The New Legend Rule: What now?

  • #1
    I know we've had discussions on trying to justify our previous legend rule as something short of an identity crisis or termination of a contract, but what do y'all make of the update? Any other player can have the same creature or planeswalker out, but you can only keep one at a time.

    I'm confused. And I'm not sure there's literature on this yet.
  • #2
    It is a wretched foul change.
    I don't even know what else to say about it. There IS no way to reconcile this satisfactorily.
  • #3
    I'd agree with you. I'd accept being able to replace your own legend/planewalker with a new one, provided they still blow up when an opponent drops a copy. It makes sense enough and feathers won't be ruffled.
  • #4
    I like the way that legends and planeswalkers under one player's control can replace themselves now rather than popping. Makes Cascade slightly less troublesome, and it makes sense that if a player calls for Ajani to wear his angry hat, he can leave his nurse cap behind.

    I can understand multiple legends as each player putting their own ideas of the legend into the spell. Still feels a bit odd but whatever.

    My problem is that each player having one copy of a particular planeswalker feels really odd. Particularly Gideon Jura punching himself in the face.
    Last edited by Hackworth: 5/23/2013 12:38:44 AM
    Solvitur ambulando
    My Custom Card Blog
  • #5
    The legend rule didn't make sense flavourwise from the moment they decided that we don't actualy summon the creatures, but create some kind of copy of them. So I don't realy mind the lengendary change. I agree that the flavour of the planeswalkers is weird (except in the case of Bolas and a couple of others, I can see them fighting on both sides and thus weaken their enemies, although they are probably too smart to be so open about it).
  • #6
    Oh yes. Especially Gideon. I can almost accept the idea that these legends now share a contract with multiple people at once, but even that idea falls apart when they'll ultimately punch themselves in the face.

    Someone had suggested that games are now a battle between parallel multiverses just shatters anything meaningful, in my opinion.
  • #7
    I don't mind the Legenary rule, since you could just be summoning aetheric copies of that specific person. Whatever.

    But the Planeswalker rule really pisses me off and I didn't realize it until now.
  • #8
    Get over it and quit trying to justify the change by over-thinking a change that was made for the game play aspect. That would be my advice.

    I'm as much of a Vorthos as anyone else frequenting the Storyline forums, but I have the senses to know that there at times has to be a separation of lore and story sensibility for the sake of better gameplay. It's something I'm quite familiar with as a Warcraft fan who has had to deal with the story being largely driven there by how Blizzard can make it interact with the MMO world it's told through, now. This is very much the same case as that, and I applaud Wizards for taking the necessary step because despite all the knee-jerk reactions, gameplay-wise it made little sense that players could just drop legendaries and planeswalkers to purposely make another copy go poof instead of actually playing the card as it was intended.

    My Trade Thread | My Tumblr Blog | My Mod Desk | My Sig Shop
    Playing: Modern Affinity // Rakdos Aggro - Legacy Pox // Burn - EDH Ghost Council
    Quote from Dechs Kaison
    What the Griselbrand, Xen. Just when I thought your stuff couldn't get any better, you churn out that Jeleva banner. It's gorgeous.
  • #9
    Hey, at least Doug is honest that it isn't perfect flavor.
    Quote from Guesswork
    So, you're a jellybean connoisseur.

    Boy, do you love jellybeans! More importantly, you love good jellybeans, meaning root beer flavored jellybeans. Because those are the good ones, and the other ones are bad.


    Quote continued here.
  • #10
    The new Legend Rule does make sense flavorwise, but it takes us back towards Pre-revisionist magic. Rather than summoning the Legend, you're summoning a copy. There's no reason why multiple people can't summon their own copies. My assumption before was the 'intrinsic' nature of a legends was such that, when stretched to being in two places at once, both spells failed. Now they're just unique enough that a Playerwalker can only maintain one. As far as 'walkers go, it makes more sense for some than for others. Any 'Walker with a mercenary bent should be willing to play both sides. The more 'upstanding' ones have issues though.
    Cyme we inne frið, fram the grip of deaþ to lif inne ðis smylte land.
  • #11
    Quote from Pompejus
    The legend rule didn't make sense flavourwise from the moment they decided that we don't actualy summon the creatures, but create some kind of copy of them. So I don't realy mind the lengendary change. I agree that the flavour of the planeswalkers is weird (except in the case of Bolas and a couple of others, I can see them fighting on both sides and thus weaken their enemies, although they are probably too smart to be so open about it).


    You realize if you drop a Bolas while someone else already has one, you're going to tell Bolas to immediately KILL HIMSELF, right?

    Quote from Xenphire
    Get over it and quit trying to justify the change by over-thinking a change that was made for the game play aspect. That would be my advice.

    I'm as much of a Vorthos as anyone else frequenting the Storyline forums, but I have the senses to know that there at times has to be a separation of lore and story sensibility for the sake of better gameplay. It's something I'm quite familiar with as a Warcraft fan who has had to deal with the story being largely driven there by how Blizzard can make it interact with the MMO world it's told through, now. This is very much the same case as that, and I applaud Wizards for taking the necessary step because despite all the knee-jerk reactions, gameplay-wise it made little sense that players could just drop legendaries and planeswalkers to purposely make another copy go poof instead of actually playing the card as it was intended.

    I wouldn't be so sure that it IS better gameplay. It's the continuation of dumbing down the game that things like hexproof have pushed.
  • #12
    Quote from Barinellos
    You realize if you drop a Bolas while someone else already has one, you're going to tell Bolas to immediately KILL HIMSELF, right?

    Not kill, as you don't kill planeswalkers. You just convince planeswalkers not to help the other side, usualy by hurting them so much they don't want to help your opponent. In this case I would/could see it as Nicol Bolas deciding to stop helping your opponent. I must admit that I have to jump through some hoops to explain it, but it is easier done with Bolas then with Ajani.
  • #13
    Under the old rules: Mannichi, the Fevered Dream sees himself and both blow up. Mannichi also spontaneously combusts when he sees monsters disguised as himself.

    Under the new rules: Mannichi, the Fevered Dream happily coexists with himself. He also doesn't spontaneously combust when he sees monsters disguised as himself.

    In both sets of rules, he can still hold five swords of X and Y and wear both Swiftfoot Boots and Lightning Greaves at the same time.

    I don't really like the rules change for gameplay reasons, but complaining about flavor when neither rule made sense from a flavor perspective is just being rather late about the whole thing.
    Love is in the airThe wedding is over. Now it's time for the honeymoon.Love is in the air

    Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!
  • #14
    Quote from Barinellos
    I wouldn't be so sure that it IS better gameplay. It's the continuation of dumbing down the game that things like hexproof have pushed.


    Dropping a Jitte to kill an opposing Jitte is not really a play that requires a lot of smarts. Using it to grind out an advantage is.

    Two planeswalkers of the same type facing each other is rewarding to the better player. Both planeswalkers blowing up isn't.

    In short, there are reasons to dislike this change, but the old "dumbing down the game"-argument doesn't hold any water. You don't really think using a clone to kill a legend requieres any intelligence? But using your own copy to eek out an advantage does.


    As for the topic, since it is already established that time travel happens and characters already were facing themselves (Nicol Bolas, Karn) it's not that much of a stretch. And in my opinion it never was, if you compare it to a bird attacking with a sword..
    Playing Modern:
    Time Walk Combo
    UW Control
    Mono-U Tron
  • #15
    Since the very beginning of the game stone walls could die out of fear, Fire Elementals could die to Fireballs and armless Wurms could wield lances.

    I love the game. I love the storyline. Trying to get the game to be an accurate representation of the storyline has always been doomed to fail.

    So my verdict on the rules changes? I quite like that they cleared up Indestructible and Unblockable. The others don't evoke any emotion in me at all.
    Yes, I know Squirrel in my name is spelled wrong. At least it's better than my Symbiotic Wurm proxy that made incest tokens -_-
  • #16
    Quote from Quicken
    Dropping a Jitte to kill an opposing Jitte is not really a play that requires a lot of smarts. Using it to grind out an advantage is.

    Two planeswalkers of the same type facing each other is rewarding to the better player. Both planeswalkers blowing up isn't.

    In short, there are reasons to dislike this change, but the old "dumbing down the game"-argument doesn't hold any water. You don't really think using a clone to kill a legend requieres any intelligence? But using your own copy to eek out an advantage does.

    It means there is no risk involved with playing those legends or walkers. It means that you no longer have to weigh that possibility.
    That created a situation where you had to think ahead to what your opponent could do and make those calls. It required strategy. There's still strategy and risk involved, but there's considerably less of it if you feel like playing those cards.

    s for the topic, since it is already established that time travel happens and characters already were facing themselves (Nicol Bolas, Karn) it's not that much of a stretch. And in my opinion it never was, if you compare it to a bird attacking with a sword..

    Time Travel actually DOESN'T happen without fracturing the very firmament of spacetime. The only thing that could even survive that travel without being torn apart in the first place was silver. Even that had those aforementioned consequences.
  • #17
    Applying this rule to planeswalkers is admittedly rather..... troublesome.

    But as for applying it to legendary, well, quoth Warmachine/Hordes rulebook (imperfect quoting): In the midst of battle, who knows who is the real deal? Everyone can be impostors, one can claim he's the real legend while someone else across the field says nooo you're not XD

    But ok, I'll shut up now XD
  • #18
    I'm with Xenphire. Legendary permanents are kind of flavourfully flawed by their very existence. Why can I copy a Llanowar Elf, but when I copy a planeswalker, suddenly one/both of them blow up?

    Having that said, I do think it would be more intuitive and make a lot of sense, if token of legendary permanents wouldn't count towards the amount of a specific legendary card.

    Quote from Barinellos
    I wouldn't be so sure that it IS better gameplay. It's the continuation of dumbing down the game that things like hexproof have pushed.

    If only half of the "wizards is dumbing down the game" nay sayings were actually true, then by now we'd play Ugg, and not Magic. Really, saying that Magic gets dumbed down with a change they make really just means you don't like the change for emotional/nostalgic reasons and don't have any arguments against it.
    Quote from FieryBalrog
    I know I made that joke about slapping down a picture of some broccoli and calling it a sliver... I didn't know Wizards was listening. Grin
  • #19
    Quote from Barinellos
    It means there is no risk involved with playing those legends or walkers. It means that you no longer have to weigh that possibility.
    That created a situation where you had to think ahead to what your opponent could do and make those calls. It required strategy. There's still strategy and risk involved, but there's considerably less of it if you feel like playing those cards.


    It also means that you no longer have a no-brainer answer to an opposing Planeswalker. Realizing that the best way to deal with JTMS is (probably) to play your own doesn't require a lot of smarts. It will change decks and the game itself, and we will see if that is a net positive, but I'd say the complexity has gone up. But at this point that's probably a subjective view.


    Quote from Barinellos

    Time Travel actually DOESN'T happen without fracturing the very firmament of spacetime. The only thing that could even survive that travel without being torn apart in the first place was silver. Even that had those aforementioned consequences.


    Okay, my ignorance of the flavor has been revealed and I apologize for my bad hand wave Wink
    Playing Modern:
    Time Walk Combo
    UW Control
    Mono-U Tron
  • #20
    What now?

    Nothing.

    Like what we have done after The Mending and with the Neo Slivers.

    We can argue all day long but in the end we are like those scavengers in the deepest darkest parts of the ocean waiting for a Huge Whale to go down and die on us.
    From the same team that gave you The MENDING and CLOCKWORKING...

    OFFSCREENING
    It happened.... off screen. XD

    Webcomic Status: LAST UPDATE = July 2014



    "PLANESWALKERS" : 1993-2007
    "Will History remember this as the day that someone made a wise decision? or
    the day where someone made a GRAND MISTAKE?"

    sneakybread Angel Enthusiast - Flavor and Art Enthusiast - The Serran Scholar of The [Pack]
  • #21
    Quote from Barinellos
    It is a wretched foul change.
    I don't even know what else to say about it. There IS no way to reconcile this satisfactorily.


    Clockworking Evil Lol
  • #22
    Quote from Flisch
    I'm with Xenphire. Legendary permanents are kind of flavourfully flawed by their very existence. Why can I copy a Llanowar Elf, but when I copy a planeswalker, suddenly one/both of them blow up?

    Having that said, I do think it would be more intuitive and make a lot of sense, if token of legendary permanents wouldn't count towards the amount of a specific legendary card.


    If only half of the "wizards is dumbing down the game" nay sayings were actually true, then by now we'd play Ugg, and not Magic. Really, saying that Magic gets dumbed down with a change they make really just means you don't like the change for emotional/nostalgic reasons and don't have any arguments against it.


    Quote from Quicken
    It also means that you no longer have a no-brainer answer to an opposing Planeswalker. Realizing that the best way to deal with JTMS is (probably) to play your own doesn't require a lot of smarts. It will change decks and the game itself, and we will see if that is a net positive, but I'd say the complexity has gone up. But at this point that's probably a subjective view.


    Idk.. The new planeswalker unique rule means there's only 2 ways to kill a planeswalker: 1. Dreadbore, Sorin, Lord of Innistrad, and other cards that directly kill 'walkers (of which there are indecently few), and 2. Actually attacking it (which is in line with the creature-dependence of the last few sets). Before, there was a third way to kill 'walkers, that is, playing your own copy of it. I fail to see how removing an option for interaction with planeswalkers isn't dumbing down the game.. Rolleyes

    In any case, (on to the flavor bit) quantum theory tells us that any unique item (or creature or planeswalker) can only ever exist in one place at any given time. To do violence to this rather intuitive concept means to make impossible the suspension of disbelief in the face of so glaring an ontological crisis. It is a violence against logic that can only be patched up with the wan bleat of "It's a fantasy game, so we can say what we want."

    Thank you to Rivenor for this awesome banner!

    Palladia-Mors of {The Spirit of EDH}


    EDH

    WLinvala, Queen of the AngelsW

    WUThe Prison of the Grand ArbiterUW [Primer]

    URNiv-Mizzet, Handcycling ComboRU

    WBObzedat, Life-gain StaxBW

    UTalrand, Drake-Slinging to VictoryU

    WUGDerevi, Planeswalker ControlGUW
  • #23
    It is interesting that the 'world' rule is slightly different than the legendary rule ---- the new world enchantment will replace the new one.

    Signature made by Inkfox Aesthetics
    Commander Decks:
    Sigarda, Host of Herons: Multiplayer Global Hate Enchantress green mana white mana
    Kaalia of the Vast: Traditional 1v1 white mana black mana red mana
    Oloro, Ageless Ascetic: Multiplayer Alt-Wincon white mana blue mana black mana
    Oloro, Ageless Ascetic: 1v1 Beatdown white mana blue mana black mana
    Quote from Phil »
    Any woman, man, or potential partner worth your time wouldn't judge you because of what you do on a Friday at 6 pm unless it was a bit extreme involving a bulldozer, a vat of KY, and a black light
  • #24
    Quote from Barinellos
    Time Travel actually DOESN'T happen without fracturing the very firmament of spacetime. The only thing that could even survive that travel without being torn apart in the first place was silver. Even that had those aforementioned consequences.


    Cast Through Time, Stitch in Time, Time Ebb, Time Elemental, Time Reversal, Time Sieve, Time Spiral, Time Stretch, Time Walk, Time Warp, Timesifter, Timetwister, Temporal Adept, Temporal Cascade, Temporal Manipulation, and Temporal Mastery kinda proves that wrong. It's Story Line and Game Play segregation.

    As I see it, you are not actually summoning the legend and/or planeswalker out of the past, but rather a "temporal copy" for lack of a better word. The same as with every other creature. The only difference is since you are calling a copy of a specific individual it is more strenuous on you, which is why you can only keep one copy of an individual at a time (except with shenanigans such as with Mirror Gallery). It is the simplest solution to explain this change.

    Or, if you'd rather go the comic book route, simply see it as alternate universe versions of the legends/planeswalkers you summon. It happens all the time in comic books where the hero has to go up against a clone or alternate universe counterpart. >.
    It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).

    - Feed the Wyrm, Evolve or Die.

    - Never stand in the way of evolution, you'll just get trampled. Grin
  • #25
    Quote from madhatter00o

    Idk.. The new planeswalker unique rule means there's only 2 ways to kill a planeswalker: 1. Dreadbore, Sorin, Lord of Innistrad, and other cards that directly kill 'walkers (of which there are indecently few), and 2. Actually attacking it (which is in line with the creature-dependence of the last few sets). Before, there was a third way to kill 'walkers, that is, playing your own copy of it. I fail to see how removing an option for interaction with planeswalkers isn't dumbing down the game.. Rolleyes



    OK...
    1 - {you don't get to lump all standard complains about magic together in a big bag and still pretend you're not a whiner}. If you are really worried about the supposed dominance of creature strategies (as your post seems to imply), why are you crying about something that makes planeswalkers (mostly used by control decks, although some midrange decks have them too) stronger?
    2 - There is another answer to planeswalkers, it's direct damage. Wait, there's a fourts, it's called multi-purpose permantent removal (such as Oblivion Ring, Detention Sphere, Vraska the Unseen, Nicol Bolas, Abrupt Decay (only for two walkers, admitedly), Sylvan Primordial... and that's only standard). If you're not playing creatures, you're not playing multi-purpose permanent removal, and you're not playing any kind of direct damage, well don't come crying if you can't deal with your opponent's deck, because you had it coming.

    Quote from madhatter00o

    In any case, (on to the flavor bit) quantum theory tells us that any unique item (or creature or planeswalker) can only ever exist in one place at any given time. To do violence to this rather intuitive concept means to make impossible the suspension of disbelief in the face of so glaring an ontological crisis. It is a violence against logic that can only be patched up with the wan bleat of "It's a fantasy game, so we can say what we want."


    But Glissa Sunseeker and Glissa the Traitor, or Venser, Shaper Savant and Venser the Sojourner hanging around together never annoyed you? It's not about it being a fantasy game, it's about being a frigging game, not a realistic simulation. Oozes can have boots, I can Remove Soul a Soulless One, Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed gives two eyeball counters to Jar of Eyeballs, a guy can wield five swords at the same time, I can reanimate creatures that never died but were milled/discarded, so is it such a big deal that both players can control a Gideon?
    The point of flavour is mostly to make the cards more attractive and to help you, as a player, "get" what the card is. It can do other things (in Innistrad, the flavour was directly affecting the game experience in many ways, I feel), but it shouldn't dictate how rules work.

    Moderator Action: Warning
    I know everyone's up in arms about the legend/'walker rule changes, because Magic players hate change, but that's not a justification for flaming. The bracketed text is over the line.
    ~kaburi
    Last edited by kaburi: 5/23/2013 9:29:20 AM
    I had a hand in Archester: Frontier of Steam, an awesome Steampunk set.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes