you missunderstood my words...by 2 moxes i mean t1 mox, mana, play another, sacrifice the 1st one...1 more mana...
the same applys to the urza's saga lands i've just wrote, just not in t1....but potentially lots of mana is generated
That's not anymore broken than it already is. That still works the same way with the old legendary rule. And that still isn't even that great of a play anyway.
That's not anymore broken than it already is. That still works the same way with the old legendary rule. And that still isn't even that great of a play anyway.
Wrong. the old rules SBE kills both mox opals before you can tap for mana, now with the new rulings you can play ALL OF THE OPALS for mana, thus allowing for some ridiculous plays. you can now play a PW, minus loyalty, then play another one and sac the old one. again. potentially ridiculous plays.
geist of saint traft in standard was "clone it" "renounce" or "board wipe" or lose against control (control player) now i lose my ability to clone kill. i dont think both players should be allowed to control the same legendary or PW. these card types were created with the intention of the "standalone" feel and they've just gotten rid of it and i can see ALOT of problems because of these new rules changes, as mox opal has been shown to be one of them.
Wrong. the old rules SBE kills both mox opals before you can tap for mana, now with the new rulings you can play ALL OF THE OPALS for mana, thus allowing for some ridiculous plays. you can now play a PW, minus loyalty, then play another one and sac the old one. again. potentially ridiculous plays.
geist of saint traft in standard was "clone it" "renounce" or "board wipe" or lose against control (control player) now i lose my ability to clone kill. i dont think both players should be allowed to control the same legendary or PW. these card types were created with the intention of the "standalone" feel and they've just gotten rid of it and i can see ALOT of problems because of these new rules changes, as mox opal has been shown to be one of them.
So true. For example, in the Puresteel Paladin/cheerios deck in modern, you would need to draw two Mox Opals before you could get more mana off of any of them since you'd have to use the first one to legend out the current mox and the second one to get mana. Now every Opal drawn in that deck gets more mana.
My favorite format is Legacy and I really dislike this change because it will make Jace and Jitte even more unstoppable than they already are.
From a flavor standpoint, this makes less than 0 sense. You're telling me that I can't have two of the same legend on my field because they are a unique person, but there can be two of the same legend on the battlefield because they are NOT a unique person? We have to just accept the legend type as being purely arbitrary from this point forward.
From a "interactive" standpoint, this change is terrible. People seem to be making the claim that this change makes the game MORE interactive because it allows both players to play all their cards. They're wrong. Interactive Magic is where you have to look at your opponent to form your strategy and decide what you can and can't play. It's where what you're doing has an (interactive) effect on your opponent's stuff. Not interactive magic is when you can ignore what your opponent is doing and just play solitaire throwing stuff from your hand to the field. This change is a move away from interactive Magic.
Agreed! I'm glad someone notices that this makes the game as it pertains to legends 100% uninteractive. Just throw stuff down without even looking at your opponent's board. So interactive.
I hate how they're turning Magic into a solitaire game about turning monsters sideways and nothing else. This change is terrible.
Wrong. the old rules SBE kills both mox opals before you can tap for mana, now with the new rulings you can play ALL OF THE OPALS for mana, thus allowing for some ridiculous plays. you can now play a PW, minus loyalty, then play another one and sac the old one. again. potentially ridiculous plays.
geist of saint traft in standard was "clone it" "renounce" or "board wipe" or lose against control (control player) now i lose my ability to clone kill. i dont think both players should be allowed to control the same legendary or PW. these card types were created with the intention of the "standalone" feel and they've just gotten rid of it and i can see ALOT of problems because of these new rules changes, as mox opal has been shown to be one of them.
Wait.
I can play a planeswalker, use an ability. Play another, sac the old one and still keep the new one, and do it again?
Are you sure that's what it says?
Edit, you're right. That is dumb. They should of just left that part out. I'm okay with taking out clone killing. That makes things a bit more fair from a competitive standpoint, but being able to choose which one you get to keep is ****ing stupid. Glad I held onto my 4th mox opal. Putting it in my legacy affinity deck right now. And now I gotta buy a 4th liliana.
I don't like it... MTG is slowly becoming a multi-player solitarie game...
"Oh, you cannot counter my spell because it cannot be countered"
"Oh, you cannot target my dude... but surely I can"
"Oh, you cannot kill my Legend but I get to chose the one I want"
"Oh, you cannot kill my PW but I get to chose the one I want"
I agree. I understand it appeals to the noobs more and the overwhelming majority of Wizard's money comes from noobs, but it's still a shame.
hink losing clone-killing isn't that big of a deal. I mean, "I have one too" is a pretty good answer in and of itself.
Only it's probably better in your opponent's deck, and it's not like clones are cheap: the baseline is four, where at that mana you can get much better kill spells. Their ability to kill a legendary is what made them so playable in EDH.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
I don't like the change, but admittedly it's not a big change to gameplay, so it's not a huge deal. It does make you wonder why they bothered to make the change in the first place, as it certainly wasn't necessary. It's actually quite flavorful and intuitive that another copy of a legendary creature entering play makes both of them go poof. This isn't making the game less complicated, or anything like that. It also doesn't dramatcially increase design space, or lead to more interaction, as they argued with the M10 rules changes.
If they didn't like the flavor of clones killing legends, they could have easily remedied that by making future clones retain the name of the clone, a la Sakashima the Imposter.
Overall, not a horrible change for purposes of gameplay. In fact, I think the Planeswalker change actually improves the game.
I like the sideboard change a lot too. Oftentimes I want to add cards but don't want to take any out. This gives you the option of adding a couple lands to your board and going up to a 70 card deck or so against certain archetypes.
Hexproof legends suck. They are the height of non-interactivity. Now there is one less way to interact with them. Thanks Wotc, or should we just start calling them Hasbro?
I hate how they're turning Magic into a solitaire game about turning monsters sideways and nothing else.
Could this sentence contradict itself any more? Creature combat is the main source of interaction and the lest solitaire thing about the whole game, so more creature combat increases the interaction. The more creatures there are on the board, the more complicated attacks and blocks become. Clever use of removal spells also becomes more important, since you can't just cast it on the first critter that comes around. Having more planeswalkers in play also increases player interaction, because you have to think about how or if you want to get rid of them. And their controllers have to think about how to block for them and how to use their abilities.
Having more creatures and/or planeswalkers on the battlefield increases the amount of decisions each player has to make, therefore making the game more interactive and more strategic. And the new legend/planeswalker rule does exactly that: Compared to the current rule, it increases the number of creatures and planeswalkers on the board. How is that for "dumbing down the game"?
Playing a legend as an edict and be done with the threat of the opposing legend is more strategic than actually having to fight that legend with your own legend (or other cards)? Since when does taking the easy way involve more strategy than actually outplaying the opponent through clever plays? I am starting to think that the current legend rule is actually more noob friendly than the new one, since every noob can play a card from his hand to kill something (You don't even have to target! The creature dies automatically!), while it takes a good player to win against a powerful legendary creature when there is no easy way to kill it.
Seriously, people should take a step back and actually think about the implications of this rules change before posting silly stuff in blind I-hate-change-mode. But no... it seems that this forum is full of Magic players that are so great that they can instantly see all the negative aspects and impacts of this change that Wizards could not see during a whole year of playtesting.
Let's see how things actually play out rather than judge the new rules a half a day after they were announced, hmmm?
I think losing clone-killing isn't that big of a deal. I mean, "I have one too" is a pretty good answer in and of itself.
I think the real issue people are having is that you can now play a legendary or planeswalker when *YOU* have one on the field and you get to keep THE ONE OF YOUR CHOICE.
Clone killing was a problem. Overpowering legends and PWers to the point where it is obvious bans are going to be necessary is also a problem.
So WotC seems to have swapped one problem for another. Hurray?
Geez, one might almost believe that WOTC's management is made up of Sega's ex-managers, what with one boneheaded choice after another..
Heheh, SEGA wasn't even THAT bad in comparison - they just happened to suck at timing, and beating he competition in many cases [Saturn, Dreamcast, etc]
Playing 2 legends is a legitimate form of removal. Not sure why that is such an issue. This rules change changed a rule that no one was ever crying about (that I knew of) and basically dumbed down the game imo. Now you dont have to pay attention to what your opponent has on the field!
How is it dumbed down? Before this the only correct play when you drew a Jace while your opponent had one was to play yours and go on with a Jaceless board. Now you both have Jaces and a lot of options for what to do with your Jaces.
In 2 years no one worth listening to will be complaining about this rule just like the M10 rules and the 6th edition rules before that.
Sometimes I feel like Magic players are desperately insecure losers who use the game as outlets to prove that they are smarter than everyone else instead of a fun pastime.
How is it dumbed down? Before this the only correct play when you drew a Jace while your opponent had one was to play yours and go on with a Jaceless board. Now you both have Jaces and a lot of options for what to do with your Jaces.
In 2 years no one worth listening to will be complaining about this rule just like the M10 rules and the 6th edition rules before that.
Sometimes I feel like Magic players are desperately insecure losers who use the game as outlets to prove that they are smarter than everyone else instead of a fun pastime.
Because it forgoes a real drawback unique to a particular subtype that you had to keep into consideration, and potentially plan for - regardless of how rare or not that chance is - and does so for reasons that I personally can't agree with as tradeoffs go.
This honestly is not like other rule changes - in my opinion of course - the Legendary rule as it is has not only been around for a sizable amount of time, but does have logical, flavor related grounds for existing that - again IMO - contribute to any role play aspects of it all AS WELL AS strategic planning.
Sometimes I feel like Magic players are desperately insecure losers who use the game as outlets to prove that they are smarter than everyone else instead of a fun pastime.
You mean like you are, by namecalling and labeling people who express an opinion you don't disagree with?
Saying "I dislike this because of Y" is not grounds for being called an insecure loser, and I'd appreciate it as someone who tries to debate calmly and maturely if you - and others who share in such tactics - cut it out and make it so we can actually express our opinions without having to throw up our hands and say "oh, **** it "/abort ourselves from the thread because you guys are too busy flinging mud to actually TRY to understand what we're saying, too busy being stuck in your own world to try replying without being hostile.
Need a "not sure yet" option. I feel like the vast majority of rule changes only ever come up in corner cases, but this legends rule is a big one. I'll need to see it in play before I pass judgement. I am glad this gets rid of clone killing, though, without letting someone use clones on their own legends to get 2-ofs.
Personally, I don't really like it, but it's not going to make that much of a difference, at least in my opinion. I don't know why they changed it though. I guess I won't really know until I actually start playing again.
Aside from that, the other rule changes are just fine.
I am... I'll say "miffed," as it really strengthens some otherwise difficult to deal with legends, as well as diluting the uniqueness of Sakashima and some of the utility of Leyline of Singularity.
At the same time, there's no longer any reason to ask someone to swap out decks if they both sit down with the same general in EDH, and I don't have to manage to remove all the counters correctly from my Tezzeret or Garruk or Liliana or whatever before playing my next one. If my Liliana of the Veil is a 1, I no longer have to wait 2 turn cycles to play another Liliana of any variety, I can just play the next one now, and that's super convenient. (Whether it's balanced is a different matter, but it's certainly convenient.)
Also, this may put them back onto the legendary land production, which has been sorely lacking since they realized you could turn legendary lands into Wastelands that can't even be stifled, much less countered.
this, is mostly how I feel as well. I am mostly against the change but I really did not notice the change the first time back before Kamigawa, as far as vastly altering gameplay experiences , so I think the wait and see posture is the only logical attitude to take. I do think the fact that WOTC feels the need to make such sweeping rules changes with almost every core set (or at least it feels like it to me ) is a bad sign and bad for the over all health of the game. if teh rules are getting too complicated or their is design space being hampered then thats one thing but I know the whole people don't like change thing is part of a lot of the reason I knee-jerkingly don't like rules changes but change fro the sake of change is bad. find a set of rules that works and stick to it. IMHO the rule book really should only be overhauled say every 10 years and in the mean time should just be stable.
but tl;dr
wait and see how it plays it probably wont make a big deal anyway
"Please don't disillusion me. I haven't had breakfast yet."
-Children of the Mind
to whom it may concern: i apologize in advance for any gspelling or grammar errors in py posts. for some reason i am just not as
good at tyoing or proofreading as i would like to be
This rule was made for new and casual players to have more fun. It is that simple. People like their legends and don't want you to kill them with odd (but flavorful) clone rules.
So I like that WOTC is making magic more fun, and therefore more accessible to new players.
On the other hand, I am certain, without even reading the 8 pages of comments; that most comments will be "OH GOD THE CHANGES" "BACK IN MY DAY WE HAD MANA BURN AND DAMAGE ON THE STACK AND WE DAMN WELL LIKED IT"-
I'll chip in with, "BACK IN MY DAY WE HAD BATCHES AND DIDN'T DIE UNTIL THE END OF THE PHASE; THAT WAS REAL MAGIC. A 2/3 COSTED 9 MANA AND WE WERE DAMN SKIPPY TO HAVE IT AND YOU COULD ONLY WIN WITH EXODIA AND JIGGLYPUFF."
That's not anymore broken than it already is. That still works the same way with the old legendary rule. And that still isn't even that great of a play anyway.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
Wrong. the old rules SBE kills both mox opals before you can tap for mana, now with the new rulings you can play ALL OF THE OPALS for mana, thus allowing for some ridiculous plays. you can now play a PW, minus loyalty, then play another one and sac the old one. again. potentially ridiculous plays.
geist of saint traft in standard was "clone it" "renounce" or "board wipe" or lose against control (control player) now i lose my ability to clone kill. i dont think both players should be allowed to control the same legendary or PW. these card types were created with the intention of the "standalone" feel and they've just gotten rid of it and i can see ALOT of problems because of these new rules changes, as mox opal has been shown to be one of them.
So true. For example, in the Puresteel Paladin/cheerios deck in modern, you would need to draw two Mox Opals before you could get more mana off of any of them since you'd have to use the first one to legend out the current mox and the second one to get mana. Now every Opal drawn in that deck gets more mana.
Agreed! I'm glad someone notices that this makes the game as it pertains to legends 100% uninteractive. Just throw stuff down without even looking at your opponent's board. So interactive.
I hate how they're turning Magic into a solitaire game about turning monsters sideways and nothing else. This change is terrible.
Wait.
I can play a planeswalker, use an ability. Play another, sac the old one and still keep the new one, and do it again?
Are you sure that's what it says?
Edit, you're right. That is dumb. They should of just left that part out. I'm okay with taking out clone killing. That makes things a bit more fair from a competitive standpoint, but being able to choose which one you get to keep is ****ing stupid. Glad I held onto my 4th mox opal. Putting it in my legacy affinity deck right now. And now I gotta buy a 4th liliana.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
I can play with clone removal.
I can play with clone copying an awesome legendary.
Doppleganger and similar creatures of that effect just improved a hint.
Either way is good with me. It was nice removing Karakas with Karakas, but now we can have a hot Karakas war as well.
Its definitely good with planeswalkers; having such a limited number of "named" walkers, makes it annoying in group games.
My Buying Thread
I agree. I understand it appeals to the noobs more and the overwhelming majority of Wizard's money comes from noobs, but it's still a shame.
Takes all the strategy out of mirror matchups.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
Yeah, it's funny to think that maybe the Ux decks will keep the clones in—if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I think losing clone-killing isn't that big of a deal. I mean, "I have one too" is a pretty good answer in and of itself.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Only it's probably better in your opponent's deck, and it's not like clones are cheap: the baseline is four, where at that mana you can get much better kill spells. Their ability to kill a legendary is what made them so playable in EDH.
If they didn't like the flavor of clones killing legends, they could have easily remedied that by making future clones retain the name of the clone, a la Sakashima the Imposter.
Overall, not a horrible change for purposes of gameplay. In fact, I think the Planeswalker change actually improves the game.
I like the sideboard change a lot too. Oftentimes I want to add cards but don't want to take any out. This gives you the option of adding a couple lands to your board and going up to a 70 card deck or so against certain archetypes.
'Twas real easy, folks: Add a nonlegendary qualifer to all clones from here on out.
Could this sentence contradict itself any more? Creature combat is the main source of interaction and the lest solitaire thing about the whole game, so more creature combat increases the interaction. The more creatures there are on the board, the more complicated attacks and blocks become. Clever use of removal spells also becomes more important, since you can't just cast it on the first critter that comes around. Having more planeswalkers in play also increases player interaction, because you have to think about how or if you want to get rid of them. And their controllers have to think about how to block for them and how to use their abilities.
Having more creatures and/or planeswalkers on the battlefield increases the amount of decisions each player has to make, therefore making the game more interactive and more strategic. And the new legend/planeswalker rule does exactly that: Compared to the current rule, it increases the number of creatures and planeswalkers on the board. How is that for "dumbing down the game"?
Playing a legend as an edict and be done with the threat of the opposing legend is more strategic than actually having to fight that legend with your own legend (or other cards)? Since when does taking the easy way involve more strategy than actually outplaying the opponent through clever plays? I am starting to think that the current legend rule is actually more noob friendly than the new one, since every noob can play a card from his hand to kill something (You don't even have to target! The creature dies automatically!), while it takes a good player to win against a powerful legendary creature when there is no easy way to kill it.
Seriously, people should take a step back and actually think about the implications of this rules change before posting silly stuff in blind I-hate-change-mode. But no... it seems that this forum is full of Magic players that are so great that they can instantly see all the negative aspects and impacts of this change that Wizards could not see during a whole year of playtesting.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
I think the real issue people are having is that you can now play a legendary or planeswalker when *YOU* have one on the field and you get to keep THE ONE OF YOUR CHOICE.
Clone killing was a problem. Overpowering legends and PWers to the point where it is obvious bans are going to be necessary is also a problem.
So WotC seems to have swapped one problem for another. Hurray?
Heheh, SEGA wasn't even THAT bad in comparison - they just happened to suck at timing, and beating he competition in many cases [Saturn, Dreamcast, etc]
How is it dumbed down? Before this the only correct play when you drew a Jace while your opponent had one was to play yours and go on with a Jaceless board. Now you both have Jaces and a lot of options for what to do with your Jaces.
In 2 years no one worth listening to will be complaining about this rule just like the M10 rules and the 6th edition rules before that.
Sometimes I feel like Magic players are desperately insecure losers who use the game as outlets to prove that they are smarter than everyone else instead of a fun pastime.
DING DING DING DING
Because it forgoes a real drawback unique to a particular subtype that you had to keep into consideration, and potentially plan for - regardless of how rare or not that chance is - and does so for reasons that I personally can't agree with as tradeoffs go.
This honestly is not like other rule changes - in my opinion of course - the Legendary rule as it is has not only been around for a sizable amount of time, but does have logical, flavor related grounds for existing that - again IMO - contribute to any role play aspects of it all AS WELL AS strategic planning.
You mean like you are, by namecalling and labeling people who express an opinion you don't disagree with?
Saying "I dislike this because of Y" is not grounds for being called an insecure loser, and I'd appreciate it as someone who tries to debate calmly and maturely if you - and others who share in such tactics - cut it out and make it so we can actually express our opinions without having to throw up our hands and say "oh, **** it "/abort ourselves from the thread because you guys are too busy flinging mud to actually TRY to understand what we're saying, too busy being stuck in your own world to try replying without being hostile.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Aside from that, the other rule changes are just fine.
RGGruul Aggro
WSoul Sisters
WBTokens
BUGRRestore Balance
BMono-Black Infect
EDH:
RGWMayael, the Anima
GWURoon of the Hidden Realm
BDrana, Kalastria Bloodchief
Instead of my clone instantly killing your general because of the old rule, now I'll just block your general, and have them kill eachother.
Time will tell i guess.
The flavor aspect of a clone killing it's doppleganger is kinda weird i'll admit. Now if only Evil Twin didn't target.... >:]
BGGolgari ScavengeGB
RUIzzet DelverUR
Modern
RUB Mishra's SpellbombsBUR
EDH:
UWBDakkon BlackbladeBWU
RUB ThraximundarBUR
this, is mostly how I feel as well. I am mostly against the change but I really did not notice the change the first time back before Kamigawa, as far as vastly altering gameplay experiences , so I think the wait and see posture is the only logical attitude to take. I do think the fact that WOTC feels the need to make such sweeping rules changes with almost every core set (or at least it feels like it to me ) is a bad sign and bad for the over all health of the game. if teh rules are getting too complicated or their is design space being hampered then thats one thing but I know the whole people don't like change thing is part of a lot of the reason I knee-jerkingly don't like rules changes but change fro the sake of change is bad. find a set of rules that works and stick to it. IMHO the rule book really should only be overhauled say every 10 years and in the mean time should just be stable.
but tl;dr
wait and see how it plays it probably wont make a big deal anyway
Click here for free Mudholes
to whom it may concern: i apologize in advance for any gspelling or grammar errors in py posts. for some reason i am just not as
good at tyoing or proofreading as i would like to be
So I like that WOTC is making magic more fun, and therefore more accessible to new players.
On the other hand, I am certain, without even reading the 8 pages of comments; that most comments will be "OH GOD THE CHANGES" "BACK IN MY DAY WE HAD MANA BURN AND DAMAGE ON THE STACK AND WE DAMN WELL LIKED IT"-
I'll chip in with, "BACK IN MY DAY WE HAD BATCHES AND DIDN'T DIE UNTIL THE END OF THE PHASE; THAT WAS REAL MAGIC. A 2/3 COSTED 9 MANA AND WE WERE DAMN SKIPPY TO HAVE IT AND YOU COULD ONLY WIN WITH EXODIA AND JIGGLYPUFF."
So Pro I have an alpha Volcanic Island