You realize if you drop a Bolas while someone else already has one, you're going to tell Bolas to immediately KILL HIMSELF, right?
The card represents your relationship with that planeswalker. So in this case, you are bribing Bolas to switch sides, and since you know he had worked with your opponent, you ask him to break his ties with that other planeswalker. Jace could easily be finding secrets for multiple people. When my Chandra deals damage to your Chandra, I asked her to set fire to your war camp, and maybe that accidentally destroyed some of the scrolls you had that were interesting to her, so she is less interested in your cause. Sending my Gideon into battle (attacking yours) makes him realize that my cause is the one he wants to support. You may goad Garruk into actions that worsen the effects of his veil curse, while I am simply joining him in his primal hunts.
Each planeswalker card is the representation of a spell of communication that contacts that planeswalker and sets up some conditions for their assistance. In most cases, those conditions do not include exclusive rights to assistance, but sometimes we can, such as drawing on the favors we have built with Vraska to ensure that she doesn't work with someone else.
GM's pretty much got the best we can do at the moment. The last problem there, for me, is how much that highlights the turn-based nature of the game. How is Jace working for both simultaneously, exactly? Is this some bad sitcom plot where they have to try really hard to be in two places at once? Ugh.
Under the new rules, if I control Mannichi and then cast a Clone that transforms into Mannichi, Mannichi still combusts, doesn't he? That actually makes less sense, IMO, since Mannichi dies if a monster fighting on his side transforms into him, but doesn't if it the monster who transforms into him is fighting on the opposite side.
It doesn't make any sense both before and after the rules change. Why does Mannichi die in the first place?
The only version of the legendary rules that made some sense was the original version (Since it did mean there could only be one and it had no clone destruction shenanigans), but that led to terrible gameplay as seen in the Lin-Sivvi wars. Sometimes, what's good for the flavor is not good for the game rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The wedding is over. Now it's time for the honeymoon.
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.
The flavor part doesn't really bother me in the least.
A Magic duel isn't a compressed, super-linear 40-minute battle that plays out turn-by-turn as the players cast cards and whittle away at each others' life totals.
Rather, a Magic duel represents a pretty epic conflict that might span weeks, months or years of actual time. During that time period, you could certainly expect that allegiances might shift and betrayals might occur, which perfectly explains why legendary creatures and planeswalkers might show up on opposing sides of the table.
It is interesting that the 'world' rule is slightly different than the legendary rule ---- the new world enchantment will replace the new one.
I would've thought something similar would've made more sense for planeswalkers: either the same rule based on subtype instead of super-; or have loyalty actually matter, build strategy on how low loyalty can drop lest somebody else make a better offer (play their own 'walker card). Both make a lot more sense than...this...I don't even know what this is! Legendary permanents are just aetheric constructs, as are nonlegendaries, but 'walkers? This new rule MAKES. NO. SENSE.
GM's pretty much got the best we can do at the moment. The last problem there, for me, is how much that highlights the turn-based nature of the game. How is Jace working for both simultaneously, exactly? Is this some bad sitcom plot where they have to try really hard to be in two places at once? Ugh.
I was thinking more soap-style twin dilemmas or double crosses, but that's a much funnier satire. Kudos.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
There are ways to rationalize different players controlling the same creature/planeswalker but I can't say I find them satisfactory (and I'm pretty easy-going, I didn't mind the new Slivers having evolved and all that)
That being said it should lead to some better gameplay so I'm fine with it: clones will work as intended, it opens up some design space (A clone that can copy planeswalkers!!) and should lead to mirror matches being much more challenging.
Actually the ONLY one that has any problem with the rule in that entire list is Time Reversal.
Everything else isn't time travel, it's just chronomancy that slows time, speeds up time, or temporarily stops the flow of time. To actually go back in time is a different matter. Hence why the only one that qualifies is Time Reversal.
A Coral Eel can wield a Bonesplitter while wearing a pair of Swiftfoot Boots. Why should I pay any special attention to this new rules change, from a flavor perspective?
This is a card game. Card game rules are not especially good simulations of reality or fantastical versions of reality. Card game rules are primarily used for the purpose of playing card games. That is the metric by which they should be judged.
A Coral Eel can wield a Bonesplitter while wearing a pair of Swiftfoot Boots. Why should I pay any special attention to this new rules change, from a flavor perspective?
This is a card game. Card game rules are not especially good simulations of reality or fantastical versions of reality. Card game rules are primarily used for the purpose of playing card games. That is the metric by which they should be judged.
Thank you. I'm glad someone else isn't going off the deep end with hyperbole, here.
Hyperbole?
There is no hyperbole here.
This is objectively the end of times.
Sell your collections now, while you still have time!!!
No but seriously, folks.
There are so so so so sooooo many holes in taking Magic's gameplay as a literal interpretation of the lore, that this is a drop in the bucket.
Not even the biggest drop at that.
Both the new and old versions have problems - earlier, there could be only one Dracogenius on the field, but there was nothing stopping him from coegsisting with the Firemind. Why? On top of that he died when an illusion/clone appeared on the battlefield. Again, why? The new rule removes one of the issues, while expanding the other to all legends. Not much really changed when it comes to flavorfulness.
That issue is still there, though. Again, if I play a Clone and the clone shapeshifts into my own Firemind, one of them would have to die.
In fact, since a lot of people seem to be missing this, it means the rule change did not improve the game aspect of the legends perfectly, either.
In the midst of all of this, Doug Beyer has mentioned that this change in the rules paves way for them to make nicer legends? Really... with all the backseat legendary creatures have been getting recently?
The usual wait and see I guess. *piles nails*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Serra Stan - Angel Enthusiast - Garruk and Tyvar thirsty follower - Flavor and Art Enthusiast
Both the new and old versions have problems - earlier, there could be only one Dracogenius on the field, but there was nothing stopping him from coegsisting with the Firemind. Why? On top of that he died when an illusion/clone appeared on the battlefield. Again, why? The new rule removes one of the issues, while expanding the other to all legends. Not much really changed when it comes to flavorfulness.
I'm not saying that the old rules didn't have their own issues
But as far as I'm concerned two players have the same identical legendary creature is a big flavour fail: it removes some the uniqueness that made them special as far as the plot/setting goes.
Truth of the matter, the clone killing a legendary creature by virtue of copying it felt like a bug more than anything: the game's coding wasn't written to support two of the same legend on the battlefield at once so the game kills both of them to not have to deal with it; but the bug had undeniable flavour which made it acceptable, it was intuitive: there's only one Griselbrand in MtG so there cannot be two of them on the battlefield right? Same goes for Planeswalkers.
But I think the gameplay will be so much better than I'm willing to forgive this because there's just no way to make both flavour and mechanics 100% intuitive when it comes to legendary.
but the bug had undeniable flavour which made it acceptable, it was intuitive: there's only one Griselbrand in MtG so there cannot be two of them on the battlefield right?
I deny that flavor. Yeah, there's only one Griselbrand, and the other one is just a clone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
People taking game play and trying to translate it so literally in a flavor is pretty funny, when you think about it. Supposedly this is a dent to flavor, yet when I try to be too literal like many people overreacting in the thread have, I found that most things from a game play aspect are pretty laughable.
So you're battling your opponent and they call Jace in his Mind Sculptor era of life to come aid them. Somehow, you call out to an alternate dimension for Jace in his exact spot in life he's at while at your opponent's side. But let's go with past Jace, just for the sake of humor. So you're communing with Jace's past and you're all like "Hey Jace, listen, I need you to kinda like... well maybe like... pop up and annihilate yourself from existence right now. That cool?" And so Jace Beleren obliges to annihilate himself from existence for you. And really with Legendary Creatures, it's the same silly level of ridiculousness. So yeah, I remain unconvinced that the new rule is any worse than the last from a flavor standpoint.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is why you look ridiculous when you try to take game play mechanics and translate their effects so literally to flavor (and vice versa).
I think the point of the matter here is establishing as much cohesion that is possible. Anyone can use the same excuse that "Magic is filled with flavor inconsistencies everywhere due to its constantly expanding and changing nature, so why bother?", though what's more critical that had lent to Magic's success in the past is at least make an attempt to have as much of it make sense with everything else as possible. For example, a constantly cited counter-example of why flavor has to make sense are the tiny creatures wielding nonsensical or technically impossible weapons. This issue can at least be reduced by a sort of one-size-fits-all rule that seems to be evoked often in fantasy anyways. This new rule on legends and planeswalkers at least has to make some headcanon possible such that it fits the flavor of Magic as a whole.
I'm not saying this change is the death to all that is Vorthos nor that it's insignificant. We just gotta shoehorn things here and there.
I've always considered legendary permanents to be some of the best cards in the game. They can do what other permanents can't do and they can be really powerful because only one copy can exist at a time. After some thought on the subject I believe the new rules for clones makes sense. The clone creatures are not perfect copies and they aren't pulled from specific times or places. The ability for a player to cast multiple copies of a legendary permanent and pick which one to destroy to maintain balance seems all right because you need to have balance.
The thing that really bothers me is each opponent can have the same legendary permanents at the same time. Whether a permanent is a time traveler, a manifestation, or even a memory what is the point of being legendary or special when everyone and everything is exactly the same? If everyone is Superman then there is nothing super about them. As for Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind vs Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius and the like it all boils down to bad card design. We know Ajani Vengeant and Ajani Goldmane are the same person and their design helped maintain their legendary status among their versions. The Mizzium conundrum and the like could have been addressed with an errata a long time ago or something along those lines.
Someone mentioned wurms wielding swords and wearing boots and the like. "Equipping" isn't so black and white. The wurms or wolves and etc don't wear or hold these items with traditional methods compared to a humanoid. They become enchanted with the items power. An item can be embedded, mounted, or even consumed depending on the object and creature. An example would be Ravnican wurms and wolves wearing helmets and saddles. It isn't much of a stretch to upgrade or create these kinds of armor.
I think we have to consider the actual game play and the expression of the storyline from the perspective of the individual player. For the old legend rule, there was Onslaught and the famous legend fight. Then came Kawigama, but because there were so many legends each legend for the other became basically an expensive "destroy target single creature" at the very worst or a dead draw.
The last expansion had legends, the question with Theros may have a number of legendary creatures in it to go along with the gods theme. It seems in part with Ravnica there was going to be legends pushed, but the major change with the next set also means that legends will most likely be a returning concept. Perhaps not as much expressed as Kawigama or Legends, but rather as akin to tribal is to Innistraad. Which means for persons to play individual identities it becomes more interesting whenever the game is pushed for players to interact more with other cards. Altogether, I am rather intrigued to be able to actually play with a legend itself as a hero character and developing an interest in the card's personality and card interactions by playing with it.
So in essence, "everyone gets to be Mario when playing a Mario game."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
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.
It's supposed to fix clones. But it doesn't, and it's more complicated than the original legend rule, let alone the Kamigawa legend rule. You could make the name and legendary supertype not copyable, but ship's sailed on that one. (Evil Twin and Sakashima, the Impostor)
It does open up design space for planeswalker clones, but I personally don't think something as complicated as a planeswalker should be cloned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
So it seems to me only only argument/interpretation people have for this is that both players can summon the same 'copy' of a legendary creature.
However, this doesn't even make sense. If you can summon a copy in addition to mine, why I can't I summon a second copy of my own legend? Ok, maybe I'm not powerful enough, so I'll just brainwash and Mind Control yours. And then suddenly *poof*! Both the legends die! What, were they too close to each other? Despite the fact that they could engage each other in armed combat, but being on the same side? No, that's too much and there can only be one!
So it seems to me only only argument/interpretation people have for this is that both players can summon the same 'copy' of a legendary creature.
However, this doesn't even make sense. If you can summon a copy in addition to mine, why I can't I summon a second copy of my own legend? Ok, maybe I'm not powerful enough, so I'll just brainwash and Mind Control yours. And then suddenly *poof*! Both the legends die! What, were they too close to each other? Despite the fact that they could engage each other in armed combat, but being on the same side? No, that's too much and there can only be one!
The best way we can consolidate that problem, I think, is to simply imagine that rather than being able to summon only one copy, you instead can only maintain one copy. Subtle difference here and it justifies not being able to control more than one legend, clone or otherwise. And this maintenance isn't a measure of your power (because we need to account for nearly omnipotent folks. :P) rather, it's a quality of the copy itself. I can take a note from Pauli's Exclusion Principle that no two identical objects may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously (via controller and name).
Thus, the inherent qualities that constitute each legend-copy are isolated enough that each can exist on its own without collapse, but when forced to occupy the exact same set of conditions will there be a conflict that must be resolved though the elimination of one.
And note, both legends do not die. One is kept while the other one is killed off. So in theory, that Mind Control is a pricy kill spell.
The card represents your relationship with that planeswalker. So in this case, you are bribing Bolas to switch sides, and since you know he had worked with your opponent, you ask him to break his ties with that other planeswalker. Jace could easily be finding secrets for multiple people. When my Chandra deals damage to your Chandra, I asked her to set fire to your war camp, and maybe that accidentally destroyed some of the scrolls you had that were interesting to her, so she is less interested in your cause. Sending my Gideon into battle (attacking yours) makes him realize that my cause is the one he wants to support. You may goad Garruk into actions that worsen the effects of his veil curse, while I am simply joining him in his primal hunts.
Each planeswalker card is the representation of a spell of communication that contacts that planeswalker and sets up some conditions for their assistance. In most cases, those conditions do not include exclusive rights to assistance, but sometimes we can, such as drawing on the favors we have built with Vraska to ensure that she doesn't work with someone else.
The only version of the legendary rules that made some sense was the original version (Since it did mean there could only be one and it had no clone destruction shenanigans), but that led to terrible gameplay as seen in the Lin-Sivvi wars. Sometimes, what's good for the flavor is not good for the game rules.
Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!
True, but I do like the first scenario. There should be a comic on this.
The flavor part doesn't really bother me in the least.
A Magic duel isn't a compressed, super-linear 40-minute battle that plays out turn-by-turn as the players cast cards and whittle away at each others' life totals.
Rather, a Magic duel represents a pretty epic conflict that might span weeks, months or years of actual time. During that time period, you could certainly expect that allegiances might shift and betrayals might occur, which perfectly explains why legendary creatures and planeswalkers might show up on opposing sides of the table.
I would've thought something similar would've made more sense for planeswalkers: either the same rule based on subtype instead of super-; or have loyalty actually matter, build strategy on how low loyalty can drop lest somebody else make a better offer (play their own 'walker card). Both make a lot more sense than...this...I don't even know what this is! Legendary permanents are just aetheric constructs, as are nonlegendaries, but 'walkers? This new rule MAKES. NO. SENSE.
I was thinking more soap-style twin dilemmas or double crosses, but that's a much funnier satire. Kudos.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
There are ways to rationalize different players controlling the same creature/planeswalker but I can't say I find them satisfactory (and I'm pretty easy-going, I didn't mind the new Slivers having evolved and all that)
That being said it should lead to some better gameplay so I'm fine with it: clones will work as intended, it opens up some design space (A clone that can copy planeswalkers!!) and should lead to mirror matches being much more challenging.
Actually the ONLY one that has any problem with the rule in that entire list is Time Reversal.
Everything else isn't time travel, it's just chronomancy that slows time, speeds up time, or temporarily stops the flow of time. To actually go back in time is a different matter. Hence why the only one that qualifies is Time Reversal.
This is a card game. Card game rules are not especially good simulations of reality or fantastical versions of reality. Card game rules are primarily used for the purpose of playing card games. That is the metric by which they should be judged.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Thank you. I'm glad someone else isn't going off the deep end with hyperbole, here.
(Also known as Xenphire)
There is no hyperbole here.
This is objectively the end of times.
Sell your collections now, while you still have time!!!
No but seriously, folks.
There are so so so so sooooo many holes in taking Magic's gameplay as a literal interpretation of the lore, that this is a drop in the bucket.
Not even the biggest drop at that.
Level 1 Judge
I write flavor articles for RoxieCards.
I play and judge at Giga Bites Cafein Marietta, Georgia.
That issue is still there, though. Again, if I play a Clone and the clone shapeshifts into my own Firemind, one of them would have to die.
In fact, since a lot of people seem to be missing this, it means the rule change did not improve the game aspect of the legends perfectly, either.
Please to be asking usage of this in mah comic. Appropriate crediting will be in place.
_________________________________________________________
In the midst of all of this, Doug Beyer has mentioned that this change in the rules paves way for them to make nicer legends? Really... with all the backseat legendary creatures have been getting recently?
The usual wait and see I guess. *piles nails*
Serra Stan - Angel Enthusiast - Garruk and Tyvar thirsty follower - Flavor and Art Enthusiast
As far as I'm concerned, once I say something on the internet, it's open season. Go for it.
I'm not saying that the old rules didn't have their own issues
But as far as I'm concerned two players have the same identical legendary creature is a big flavour fail: it removes some the uniqueness that made them special as far as the plot/setting goes.
Truth of the matter, the clone killing a legendary creature by virtue of copying it felt like a bug more than anything: the game's coding wasn't written to support two of the same legend on the battlefield at once so the game kills both of them to not have to deal with it; but the bug had undeniable flavour which made it acceptable, it was intuitive: there's only one Griselbrand in MtG so there cannot be two of them on the battlefield right? Same goes for Planeswalkers.
But I think the gameplay will be so much better than I'm willing to forgive this because there's just no way to make both flavour and mechanics 100% intuitive when it comes to legendary.
I deny that flavor. Yeah, there's only one Griselbrand, and the other one is just a clone.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
So you're battling your opponent and they call Jace in his Mind Sculptor era of life to come aid them. Somehow, you call out to an alternate dimension for Jace in his exact spot in life he's at while at your opponent's side. But let's go with past Jace, just for the sake of humor. So you're communing with Jace's past and you're all like "Hey Jace, listen, I need you to kinda like... well maybe like... pop up and annihilate yourself from existence right now. That cool?" And so Jace Beleren obliges to annihilate himself from existence for you. And really with Legendary Creatures, it's the same silly level of ridiculousness. So yeah, I remain unconvinced that the new rule is any worse than the last from a flavor standpoint.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is why you look ridiculous when you try to take game play mechanics and translate their effects so literally to flavor (and vice versa).
(Also known as Xenphire)
I'm not saying this change is the death to all that is Vorthos nor that it's insignificant. We just gotta shoehorn things here and there.
The thing that really bothers me is each opponent can have the same legendary permanents at the same time. Whether a permanent is a time traveler, a manifestation, or even a memory what is the point of being legendary or special when everyone and everything is exactly the same? If everyone is Superman then there is nothing super about them. As for Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind vs Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius and the like it all boils down to bad card design. We know Ajani Vengeant and Ajani Goldmane are the same person and their design helped maintain their legendary status among their versions. The Mizzium conundrum and the like could have been addressed with an errata a long time ago or something along those lines.
Someone mentioned wurms wielding swords and wearing boots and the like. "Equipping" isn't so black and white. The wurms or wolves and etc don't wear or hold these items with traditional methods compared to a humanoid. They become enchanted with the items power. An item can be embedded, mounted, or even consumed depending on the object and creature. An example would be Ravnican wurms and wolves wearing helmets and saddles. It isn't much of a stretch to upgrade or create these kinds of armor.
The last expansion had legends, the question with Theros may have a number of legendary creatures in it to go along with the gods theme. It seems in part with Ravnica there was going to be legends pushed, but the major change with the next set also means that legends will most likely be a returning concept. Perhaps not as much expressed as Kawigama or Legends, but rather as akin to tribal is to Innistraad. Which means for persons to play individual identities it becomes more interesting whenever the game is pushed for players to interact more with other cards. Altogether, I am rather intrigued to be able to actually play with a legend itself as a hero character and developing an interest in the card's personality and card interactions by playing with it.
So in essence, "everyone gets to be Mario when playing a Mario game."
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's supposed to fix clones. But it doesn't, and it's more complicated than the original legend rule, let alone the Kamigawa legend rule. You could make the name and legendary supertype not copyable, but ship's sailed on that one. (Evil Twin and Sakashima, the Impostor)
It does open up design space for planeswalker clones, but I personally don't think something as complicated as a planeswalker should be cloned.
On phasing:
However, this doesn't even make sense. If you can summon a copy in addition to mine, why I can't I summon a second copy of my own legend? Ok, maybe I'm not powerful enough, so I'll just brainwash and Mind Control yours. And then suddenly *poof*! Both the legends die! What, were they too close to each other? Despite the fact that they could engage each other in armed combat, but being on the same side? No, that's too much and there can only be one!
The best way we can consolidate that problem, I think, is to simply imagine that rather than being able to summon only one copy, you instead can only maintain one copy. Subtle difference here and it justifies not being able to control more than one legend, clone or otherwise. And this maintenance isn't a measure of your power (because we need to account for nearly omnipotent folks. :P) rather, it's a quality of the copy itself. I can take a note from Pauli's Exclusion Principle that no two identical objects may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously (via controller and name).
Thus, the inherent qualities that constitute each legend-copy are isolated enough that each can exist on its own without collapse, but when forced to occupy the exact same set of conditions will there be a conflict that must be resolved though the elimination of one.
And note, both legends do not die. One is kept while the other one is killed off. So in theory, that Mind Control is a pricy kill spell.
Agreed. I've tried to make excuses for it, but have found none. Looks Like Vorthos loses this round.
I don't care how it makes the rules work "better". SCREW THE RULES, I HAVE FLAVOR.
On Modern Masters 2:
Will be kept until 12/31/2013 to prove if Right or Wrong.Proven right 1/27/2013DELICIOUS, DELICIOUS FLAVOR.
The thing I'm hoping most now is a shapeshifter PW to copy other PW.