Unless Wizards changed things while I was away, Legendary is not a type. Yet... go to gather, and under "types".... Legendary. (Don't believe me? http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Advanced.aspx )
So let's start with the biggest problem to making Legendary a real type: tarmogoyf. Plays go out of their way to look for tribal cards just to boost this card, if Legendary's a type, then tarmogoyf gets even bigger. You know what? tarmogoyf is generally regarded as a mistake, and if there are clear rules benefits to be had from the change, I can deal with a potentially +1/+1 tarmogoyf.
So here's my proposal: Make Legendary a type, and have Legendary and Planeswalkers share a sub-type (IE, character name) pool. Instants and Sorceries already do this with Arcane (and I'd love for them to do this with Commands, Charms, and other recurring archetypes).
This woulds solve a major problem with the flavor of legendary and planeswalker creatures, and consolidate their rules into one set (always a plus for the comprehensive rules). The biggest problem I see with this is that you'd want to reprint lots of legendary creatures to help this become clear. Blind Seer is Urza, right? I don't think such a reprint blitz would be much of a problem; Wizards has done quite a few premium reprint sets of late; it wouldn't be too difficult to print something like "Commander's Wrath" that prints iconic commander staples coupled with upwards of 100 legendary creatures. Modern Masters 2017 has 70+ rares and mythics, and this set could have all their rares and mythics be legendary creatures, and toss partner commanders and certain other "makes sense at uncommon" legendary creatures in at uncommmon. That said, I think I'd propose doubling the normal amount of rares, while leaving the mythics about the same number. The rares would feel rarer, which makes sense with legendary creatures, and you could just get more of them into player's hands. This is probably worth doing in general, but this will be the first time many such cards with be printed in the new cardface and/or available in foil. Maybe do fancier/more special foils for legendaries... the only question is whether you could make a limited, stripped down version of commander work for limited. My suggestion? More pacifism-style effects and make drafting sacrifice-you-guy cards relevant. And, I suppose, uncommon Meddling Mage-style effects?
Edit: Note there have been quite a few legendary cards at uncommon - many thanks to master sets or Kamigawa block - so there's potential to get quite a few legendary cards reprinted in such a set. Nowhere near the 800 or so cards that have been printed, but surely enough iconic legendary cards to help out EDH players. Maybe save enough relevant mythics for a 2nd set 2 years later?
Problem: things other than creatures are legendary.
Legendary Land - The-Tabernacle-at-Pendrell-Vale?
Other problem: breaks the underpinnings of the type-supertype system. I don't think this is worth doing in order to make existing card functionalities worse. Why should I be denied putting Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius in my Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind Commander deck? They form a combo, after all.
I noticed this too. I don't think it's too difficult to give these unique, appropriate names. Pendrell-Vale-Tabernacle; Erebos's-Whip will do in a pinch.
The the question you have to ask yourself is this: Is the odd names 2 dozen non-creature legendaries worth the flavor and function bonus? I think it is.
Re: Combo. Mirror Gallery Why you should be denied running both? Because they're the same person; the same reason you can't have two Liliana or Nissa out. Either you like the legendary mechanic or you do not. Applying it oddly only serves to make the game clunky and unflavorful.
Okay. Karona is the composite of three people. She shouldn't be able to exist at the same time as them. So what's Karona, False God's typeline now look like?
The typeline clutter, the massive rules reworking, the general frustration - it would not be worth it just to make two similar but unrelated concepts in the game work identically. Function has to trump flavor. All day, every day. Because at the end of the day, Magic's function can never perfectly match its flavor, never has, and never will. And that's fine, because damn it, Predator Ooze should be able to wear Swiftfoot Boots.
There are about 800 legendary creatures, and the change I propose just makes it easier to do "story driven character changes" in card form. This is something Wizards likes doing (more than players like; see their recent talk about the gatewatch getting cards...). All this does is allow the game to play as intended. The 30 or so cards that create problems... are nothing compared to problems created elsewhere.
The current legend rule system works perfectly well. It's easy as pie to look at a card's name, and when the legend rule kicks in to make the permanents go to the graveyard it's very easily apparent. The planeswalker uniqueness rule also works fine, because you're matching exact typeline to exact typeline.
They work differently despite trying to accomplish the same thing, but neither system is actually broken. Anyone can understand the fact that even when two different legendary cards represent the same individual, they can coexist because the names are different and also simultaneously hold in their mind the idea that planeswalker cards check for subtypes. Why make it all more complex while, at the same time, uglifying hundreds of typelines? For every relatively benign "Legendary Creature - Angel Akroma", there's going to be another "Legendary Enchantment - Honden-of-Infinite-Rage Shrine" or "Legendary Creature - Human Artificer Pia Kiran". And woe betide us when some poor Commander designer decides to print "Legendary Creature - Demon Spirit All-Consuming-Oni-of-Chaos".
To sum up, as a designer, one of the most important things you have to learn is when to give up on an idea. Not every hill's worth dying on. You can write things off as interesting thought experiments that didn't work out in practice and move forward to the next thing.
There are about 800 legendary creatures, and the change I propose just makes it easier to do "story driven character changes" in card form. This is something Wizards likes doing (more than players like; see their recent talk about the gatewatch getting cards...). All this does is allow the game to play as intended. The 30 or so cards that create problems... are nothing compared to problems created elsewhere.
The lords were changed in 9th Edition. The Creature Type update was done in M10. Yes, it was a large overhaul in favor of flavor but it is also one that enough in R&D feel was a mistake (according to MaRo) that I don't think they are anxious to repeat it.
I don't understand what you are asking about Nameless Race, Brushhopper, and Aladdin. How are they relevant to what you are talking about? Are you saying they should be changed? Nameless Race doesn't have a creature type because of Flavor. Why would you lump that in with things that (I assume) you are suggesting are problems?
You are trying to mechanically fix a flavor problem. And your solution is much more problematic than the current "problem". How would this even work? Others have pointed out inconsistencies and issues with it, but where does "fixing flavor issues" stop? Do we no longer let Birds of Paradise wield a Sword? What do we do about cards like Disruptive Student? Are you going to errata that to be a Legendary? There are no problems that are currently large enough to warrant this type of overhaul to the Planeswalker/Legendary rule set.
I can have an unflipped and flipped Nissa on the board at the same time. It does not "Work perfectly well." It works okay, if you're willing to overlook things.
In terms of rules parity, we have two near-identical sets of rules for legendary creatures and planeswalkers. Why?
You've got a keep eye for pointing out a dozen or so cards that are the obvious exception. I suspect you'd be one of the ones who said that 2 lord of atlantis on the field should be 2 2/2s, not 2 3/3s. Feel free to take a poll to see who'd take that stand on Lord of Atlantis. I propose reading the Wizards article on the creature type update. It's a template for this; and this? This is a lot less burdensome of an update. But better still? It gives us an excuse to reprint legendary creatures in droves. That's something lots of people would like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So let's start with the biggest problem to making Legendary a real type: tarmogoyf. Plays go out of their way to look for tribal cards just to boost this card, if Legendary's a type, then tarmogoyf gets even bigger. You know what? tarmogoyf is generally regarded as a mistake, and if there are clear rules benefits to be had from the change, I can deal with a potentially +1/+1 tarmogoyf.
So here's my proposal: Make Legendary a type, and have Legendary and Planeswalkers share a sub-type (IE, character name) pool. Instants and Sorceries already do this with Arcane (and I'd love for them to do this with Commands, Charms, and other recurring archetypes).
For example:
Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius and Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind gain the Legendary/Planeswalker type Niv-Mizzet. If you control two Niv-Mizzers, you sacrifice one as a state-based effect.
Nissa, Vastwood Seer gains the type Nissa, so that if you've got a Nissa, Sage Animist, you don't want to play it (normally).
This woulds solve a major problem with the flavor of legendary and planeswalker creatures, and consolidate their rules into one set (always a plus for the comprehensive rules). The biggest problem I see with this is that you'd want to reprint lots of legendary creatures to help this become clear. Blind Seer is Urza, right? I don't think such a reprint blitz would be much of a problem; Wizards has done quite a few premium reprint sets of late; it wouldn't be too difficult to print something like "Commander's Wrath" that prints iconic commander staples coupled with upwards of 100 legendary creatures. Modern Masters 2017 has 70+ rares and mythics, and this set could have all their rares and mythics be legendary creatures, and toss partner commanders and certain other "makes sense at uncommon" legendary creatures in at uncommmon. That said, I think I'd propose doubling the normal amount of rares, while leaving the mythics about the same number. The rares would feel rarer, which makes sense with legendary creatures, and you could just get more of them into player's hands. This is probably worth doing in general, but this will be the first time many such cards with be printed in the new cardface and/or available in foil. Maybe do fancier/more special foils for legendaries... the only question is whether you could make a limited, stripped down version of commander work for limited. My suggestion? More pacifism-style effects and make drafting sacrifice-you-guy cards relevant. And, I suppose, uncommon Meddling Mage-style effects?
Edit: Note there have been quite a few legendary cards at uncommon - many thanks to master sets or Kamigawa block - so there's potential to get quite a few legendary cards reprinted in such a set. Nowhere near the 800 or so cards that have been printed, but surely enough iconic legendary cards to help out EDH players. Maybe save enough relevant mythics for a 2nd set 2 years later?
Legendary Land - The-Tabernacle-at-Pendrell-Vale?
Other problem: breaks the underpinnings of the type-supertype system. I don't think this is worth doing in order to make existing card functionalities worse. Why should I be denied putting Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius in my Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind Commander deck? They form a combo, after all.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
The the question you have to ask yourself is this: Is the odd names 2 dozen non-creature legendaries worth the flavor and function bonus? I think it is.
Re: Combo. Mirror Gallery Why you should be denied running both? Because they're the same person; the same reason you can't have two Liliana or Nissa out. Either you like the legendary mechanic or you do not. Applying it oddly only serves to make the game clunky and unflavorful.
Legendary Creature - Avatar Karona Jeska Akroma Zagorka?
The typeline clutter, the massive rules reworking, the general frustration - it would not be worth it just to make two similar but unrelated concepts in the game work identically. Function has to trump flavor. All day, every day. Because at the end of the day, Magic's function can never perfectly match its flavor, never has, and never will. And that's fine, because damn it, Predator Ooze should be able to wear Swiftfoot Boots.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'd ask you to look at any time Wizards did a change like the one I've proposed; the big one people know/care about is the creature type overhaul, which turned (among other things) lord of atlantis into a merfolk.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/grand-creature-type-update-2007-09-26
What are they going to do with Nameless Race? Is Anurid Brushhopper a frog? Is Brine Shaman a cleric or a shaman? What about Ivory Guardians? What happened to my tribal Aladdin deck?
There are about 800 legendary creatures, and the change I propose just makes it easier to do "story driven character changes" in card form. This is something Wizards likes doing (more than players like; see their recent talk about the gatewatch getting cards...). All this does is allow the game to play as intended. The 30 or so cards that create problems... are nothing compared to problems created elsewhere.
They work differently despite trying to accomplish the same thing, but neither system is actually broken. Anyone can understand the fact that even when two different legendary cards represent the same individual, they can coexist because the names are different and also simultaneously hold in their mind the idea that planeswalker cards check for subtypes. Why make it all more complex while, at the same time, uglifying hundreds of typelines? For every relatively benign "Legendary Creature - Angel Akroma", there's going to be another "Legendary Enchantment - Honden-of-Infinite-Rage Shrine" or "Legendary Creature - Human Artificer Pia Kiran". And woe betide us when some poor Commander designer decides to print "Legendary Creature - Demon Spirit All-Consuming-Oni-of-Chaos".
To sum up, as a designer, one of the most important things you have to learn is when to give up on an idea. Not every hill's worth dying on. You can write things off as interesting thought experiments that didn't work out in practice and move forward to the next thing.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
The lords were changed in 9th Edition. The Creature Type update was done in M10. Yes, it was a large overhaul in favor of flavor but it is also one that enough in R&D feel was a mistake (according to MaRo) that I don't think they are anxious to repeat it.
I don't understand what you are asking about Nameless Race, Brushhopper, and Aladdin. How are they relevant to what you are talking about? Are you saying they should be changed? Nameless Race doesn't have a creature type because of Flavor. Why would you lump that in with things that (I assume) you are suggesting are problems?
You are trying to mechanically fix a flavor problem. And your solution is much more problematic than the current "problem". How would this even work? Others have pointed out inconsistencies and issues with it, but where does "fixing flavor issues" stop? Do we no longer let Birds of Paradise wield a Sword? What do we do about cards like Disruptive Student? Are you going to errata that to be a Legendary? There are no problems that are currently large enough to warrant this type of overhaul to the Planeswalker/Legendary rule set.
In terms of rules parity, we have two near-identical sets of rules for legendary creatures and planeswalkers. Why?
You've got a keep eye for pointing out a dozen or so cards that are the obvious exception. I suspect you'd be one of the ones who said that 2 lord of atlantis on the field should be 2 2/2s, not 2 3/3s. Feel free to take a poll to see who'd take that stand on Lord of Atlantis. I propose reading the Wizards article on the creature type update. It's a template for this; and this? This is a lot less burdensome of an update. But better still? It gives us an excuse to reprint legendary creatures in droves. That's something lots of people would like.