trying to hit some level of narrative resonance. "enter" is a verb that intrinsically demands a predicate: one can't simply enter, they must enter somewhere (or something), which is why the current formatting of "when this creature enters" feels so incomplete. "arrive", on the other hand, has more specific connotations and can thus much more easily carry an implied destination, so if I say "when this creature arrives", the semantic and semiotic implications are clearer. it still leaves the option of arriving in other zones, but the connotations of the verb are more active, so they align better with the single zone where the creature is implied to be alive and active. (compare the different backstories implied by the phrases "he entered the grave" and "he arrived in the grave".)

I'm not saying it's a replacement for specifying the zone, but since most zone-entering triggers are tied to the battlefield anyway, I can see the point in saving text space by removing that, especially since there's already precedent for the idea that abilities only work on the battlefield unless they say otherwise. (a glorious anthem in your graveyard isn't pumping anything, for instance.) I just think that if that's the path they're going, holding on to "enters" even after it stops being grammatically coherent is silly, and "arrives" is both more semantically complete and more narratively resonant with the intended trigger event.

At some point, if you're really going to condense enter, I think it falls back on a keyword (like Hearthstone's "Battlecry") or even a symbol

" Draw a Card", and is defined in the rules as "When this enters the battlefield..."

Notably, is the "Comes into Play" symbol from Dreamblade, which started out using that since it had much less space to put text on.

I've been playing Wixoss and it has abilities tagged with their type: EtBs, constant abilities, activated abilities, Triggered ("auto") abilities and so on. So if you have "|Enter> Discard a card, then draw a card" when the dang thing comes in you will discard and then draw. Notably, there's some interesting flexibility. "|Enter> Discard a card: draw a card" has a colon, which indicates the part before it is a cost. You can decline to pay costs (and not get their effects as a result), so this essentially would read (in magic-ese) "When this creature enters, you may discard a card. If you do, draw a card." This is basically a symbol that has text on it, the tag is pretty small to fit in-line with text.