Dear Mark Rosewater,
I will try to keep this as short and on point as possible.
I can have both the Fate Reforged and Dragons of Tarkir versions of Silumgar in play at the same time because they have two different English names of the same legendary creature. I can have Karn, Silver Golem and Karn Liberated in play at the same time. I cannot have Liliana of the Veil and Liliana of the Dark Realms in play at the same time because of the special planeswalker rules.
I understand completely that giving Planeswalkers the Super Type "legendary" would feel clunky and redundant. They are supposed to feel big, splashy and mythical. WotC has certainly hit a home run there. However, the current Planeswalker rules feel inconsistent with the rest of the game when you consider the aforementioned situation.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
(My real name)
He responded promptly
(Name Withheld),
The reason the rules allow the uniqueness with planeswalkers is the subtype. Legendary creatures don't have a sub-type (and black border rules cannot reference words from a title) so there is no way within the rules to do it.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
I also tweeted him before sending the email and he responded to me as well. I guess you can get my real name that way if you really care to read his tweets and replies to verify I am telling the truth. Anyway, take this for what you will and feel free to discuss.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
Think of it this way, the planes walker uniqueness rule is the fixed legendary rule your asking for they just can't retroactively apply it to legendries. Having Legendary and Planes walker in the type would be redundant.
I'm not super up on flavour justifications but here's my take
you summon a creature, you are essentially reaching across the multiverse in time and space to pull that creature to serve you.
Some Creatures are significant enough to the fabric of the multiverse that their essence resist being pulled so that you can only have one version of them.
Planeswalkers being aware of the multiverse can't actually be summoned, instead they will actually planes walk to you and aid at your side. However you can still summon them from their "pre-spark" timeline.
I believe the current flavor explanation is that when you cast a creature spell, you're actually creating a simulacrum of the being out of aether, using a "pattern". Non-legendary creatures are created using something like a template; legendary creatures are a unique pattern. You can only have one simulacrum matching a given "pattern" at once; this is essentially a snapshot of the being at a given time. Different versions of the same Legendary creatures represent different "patterns" at different points in its life.
The legend problem has been known for ages (like since Onslaught), and it's too late to fix it. That's why the Planeswalker rule goes by subtype instead of name.
Basically, Wizards has known about this since Planeswalkers were introduced, there's nothing new to discuss here really.
The legend problem has been known for ages (like since Onslaught), and it's too late to fix it. That's why the Planeswalker rule goes by subtype instead of name.
Basically, Wizards has known about this since Planeswalkers were introduced, there's nothing new to discuss here really.
Even earlier, in fact: Ascendant Evincar in Nemesis. That's a large part of why they can't fix it, because without knowing the story, you have no way of knowing that that's the same guy who's represented by Crovax the Cursed.
Rules Advisor (as of the last time they offered that certification).
Quote from "William Lyon Mackenzie King" »
There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.
I don't play decks. I solve optimization problems.
Currently solving:
Standard: Too poor for this format.
Modern: GW Auras, Living End, WB TurboFog, UB Mill, UR Storm
Legacy: R Burn, GU Infect, RG Lands, B Contamination
Even earlier, in fact: Ascendant Evincar in Nemesis. That's a large part of why they can't fix it, because without knowing the story, you have no way of knowing that that's the same guy who's represented by Crovax the Cursed.
Right, I forgot about those. I read an article that talked about the problem a while back but referred to Kamahl, I guess that's why I thought of him first.
NOTE: I have no idea what the "black border rules" are that he references.
==========================================
I don't want to be a jerk to MaRo, but they are WotC. They can do what every they want.
*They can say all interrupts and mana sources are now instants, changing timing rules forever.
*They can say everything but mana abilities go on the stack, then chnage the rules saying that combat damage no longer goes on the stack either.
They have changed the legendary rules twice (we are in our third version).
*They could have made tribal a super type if they wanted to, and/or could have given creature types to non-creature spells if they wanted to.
*They could have named the exile zone anything they wanted, including "The Void," which is referred to on a number of black cards.
*They can create legal zones such as the Command Zone, which is where emblems go and is used in every format, not just commander. They even said in an R&D video they were testing yet another zone called "Nix," where the God cards would be placed until you reached their devotion, but changed their minds. they also said they have toyed around with the idea of new zones off and on over the years. Trust me, we will get a new zone. Maybe not for another 10 years, but it WILL happen once they find a good enough excuse. We might even enjoy it - who knows?
*They have changed the creature types of cards a number of times and show no signs of stopping. They got rid of Lords altogether. What is stopping them from "fixing" creatures and creating a sub type? I think the real reason is "card real estate." They wanted Godsend to be a Legendary Enchantment Artifact -Equipment, but that wouldn't fit on one line of text. That is "card real estate." Putting "Legendary Creature - X Y - Crovax" eats up real estate and having two hyphens looks ugly.
Urza's Destiny had an interesting, but ultimately incorrect "fix" by changing cards from "Summon legend" to "Creature - Wizard Legend" which stayed in effect until the Kamigawa Legendary rules change. They could make another change if they really wanted to. I do agree though that giving a creature a sub type like how planeswalkers have would be clunky, and as I said in my email, making planeswalkers "legendary" is redundant and silly. I don't havea perfect answer. I am not a magic designer. I am just not a big fan of "Sorry, we can't do anything." Yes, you can. You can do something. you are WotC. this is your game. You just haven't thought of a good solution, and I don't blame you for that one bit. That is a difficult problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
NOTE: I have no idea what the "black border rules" are that he references.
More likely than not, he is referring to an internal policy on what short of things they're allowed to do with black border cards. In this case, referencing specific words from a card's name (as opposed to the entire name, such as Squadron Hawk).
As stated it is just that they can not retroactively fix the Legend rule in such a way that would make it work. They could print an Urza Planeswalker and many people (maybe even most people) wouldn't know there is a creature that can't co-exist with it.
Even if they somehow could have retrofitted this, it wouldnt fit on the typeline of most creatures, would it? So you would have for Kamahl, Fist of Krosa something like
Legendary Creature - Human Druid Kamahl
?
Edit: I guess the Legend-name couldn't be a subtype unless they dropped all other subtypes, since the point of it all would be to have a rule along the lines of "You can't have two Legendary creatures with the same subtype in play at the same time. So for Kamahl, either he would only be Legendary Creature - Kamahl, or Khamal would become a supertype and it would be something like Legendary Kamahl Creature - Human Druid. It would suck if Sliver Queen wasn't a sliver for example, so dropping the other subtypes would be bad.
Also, aren't we in our fourth Legend rule? Or more?
First, you could only have one legend in your deck.
Then, you could play up to 4 of them, but playing a legend prevented another player to play that legend (Famously utilised by sideboarding in Tolarian Academy in non-blue non-artifact decks to stop opposing players play their academy)
Third, you could play a new legend when the other was in play, and doing so killed any other legends with that name in play.
Fourth: Where we are today.
making erratas for every legendary creature that has multiple versions would be an oracle text nightmare.
It's just a too small of a flavor issue to generate that big of a rules nightmare.
WotC just made the right decision of leaving this alone.
As people have pointed out, there are cards that represent the same being but don't contain anything in the name to indicate that. Also there's a question of where you draw that line. Both Atarka's might be the same being, but technically Anafenza, the Foremost and Anafenza, Kin-Tree Warden are not the same entity. Modulo timeline changes they are, but having both of them coexist is no different than having any non-planeswalking creatures from two planes coexist next to each other.
I also don't see a reason TO change the rule. Besides the obvious flavor reasons they gave for Planeswalker cards, there's just the fact that their intent with Planeswalkers is to print more and more versions of the same characters (Or for a bunch of them. Obviously Xenagos isn't getting a second planeswalker card). It would be weird for legendary creature Chandra to see Chandra...'s Phoenix and by the game rules recognize that as another copy of itself. Or Nicol Bolas, who is listed as Planeswalker Bolas, to recognize Agent of Bolas as a copy of itself. So you make all these rules and exceptions and gatherer text changes to fix the fact that once in a blue moon there are two legendary creature cards representing the same creature?
Even if they somehow could have retrofitted this, it wouldnt fit on the typeline of most creatures, would it? So you would have for Kamahl, Fist of Krosa something like
Legendary Creature - Human Druid Kamahl
?
Edit: I guess the Legend-name couldn't be a subtype unless they dropped all other subtypes, since the point of it all would be to have a rule along the lines of "You can't have two Legendary creatures with the same subtype in play at the same time. So for Kamahl, either he would only be Legendary Creature - Kamahl, or Khamal would become a supertype and it would be something like Legendary Kamahl Creature - Human Druid. It would suck if Sliver Queen wasn't a sliver for example, so dropping the other subtypes would be bad.
It could be possible if they change Legendary to a type instead of a supertype (contary to what Drain life claimed supertypes can't have subtypes) and specified in the rule that it only applied to 2 or more creatures with the same Legend subtype.
But as this change only affects at most 2 dozen cards and 5 of them would need errata to make them fucntion as they are supposed to it is a lot of effort for what in most cases is no gain at all.
Not to mention as you said the type line gets filled up with absolutely useless information.
Part of the problem with having a legend subtype is confusion about what goes with which type.
Legendary creature - human druid Kamahl.
Which subtype goes with what? it's maybe a bad example because we know Kamahl is a name, but what about something else that doesn't have a proper name something that sounds like a made up creature type, like lhurgoyf?
how many questions do they get because of dryad arbor? people think forest is a creature type.
Also, what's the benefit of not being able to have 2 different Kamahls out at the same time? is it more fun to not be able to play them both if you have them in your deck? Does it even come up often enough to matter?
Personally, I don't mind that you can have multiple versions of a creature in play at the same time. I think that is kind of cool and part of the flavor of the power of a planeswalker. Flavor wise, it reminds me (sort of) when in science fiction where they cross dimensions and see alternate versions of themselves, only with a high fantasy time travel kind of feel. I don't even mind that other players can have a copy of a legend in play. It feels a little silly, but it doesn't bother me anymore. It certainly makes keeping track of legendary lands 10x easier in a game of Commander. The once classic "Legendary land check!" is a thing of the past.
My problem is with the planeswalker "legendary" rules. While I think they are probably the best "soultion" to the legend problem we all know and understand, ultimately they are are the exception and not the rule. I personally think need to be changed to bring them in line with how the rest of legendary permanents work. As I wrote before, slapping "legendary" onto a planeswalker is silly and redundant. However, this sub-type business is the real "problem" as we are not allowed to have more than one copy in play at a time that shares a sub type. That is the twist found no where else in the game.
Players have no problem understanding that you cannot have more than one legendary permanent with the same English name in play at the same time. Would they really have a problem if the same rule applied to planeswalkers? Just get rid of the sub-type altogether? Or leave it there, but it serves no practical purpose other than to list the planeswalker's name?
Right now, I can not play Liliana of the Dark Realms the turn after playing Liliana of the Veil. However, after Origins comes out later this year, I will be able to cast Liliana, Heretical Healer on turn three and then Liliana of the Dark Realms on turn four. That isn't a good play though, because if LHH flips, I will have to chose which planeswalker form to keep. That is just silly to me. Instead of going back and changing all the old rules to make legendary cards fit with planeswalkers, why don't they just change how planeswalkers work?
Would the complaint just be "Oh, but it would be so powerful if I could play two forms of the same planeswalker at the same time!"? Well, that is what Magic is all about. Using a combination of cards for bigger and more powerful effects than when alone. Currently, you can use Venser, the Sojourner to blink his pre-spark self Venser, Shaper Savant each turn... and I think that is cool and fun. As someone who plays a lot of mono black decks, I would like to use my various copies of Liliana at the same time just like Venser, Karn, or Nicol Bolas already can. Even when origins comes out, I still really won't be able to because when she flips I'm screwed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
Personally, I don't mind that you can have multiple versions of a creature in play at the same time. I think that is kind of cool and part of the flavor of the power of a planeswalker. Flavor wise, it reminds me (sort of) when in science fiction where they cross dimensions and see alternate versions of themselves, only with a high fantasy time travel kind of feel. I don't even mind that other players can have a copy of a legend in play. It feels a little silly, but it doesn't bother me anymore. It certainly makes keeping track of legendary lands 10x easier in a game of Commander. The once classic "Legendary land check!" is a thing of the past.
My problem is with the planeswalker "legendary" rules. While I think they are probably the best "soultion" to the legend problem we all know and understand, ultimately they are are the exception and not the rule. I personally think need to be changed to bring them in line with how the rest of legendary permanents work. As I wrote before, slapping "legendary" onto a planeswalker is silly and redundant. However, this sub-type business is the real "problem" as we are not allowed to have more than one copy in play at a time that shares a sub type. That is the twist found no where else in the game.
Every property of planeswalker cards is something not found elsewhere in the game. All the rules about loyalty counters, loyalty abilities, attacking them instead of a player, etc. are special just for them. It seems odd to focus on this one thing out of all of those.
Every property of planeswalker cards is something not found elsewhere in the game. All the rules about loyalty counters, loyalty abilities, attacking them instead of a player, etc. are special just for them. It seems odd to focus on this one thing out of all of those.
What?
Each card type functions differently from another. Lands are restricted to only being able to play only one per turn, which makes mana rocks, mana dorks, and land ramp spells interesting and powerful. Creatures are the only things which get to attack or block. etc. etc. etc. However, they are all subject to the same legendary rules. Planeswalkers are a permanent with special awkward rules exceptions that are different from any other permanent. How can you NOT separate and focus on a rule they all, otherwise, have in common?
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
Every property of planeswalker cards is something not found elsewhere in the game. All the rules about loyalty counters, loyalty abilities, attacking them instead of a player, etc. are special just for them. It seems odd to focus on this one thing out of all of those.
What?
Each card type functions differently from another. Lands are restricted to only being able to play only one per turn, which makes mana rocks, mana dorks, and land ramp spells interesting and powerful. Creatures are the only things which get to attack or block. etc. etc. etc. However, they are all subject to the same legendary rules. Planeswalkers are a permanent with special awkward rules exceptions that are different from any other permanent. How can you NOT separate and focus on a rule they all, otherwise, have in common?
It's not a rule they all have in common. The planeswalker uniqueness rule is not an exception to the Legendary rule; it's a different rule altogether. Planeswalkers treat the Legendary rule just like any other permanent; it is quite possible for a Planeswalker to gain the Legendary supertype and have the full consequences of that rule.
Planeswalkers aren't Legendary, they're Planeswalkers. Just like land isn't the same as creatures, even though they both tap to do their "main thing". Just like damage isn't the same thing as -X/-X, even though both have the effect of killing creatures. Don't treat the Planeswalker rule and the Legendary rule as the same thing and all the problems disappear. It's just two different rules that happen to have a somewhat similar effect in a certain case.
Planeswalkers aren't Legendary, they're Planeswalkers. (...) Don't treat the Planeswalker rule and the Legendary rule as the same thing and all the problems disappear. It's just two different rules that happen to have a somewhat similar effect in a certain case.
That is it right there. That sums it all up. Thanks. I wish it were different, but it isn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
He responded promptly
I also tweeted him before sending the email and he responded to me as well. I guess you can get my real name that way if you really care to read his tweets and replies to verify I am telling the truth. Anyway, take this for what you will and feel free to discuss.
I'm not super up on flavour justifications but here's my take
you summon a creature, you are essentially reaching across the multiverse in time and space to pull that creature to serve you.
Some Creatures are significant enough to the fabric of the multiverse that their essence resist being pulled so that you can only have one version of them.
Planeswalkers being aware of the multiverse can't actually be summoned, instead they will actually planes walk to you and aid at your side. However you can still summon them from their "pre-spark" timeline.
I don't know your mileage may vary.
I'm really keen to see how the DFC walkers feel.
Basically, Wizards has known about this since Planeswalkers were introduced, there's nothing new to discuss here really.
Even earlier, in fact: Ascendant Evincar in Nemesis. That's a large part of why they can't fix it, because without knowing the story, you have no way of knowing that that's the same guy who's represented by Crovax the Cursed.
Also, Ertai, the Corrupted and Ertai, Wizard Adept predate the two Kamahls.
And then there's the Jeska, Warrior Adept-Akroma, Angel of Wrath-Phage the Untouchable-Karona, False God knot.
I don't play decks. I solve optimization problems.
Currently solving:
Standard: Too poor for this format.
Modern: GW Auras, Living End, WB TurboFog, UB Mill, UR Storm
Legacy: R Burn, GU Infect, RG Lands, B Contamination
==========================================
I don't want to be a jerk to MaRo, but they are WotC. They can do what every they want.
*They can say all interrupts and mana sources are now instants, changing timing rules forever.
*They can say everything but mana abilities go on the stack, then chnage the rules saying that combat damage no longer goes on the stack either.
They have changed the legendary rules twice (we are in our third version).
*They could have made tribal a super type if they wanted to, and/or could have given creature types to non-creature spells if they wanted to.
*They could have named the exile zone anything they wanted, including "The Void," which is referred to on a number of black cards.
*They can create legal zones such as the Command Zone, which is where emblems go and is used in every format, not just commander. They even said in an R&D video they were testing yet another zone called "Nix," where the God cards would be placed until you reached their devotion, but changed their minds. they also said they have toyed around with the idea of new zones off and on over the years. Trust me, we will get a new zone. Maybe not for another 10 years, but it WILL happen once they find a good enough excuse. We might even enjoy it - who knows?
*They have changed the creature types of cards a number of times and show no signs of stopping. They got rid of Lords altogether. What is stopping them from "fixing" creatures and creating a sub type? I think the real reason is "card real estate." They wanted Godsend to be a Legendary Enchantment Artifact -Equipment, but that wouldn't fit on one line of text. That is "card real estate." Putting "Legendary Creature - X Y - Crovax" eats up real estate and having two hyphens looks ugly.
Urza's Destiny had an interesting, but ultimately incorrect "fix" by changing cards from "Summon legend" to "Creature - Wizard Legend" which stayed in effect until the Kamigawa Legendary rules change. They could make another change if they really wanted to. I do agree though that giving a creature a sub type like how planeswalkers have would be clunky, and as I said in my email, making planeswalkers "legendary" is redundant and silly. I don't havea perfect answer. I am not a magic designer. I am just not a big fan of "Sorry, we can't do anything." Yes, you can. You can do something. you are WotC. this is your game. You just haven't thought of a good solution, and I don't blame you for that one bit. That is a difficult problem.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Legendary Creature - Human Druid Kamahl
?
Not to mention Legendary Enchantment Creature - God Xenagos
Edit: I guess the Legend-name couldn't be a subtype unless they dropped all other subtypes, since the point of it all would be to have a rule along the lines of "You can't have two Legendary creatures with the same subtype in play at the same time. So for Kamahl, either he would only be Legendary Creature - Kamahl, or Khamal would become a supertype and it would be something like Legendary Kamahl Creature - Human Druid. It would suck if Sliver Queen wasn't a sliver for example, so dropping the other subtypes would be bad.
Also, aren't we in our fourth Legend rule? Or more?
First, you could only have one legend in your deck.
Then, you could play up to 4 of them, but playing a legend prevented another player to play that legend (Famously utilised by sideboarding in Tolarian Academy in non-blue non-artifact decks to stop opposing players play their academy)
Third, you could play a new legend when the other was in play, and doing so killed any other legends with that name in play.
Fourth: Where we are today.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
making erratas for every legendary creature that has multiple versions would be an oracle text nightmare.
It's just a too small of a flavor issue to generate that big of a rules nightmare.
WotC just made the right decision of leaving this alone.
I also don't see a reason TO change the rule. Besides the obvious flavor reasons they gave for Planeswalker cards, there's just the fact that their intent with Planeswalkers is to print more and more versions of the same characters (Or for a bunch of them. Obviously Xenagos isn't getting a second planeswalker card). It would be weird for legendary creature Chandra to see Chandra...'s Phoenix and by the game rules recognize that as another copy of itself. Or Nicol Bolas, who is listed as Planeswalker Bolas, to recognize Agent of Bolas as a copy of itself. So you make all these rules and exceptions and gatherer text changes to fix the fact that once in a blue moon there are two legendary creature cards representing the same creature?
It could be possible if they change Legendary to a type instead of a supertype (contary to what Drain life claimed supertypes can't have subtypes) and specified in the rule that it only applied to 2 or more creatures with the same Legend subtype.
But as this change only affects at most 2 dozen cards and 5 of them would need errata to make them fucntion as they are supposed to it is a lot of effort for what in most cases is no gain at all.
Not to mention as you said the type line gets filled up with absolutely useless information.
Konda, Lord of Eiganjo
Legendary crearture - Human Samurai Konda
Also not to be confused with
Konda's Banner
Legendary Artifact - Equipment Konda/Banner???
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Legendary creature - human druid Kamahl.
Which subtype goes with what? it's maybe a bad example because we know Kamahl is a name, but what about something else that doesn't have a proper name something that sounds like a made up creature type, like lhurgoyf?
how many questions do they get because of dryad arbor? people think forest is a creature type.
Also, what's the benefit of not being able to have 2 different Kamahls out at the same time? is it more fun to not be able to play them both if you have them in your deck? Does it even come up often enough to matter?
My problem is with the planeswalker "legendary" rules. While I think they are probably the best "soultion" to the legend problem we all know and understand, ultimately they are are the exception and not the rule. I personally think need to be changed to bring them in line with how the rest of legendary permanents work. As I wrote before, slapping "legendary" onto a planeswalker is silly and redundant. However, this sub-type business is the real "problem" as we are not allowed to have more than one copy in play at a time that shares a sub type. That is the twist found no where else in the game.
Players have no problem understanding that you cannot have more than one legendary permanent with the same English name in play at the same time. Would they really have a problem if the same rule applied to planeswalkers? Just get rid of the sub-type altogether? Or leave it there, but it serves no practical purpose other than to list the planeswalker's name?
Right now, I can not play Liliana of the Dark Realms the turn after playing Liliana of the Veil. However, after Origins comes out later this year, I will be able to cast Liliana, Heretical Healer on turn three and then Liliana of the Dark Realms on turn four. That isn't a good play though, because if LHH flips, I will have to chose which planeswalker form to keep. That is just silly to me. Instead of going back and changing all the old rules to make legendary cards fit with planeswalkers, why don't they just change how planeswalkers work?
Would the complaint just be "Oh, but it would be so powerful if I could play two forms of the same planeswalker at the same time!"? Well, that is what Magic is all about. Using a combination of cards for bigger and more powerful effects than when alone. Currently, you can use Venser, the Sojourner to blink his pre-spark self Venser, Shaper Savant each turn... and I think that is cool and fun. As someone who plays a lot of mono black decks, I would like to use my various copies of Liliana at the same time just like Venser, Karn, or Nicol Bolas already can. Even when origins comes out, I still really won't be able to because when she flips I'm screwed.
What?
Each card type functions differently from another. Lands are restricted to only being able to play only one per turn, which makes mana rocks, mana dorks, and land ramp spells interesting and powerful. Creatures are the only things which get to attack or block. etc. etc. etc. However, they are all subject to the same legendary rules. Planeswalkers are a permanent with special awkward rules exceptions that are different from any other permanent. How can you NOT separate and focus on a rule they all, otherwise, have in common?
Planeswalkers aren't Legendary, they're Planeswalkers. Just like land isn't the same as creatures, even though they both tap to do their "main thing". Just like damage isn't the same thing as -X/-X, even though both have the effect of killing creatures. Don't treat the Planeswalker rule and the Legendary rule as the same thing and all the problems disappear. It's just two different rules that happen to have a somewhat similar effect in a certain case.
That is it right there. That sums it all up. Thanks. I wish it were different, but it isn't.