How about "if a spell or ability would deal damage to a player, that spell or ability may instead deal damage to a planeswalker that player controls. If that spell or ability would target a player, it may instead target a planeswalker"
1 - the current rule, which has its issues but it's simple and elegant.
2 - a convoluted weird ruling to cover the corner cases that solution 1 doesn't cover such as killing 2 walkers with a Rolling Thunder for example.
3 - Errata hundreds of old cards so Lightning bolt would say "deal 3 damage to target player, creature or planeswalker"
then comes the balance issues, if you go the solution in 2 or 3, how do you decide what to do with cards like Pestilence or Earthquake?
would you errata those to hit every player and planeswalker? that would make those cards a LOT more powerful.
I'm quite sure that WotC R&D has weighted almost all the options we proposed in this thread and they ended up choosing the current rule.
Can't say I disagree with them, it really seems the cleanest solution.
How about "if a spell or ability would deal damage to a player, that spell or ability may instead deal damage to a planeswalker that player controls. If that spell or ability would target a player, it may instead target a planeswalker"
How's this different to the current rule?
I mean, other than causing issues of adding new rules to explain what happens when I redirect your Hymn to Tourach to my Jace, the Mind Sculptor, what does it accomplish really?
How about "if a spell or ability would deal damage to a player, that spell or ability may instead deal damage to a planeswalker that player controls. If that spell or ability would target a player, it may instead target a planeswalker"
How's this different to the current rule?
I mean, other than causing issues of adding new rules to explain what happens when I redirect your Hymn to Tourach to my Jace, the Mind Sculptor, what does it accomplish really?
More importantly, it causes problems with burn spells that also do other things or depend on calculations planeswalkers can't provide, like Blightning and Anathemancer, both mentioned earlier.
How about "if a spell or ability would deal damage to a player, that spell or ability may instead deal damage to a planeswalker that player controls. If that spell or ability would target a player, it may instead target a planeswalker"
No. That would give a player a target outlet for undesirable effects. I can't cite any specific cases where it would be beneficial, but I guarantee someone will break it. You'd have to rewrite entire sets of rules, and/or errata huge numbers of cards. You haven't thought this through very well.
They need to change the rule so that a global effect affects the player and the planewalker...since it is considered equivalent to a player...so that earthquake works properly
They need to change the rule so that a global effect affects the player and the planewalker...since it is considered equivalent to a player...so that earthquake works properly
Except planeswalkers are NOT players. They are permanents, on the battlefield. They are spells everywhere else. A planeswalker is NEVER a player
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
All depends of your interpretation of the world of magic bookwise... a player is not a god and a planewalker is pretty much the next thing in line...
Anyway, the point is, when an effect affects all creature and player, it should affect the planewalkers as well, logic wise...
But right now it doesnt and they cant make any rules that would allow all cards to work properly as people wouldnt agree to have a planewalker equivalent to a player or a creature... wich is maybe a good thing, but then it comes to an impass to make old cards work... therefor yeah the actual rule might be the best you can come up with
Agree with op. Earthquake should hit PW and players. I should be able to Rolling Thunder 2 different PWs. Leyline of Sanctity shouldn't prevent anyone from bolting a PW. I don't care how the rule is worded, but the fact we can't do that right now means PWs as a card type is slightly broken (to me). Probably easier to say you can target PWs directly with spells, instead of redirecting damage, just like you can attack a PW directly in attack phase. Creature removal like terror still wouldn't work (not a creature), but direct damage/damage abilities would work as intended.
Yeah! Things like this are ridiculous and have gone on far too long. While we're at it, I don't think birds should be able to use equipment. Even if they were big enough, they still don't have arms. I mean, a Suntail Hawk wielding a Loxodon Warhammer? So dumb.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
Yeah! Things like this are ridiculous and have gone on far too long. While we're at it, I don't think birds should be able to use equipment. Even if they were big enough, they still don't have arms. I mean, a Suntail Hawk wielding a Loxodon Warhammer? So dumb.
Hear, hear! I've had enough of this crazy nonsense in my fantasy card game!
Agree with op. Earthquake should hit PW and players. I should be able to Rolling Thunder 2 different PWs. Leyline of Sanctity shouldn't prevent anyone from bolting a PW. I don't care how the rule is worded, but the fact we can't do that right now means PWs as a card type is slightly broken (to me). Probably easier to say you can target PWs directly with spells, instead of redirecting damage, just like you can attack a PW directly in attack phase. Creature removal like terror still wouldn't work (not a creature), but direct damage/damage abilities would work as intended.
Cool. I'mma goin to Mind Twist your PW. What happens? I Drain Life your Elspeth.
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
Of all the suggested changes in this thread, the current rule still remains the simplest and best solution, in my humble opinion.
Sums up my thoughts. The proposed changes at best seem to accomplish the same thing while making it more tricky to explain. So far haven't seen a good argument for why it should be changed really.
I totally agree that the burn player should have the option to target a planeswalker and not the opponent has the option to defect the burn spell. Otherwise our spells are a bunch of vexing devils.
That's effectively how it works now. The controller of the burn spell is the one who chooses to redirect or not, not the affected player. Removing the planeswalker redirect rule either takes that option away for most existing burn spells or requires massive amounts of errata.
Or maybe just change the rule to "planeswalker == player" and items that target one can also target the other. (And yes this allows for curses etc to target a planeswalker, but they wouldn't have effect there).
The rule should be left as is, as it's actually the most simple and elegant option of those I've ever seen proposed. As to your proposal though, one should not be able to Redirect a Hymn to Tourach to your planeswalker just to make it fizzle. It just seems like clunky, unintuitive gameplay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
Because that's literally not how the rules were built, and half the thread has been spent showing how, rules wise, removing "player" from the game as a concept wouldn't work, while only making burn spells hit planeswalker cards if the word is written on the card specifically weakens burn significantly and makes a large number of old cards much less useful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
The Planeswalker card type was poorly designed. A little too late to do anything about that though.
OP is mostly right, and has a great point. I should be able to rolling thunder multiple 'walkers. It would make sense from both a flavor and a gameplay perspective, and deserves a fix.
Note I am only arguing that this should be done. I don't care to get involved in the how's of it, but the resistance I am seeing in this thread compelled me to say at least that much. It upsets me to see good points met with resistance as opposed to effort to improve it. It's a really destructive mindset to have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lycanthropy Awareness Day.
Hoping for a cure, or at least an outbreak.
The Planeswalker card type was poorly designed. A little too late to do anything about that though.
OP is mostly right, and has a great point. I should be able to rolling thunder multiple 'walkers. It would make sense from both a flavor and a gameplay perspective, and deserves a fix.
Note I am only arguing that this should be done. I don't care to get involved in the how's of it, but the resistance I am seeing in this thread compelled me to say at least that much. It upsets me to see good points met with resistance as opposed to effort to improve it. It's a really destructive mindset to have.
What good points? The only good one in this thread is leave it as it is. The only way any other idea looks good is from a position of ignorance or laziness.
As I said in the last thread some one posted a rules change with out thinking it through, you go read the rules and work out how to implenent it and get an answer for all the issues that your change is going to through up.
If you can't or won't, don't complain when other people who do know the rules come in a point out everything single isssue with your proposal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- 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
It is easy to see that riddance of the redirect rule is good.
It is also easy to change to rules to make it work this way.
If it is so easy to make the rules how the OP suggests prove it. Write the relevant clauses that would need to be added to the comp rules and have an answer for all the corner cases that are going to come up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- 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
Why do people think the redirection rule is inelegant? When you're actually playing the game, it works out very elegantly. The only real unintuitive thing is when a player has hexproof, but that isn't any less intuitive than a number of other interactions between pairs of cards.
So what happens when a Planeswalker gains life, loses life, forced to draw cards, forced to discard cards, mill cards from their library?
No legal targets so the effect "fizzles".
But the spell has a legal target in the rules that are proposing so the spell doesn't fizzle, which is short hand for countered on resolution due to having an illegal target. So the spell will still resolve just do what precisely?
Similar to what happens if you have to draw cards but can't anymore (you stop drawing).
Actually no you don't stop drawing if you are attempt to draw from an empty library. You lose the game. Would the same thing happen if your opponent forces your planeswalker to do the same.
TBF thank you for proving the point I made in the last rules change thread. Most of the people who propose new rules don't know how they work currently. And don't seem to want to educate themselves as to how they work currently before they propose this changes that make the situation worse.
Then for some reason they always act surprised and shocked when people who actually do know the rules come up with problems with what they are proposing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- 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
life gain and loss are easy, just add or substract the number of loyality counters to the pw.
As we just ruled they are players, so you can target a planeswalker with a drawspell. A player who has to draw but cant loses the game, in case of a planeswalker that should mean exile.
One could also argue, that a planeswalker´s ability equals their cards in hand, so discard could just eliminate one of their abilities.
Also, while i think its ok to have multiple copies of a planeswalker in your deck, you should not be able to play a second copy. After all, a player who is dead can´t come back to the game either.
milling cards could just be ignored.
And while you might disagree with my take on that, if you do, please explain why - if planeswalker == player - planeswalker should be =/= player in the points i made.
Why are you saying planeswalker = player? Players are (or were) planeswalkers, but that isn't the same as a planeswalker being a player. After all, planeswalker cards don't take turns. They don't control the creatures they make. Etc.
Also, your suggested changes would make planeswalkers much more complicated and if implemented now would require a lot of them to be banned or be trivial to deal with. A card that gains 5 life is usually not worth it, but one that adds 5 loyalty to a planeswalker would be insane. Any effect that has all players draw a card also has "Kill all planeswalkers" attached to it?
We already have cards which violates PW/Player equivalency. Hero's Downfall doesn't make a player lose the game. Also, giving any targeted draw effect the additional effect of "exile target PW" is terrible.
It is easy to see that riddance of the redirect rule is good.
It is also easy to change to rules to make it work this way.
If it is so easy to cange the rule then how about you actually type out that easy change here as an argument?
As it is right now you are jsut stating "I think this and that and the change is easy" without argumenting WHY chanigng the rule is good or HOW it should be changed. I can just as easily state:
It is easy to see that keeping the redirect rule is good.
It is also easy to accept how it works flavour wise."
Just blurting out your opinion has no value, blurting out your opinion and puttingforth arguments as to why your opinion is good and how it should be implemented is valuable.
I, perosnally, am of the opinion that the rule can stay as it is. It short rule, simple to explain and I have yet to see a proposition on a change that would work as well mechanically without adding a huge clutter of rules for all the exceptions.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
FYI, since everybody is complaining about a rule change, it would have been good to have the rule stated somewhere
306.7. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead. This is a redirection effect (see rule 614.9) and is subject to the normal rules for ordering replacement effects (see rule 616). The opponent chooses whether to redirect the damage as the redirection effect is applied.
306.8. Damage dealt to a planeswalker results in that many loyalty counters being removed from it.
306.9. If a planeswalker’s loyalty is 0, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
The rule as is seem fine to me as it makes the old cards work with this new type of cards
I would replace "first player" to "targeted player"...as you dont have to ask yourself who the hell is the first player...
I would also replace "the oponent choose" by the "the spell owner choose" or something similar....just makes it more obvious
And i would like to add to the rule that if non combat damage would be dealt to all players, it would affect all planewalkers as well, redirection rule wouldnt be allowed to stack.
But of course it makes the rule a little more complexe.
For information purpose in the world MTG; a player is a planewalker even though in the card game a planewalker is not a player...probably in the sens that he isnt there at full strengh but warping quickly to cast stuff and help a fellow planewalker...
Reducing loyalty counters to 0 doesnt mean killing a planewalker, it means that the planewalker decided that he was done helping that fellow player... you could see it as payment due for previous help or whatever
The Arena MTG book was a great book to read which lead me to state the previous
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
1 - the current rule, which has its issues but it's simple and elegant.
2 - a convoluted weird ruling to cover the corner cases that solution 1 doesn't cover such as killing 2 walkers with a Rolling Thunder for example.
3 - Errata hundreds of old cards so Lightning bolt would say "deal 3 damage to target player, creature or planeswalker"
then comes the balance issues, if you go the solution in 2 or 3, how do you decide what to do with cards like Pestilence or Earthquake?
would you errata those to hit every player and planeswalker? that would make those cards a LOT more powerful.
I'm quite sure that WotC R&D has weighted almost all the options we proposed in this thread and they ended up choosing the current rule.
Can't say I disagree with them, it really seems the cleanest solution.
How's this different to the current rule?
I mean, other than causing issues of adding new rules to explain what happens when I redirect your Hymn to Tourach to my Jace, the Mind Sculptor, what does it accomplish really?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
No. That would give a player a target outlet for undesirable effects. I can't cite any specific cases where it would be beneficial, but I guarantee someone will break it. You'd have to rewrite entire sets of rules, and/or errata huge numbers of cards. You haven't thought this through very well.
Except planeswalkers are NOT players. They are permanents, on the battlefield. They are spells everywhere else. A planeswalker is NEVER a player
Anyway, the point is, when an effect affects all creature and player, it should affect the planewalkers as well, logic wise...
But right now it doesnt and they cant make any rules that would allow all cards to work properly as people wouldnt agree to have a planewalker equivalent to a player or a creature... wich is maybe a good thing, but then it comes to an impass to make old cards work... therefor yeah the actual rule might be the best you can come up with
My 720 Peasant Cube
Hear, hear! I've had enough of this crazy nonsense in my fantasy card game!
Cool. I'mma goin to Mind Twist your PW. What happens? I Drain Life your Elspeth.
Sums up my thoughts. The proposed changes at best seem to accomplish the same thing while making it more tricky to explain. So far haven't seen a good argument for why it should be changed really.
The rule should be left as is, as it's actually the most simple and elegant option of those I've ever seen proposed. As to your proposal though, one should not be able to Redirect a Hymn to Tourach to your planeswalker just to make it fizzle. It just seems like clunky, unintuitive gameplay.
My 720 Peasant Cube
Art is life itself.
OP is mostly right, and has a great point. I should be able to rolling thunder multiple 'walkers. It would make sense from both a flavor and a gameplay perspective, and deserves a fix.
Note I am only arguing that this should be done. I don't care to get involved in the how's of it, but the resistance I am seeing in this thread compelled me to say at least that much. It upsets me to see good points met with resistance as opposed to effort to improve it. It's a really destructive mindset to have.
Hoping for a cure, or at least an outbreak.
Level 1 Judge (yay)
So what happens when a Planeswalker gains life, loses life, forced to draw cards, forced to discard cards, mill cards from their library?
What good points? The only good one in this thread is leave it as it is. The only way any other idea looks good is from a position of ignorance or laziness.
As I said in the last thread some one posted a rules change with out thinking it through, you go read the rules and work out how to implenent it and get an answer for all the issues that your change is going to through up.
If you can't or won't, don't complain when other people who do know the rules come in a point out everything single isssue with your proposal.
- 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
It is also easy to change to rules to make it work this way.
If it is so easy to make the rules how the OP suggests prove it. Write the relevant clauses that would need to be added to the comp rules and have an answer for all the corner cases that are going to come up.
- 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
But the spell has a legal target in the rules that are proposing so the spell doesn't fizzle, which is short hand for countered on resolution due to having an illegal target. So the spell will still resolve just do what precisely?
Actually no you don't stop drawing if you are attempt to draw from an empty library. You lose the game. Would the same thing happen if your opponent forces your planeswalker to do the same.
TBF thank you for proving the point I made in the last rules change thread. Most of the people who propose new rules don't know how they work currently. And don't seem to want to educate themselves as to how they work currently before they propose this changes that make the situation worse.
Then for some reason they always act surprised and shocked when people who actually do know the rules come up with problems with what they are proposing.
- 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
Why are you saying planeswalker = player? Players are (or were) planeswalkers, but that isn't the same as a planeswalker being a player. After all, planeswalker cards don't take turns. They don't control the creatures they make. Etc.
Also, your suggested changes would make planeswalkers much more complicated and if implemented now would require a lot of them to be banned or be trivial to deal with. A card that gains 5 life is usually not worth it, but one that adds 5 loyalty to a planeswalker would be insane. Any effect that has all players draw a card also has "Kill all planeswalkers" attached to it?
If it is so easy to cange the rule then how about you actually type out that easy change here as an argument?
As it is right now you are jsut stating "I think this and that and the change is easy" without argumenting WHY chanigng the rule is good or HOW it should be changed. I can just as easily state:
It is easy to see that keeping the redirect rule is good.
It is also easy to accept how it works flavour wise."
Just blurting out your opinion has no value, blurting out your opinion and puttingforth arguments as to why your opinion is good and how it should be implemented is valuable.
I, perosnally, am of the opinion that the rule can stay as it is. It short rule, simple to explain and I have yet to see a proposition on a change that would work as well mechanically without adding a huge clutter of rules for all the exceptions.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
306.7. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead. This is a redirection effect (see rule 614.9) and is subject to the normal rules for ordering replacement effects (see rule 616). The opponent chooses whether to redirect the damage as the redirection effect is applied.
306.8. Damage dealt to a planeswalker results in that many loyalty counters being removed from it.
306.9. If a planeswalker’s loyalty is 0, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
I would replace "first player" to "targeted player"...as you dont have to ask yourself who the hell is the first player...
I would also replace "the oponent choose" by the "the spell owner choose" or something similar....just makes it more obvious
And i would like to add to the rule that if non combat damage would be dealt to all players, it would affect all planewalkers as well, redirection rule wouldnt be allowed to stack.
But of course it makes the rule a little more complexe.
For information purpose in the world MTG; a player is a planewalker even though in the card game a planewalker is not a player...probably in the sens that he isnt there at full strengh but warping quickly to cast stuff and help a fellow planewalker...
Reducing loyalty counters to 0 doesnt mean killing a planewalker, it means that the planewalker decided that he was done helping that fellow player... you could see it as payment due for previous help or whatever
The Arena MTG book was a great book to read which lead me to state the previous