How can they be DFC when the rares have no symbols on the top left corner.
These are only the non-DFC rares and mythics.
If there are DFCs, they would be on a seperate sheet which we have not seen yet.
I thought we agreed it's all of the rares?
I mean there was 12/15 mythic and at least 30 rares on it.
It's definitely the entire normal rare sheet. However, sets with Double faced cards have typically gone above the "normal" number of mythics are rares, with Shadows over Innistrad having 18 mythics and 59 rares, compared to Amonkhet's more normal 15 mythics and 53 rares. Obviously that doesn't mean there definitely are DFC's, either, but they're still a possibility.
Carnage Tyrant... a 7/6 uncounterable trample hexproof T-Rex. This creature feels like if Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger and Garruk, Apex Predator held a contest for the strongest creatures of the multiverse it would meet their approval. Shrugs off fire mages, mind mages get hosed, necromancers just don't have enough poison to drown this thing in...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
How can they be DFC when the rares have no symbols on the top left corner.
These are only the non-DFC rares and mythics.
If there are DFCs, they would be on a seperate sheet which we have not seen yet.
I thought we agreed it's all of the rares?
I mean there was 12/15 mythic and at least 30 rares on it.
It's definitely the entire normal rare sheet. However, sets with Double faced cards have typically gone above the "normal" number of mythics are rares, with Shadows over Innistrad having 18 mythics and 59 rares, compared to Amonkhet's more normal 15 mythics and 53 rares. Obviously that doesn't mean there definitely are DFC's, either, but they're still a possibility.
Exactly. Ixalan has 15 more cards than the default for large sets. A large set having 5 or 10 extra cards to add an extra basic land cycle or two is not unheard of, but three extra basic land cycle seems excessive. Weirder still, Rivals of Ixalan has 12 more cards than the defaults for small sets, which rules out anything based on cycles - including land cycles.
Is it possible that these sets just have more commons and uncommons than usual? Yes. But it would be unusual. I would make a lot more sense of the 15 extra cards (and 12 more extra cards in Rivals) are something on an extra sheet, likely including a few extra rares and mythics that didn't appear on the rare/mythic sheet we've seen, as well as extra commons and uncommons. DFCs seem like the most likely possibility given their deciduous status, popularity, and large design space. It could be something else instead on the extra sheet, perhaps something brand new, but my money is on DFCs.
I think and hope that they're realized that they can do something more interesting than basic land with the 'land slot' in boosters, and will be dedicating that slot to a wider variety of mana options.
As much of a dog as Dragon's Maze was, I liked how its land slot always provided a nonbasic (usually 2-color fixing), and sometimes provided a rare land and even had a dedicated mythic.
Between ETBtapped dual cycles (Gates, Refuges, etc), usual-suspects common fixers like Evolving Wilds or Shimmering Grotto, or set-specific flavors like Wastes and Deserts, they could easily fill out a 'land sheet' with a whole lot more variety than the basics-and-more-basics approach they've been using, and doing that could account for any variance in the number-of-unique-cards-in-set count without disrupting their established C-U-R sheet defaults.
What's the deal with "legendary planeswalkers"? Will there be an errata to all previous planeswalkers?
In theory, they'll errata all planeswalkers to be legendary, get rid of the planeswalker uniqueness rule, and just use the legend rule for planeswalkers.
That would mean that we could have one of each Jace in play since the Legend rules is based on card name. I don't see that happening.
What's the deal with "legendary planeswalkers"? Will there be an errata to all previous planeswalkers?
In theory, they'll errata all planeswalkers to be legendary, get rid of the planeswalker uniqueness rule, and just use the legend rule for planeswalkers.
That would mean that we could have one of each Jace in play since the Legend rules is based on card name. I don't see that happening.
Yes, it would mean that. Note that it is already possible to control, for example, Silumgar, the Drifting Death and Dragonlord Silumgar at the same time despite the flavor fail, so why not two Jaces? It's always been strange to me that the uniqueness rule for planeswalkers was so much stricter than the uniqueness rule for legendary creatures, even though both serve the same purpose of representing specific characters. With this change each card type will make just as much (or, more acvurately, as little) sense as the other.
It's not going to have a major impact for gameplay either. In standard, they will be decreasing the number of Gatewatch cards outside of planeswalker decks, so we will seldom if ever be seeing multiple playable cards for the same walker. In eternal formats it shouldn't change anything, except perhaps in Commander, where it will be a minor boon to superfriends decks, especially ones with less colors that are forced to play numerous Jaces or Nissas due to limited options.
Imho, the craziest part of such a change wouldn't be the rule change itself, but the massive amount of errata required to implement it. However, we saw mass errata for colorless mana so we could see it happen again.
I think it is more probable that they are going to change the official commander ruling from "legendary creature" to "legendary permanent" and leave the planeswalker rule unchanged.
And every Mono-Green deck's Commander from now till forever will be Gaea's Cradle.
I think it is more probable that they are going to change the official commander ruling from "legendary creature" to "legendary permanent" and leave the planeswalker rule unchanged.
And every Mono-Green deck's Commander from now till forever will be Gaea's Cradle.
non-land permanent then?
Cards you actually have to CAST.
I had alredy had the idea that the legendary pw change may be partially beacause of commander, .
This can allow general to be any Legendary creature/pw (not other permanent types), something that many people were asking after C14 and at the same time the can errata the old commander-PW to remove the "this can be you commander" rider and enable wotc to reprint them more easily (like any core set)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again"
I think it is more probable that they are going to change the official commander ruling from "legendary creature" to "legendary permanent" and leave the planeswalker rule unchanged.
And every Mono-Green deck's Commander from now till forever will be Gaea's Cradle.
non-land permanent then?
Cards you actually have to CAST.
I had alredy had the idea that the legendary pw change may be partially beacause of commander, .
This can allow general to be any Legendary creature/pw (not other permanent types), something that many people were asking after C14 and at the same time the can errata the old commander-PW to remove the "this can be you commander" rider and enable wotc to reprint them more easily (like any core set)
The thing is, if this was a change they wanted to make (I don't think it is), they could have already done it. Like, the diffference between "your commander can be any legendary creature or planeswalker" or "your commander can be any legendary creature, or any planeswalker" is miniscule. It's unlikely to be a change specifically for commander.
I also think they unlikely to get rid of the planeswalker uniqueness rule entirely, but I think they will link it into the Legendary rule, thus allowing our current understanding of Jace's ultimate to work, while still ensuring that the planeswalker types matter. So it will be something like "Legendary permanents with the same name or planeswalker type", rather than two seperate rules. Since Jace's clones won't have the legendary supertype, they'll be fine having the same planeswalker type, but you can't have both Jace, the Mind sculptor and Jace Beleren out at the same time, preventing it from being a huge functional change.
I would not really count the errata for colorless mana as they just changed a symbol leaving the function of the cards completely unaltered.
That's true, but with this rules changes, cards would remain functionally the same 99% of the time. The only time it would ever matter would be if someone plays two different versions of the same planeswalker, or there's a card that cares about legendary permanents. Both will not come up in your average game of Magic. Gameplay-wise this change is only slightly more impactful than colorless mana, and in both cases, some confusion will be created from the difference the new and old styles, but you can understand why they wanted the change and, after a few years, the new way will seem normal.
In this case we would be seeing a massive change in gameplay rules, which is getting rid of the planeswalker unqueness rule and retconning all previous planeswalkers as legendary permanents.
It's not a massive change in gameplay rules. It's a very minor change in gameplay rules. What it is, however, is a massive amount of errata, but probably less errata (albeit slightly more functional errata) than colorless mana. Plus, the same amount of errata would be required no matter how they change the rules, since presumably all previous planeswalkers will have to become legendary once they release Ixalan.
I think it is more probable that they are going to change the official commander ruling from "legendary creature" to "legendary permanent" and leave the planeswalker rule unchanged.
If by "they", you mean WotC, then no. Commander's rules are not controlled by WotC. This would require approval from both parties, plus it would require just as much errata, except instead of that errata being for the sake of simplicity, it would be for the benefit of a single format despite affecting cards in all formats. Maro has already made it clear that they are not interested in doing things in standard-legal sets exclusively for Commander, such as planeswalkers with "can be your Commander decks" and legendary creatures with partner, and while this would be a slightly different case, it still seems extremely unlikely.
Also, any legendary permanent, or even any legendary nonland permanent, would open up the possibility for all sorts of brokenness in Commander, plus having a legendary artifact or enchantment in most cases violates the flavor and spirit of the format. So even if they wanted planeswalkers to be legal commanders (which is a big if considering that many planeswalkers would be quite broken as commanders), it would make a million times more sense just to say "any legendary creature or planeswalker can be your commander" since it wouldn't require massive errata.
Less impact to the game
You're joking, right? This would completely reshape the Commander format and require mass errata that will actively confuse many players (whereas getting rid of the planeswalker uniqueness rule would require the same errata, but make the rules simpler and more elegant). Your idea would have a huge impact for Commander players and be a huge inconvenience for everyone else. As I said before, the planeswalker uniqueness rule change would have no impact except on very rare occasions, and probably prevent more confusion than it creates.
and official endorsing of what many playgroups are already doing in commander.
Commander is a casual format. House rules are not only allowed but encouraged. If your playgroup wants to allow planeswalkers, or even any legendary nonland permanents, or even legendary lands, that's perfectly fine. But officially changing a fundamental rule of Commander, drastically changing the format (for everyone, not just the people who want to allow it), causing a huge amount of errata, and confusing/inconveniencing/annoying non-Commander players in the process does not make a lot of sense.
WotC is not in charge of Commander ruling just because they didn't want to put a foot in the door until now.
They own the game and pretty much own any kind of rules enforcement at official and local level (they hold judges by the balls if you allow me the metaphor), so they might decide to take control of the format at any time they want.
They also already added "rules breaking" cards like partner commanders and planeswalker commanders and if they wanted they could errata all old planeswalkers to inherently have the line "this card can be used as your commander".
WotC are the ones with the power.
As for addressing each point.
- Planeswalker uniqueness rule: it was put in place for both flavour reasons and to avoid degenerate situations where you have a bunch of planeswalkers with the same type out at the same time. Imagine having both Jace, the mind sculptor and Jace, Unraveler of Secrets out at the same time for example. Card advantage and tempo advantage for free every turn? Or a "gideon tribal" deck?
If not deat with it soon enough a planeswalker can go out of control quite quickly, 2 walkers even more so, especially if both are capable of protecting themselves. By removing the planeswalker uniqueness rule you open the gates for "superfriends" decks with excellent color consistency and no drawback in playing a bunch of the same type wakers. Might not be THAT format warping, but I personally find it silly to allow something like that to happen.
As I said, playing both versions of Silumgar at once, or all three Avacyns at once, is legal. Why not two different Jaces?
Starting with Ixalan they will be cutting back on the number of Gatewatch planeswalkers outside of planeswalker decks. There should only be one playable version of a planeswalker in standard at a givwn time. The exception being two Nissas from Kaladesh and Amonkhet, but neither are breaking standard at the moment.
Other formats, save EDH and casual constructed, never have people wanting to play two different versions of one planeswalker anyway.
- official commander ruling: yeah, I kind of forgot that commander was born as a EDH, but WotC actually hyjacked EDH and made it commander. They are the ones in control and the third party that issues the banlist and rules changes is living on borrowed time. It is not outside the realm of probability that WotC decides to completely take over the format since they are the ones that are making money on the products and their aim is to make as much money as possible.
Are you one of those people who thinks the reserved list is going away with every other masters set being announced? WotC keeps their word, even we wish they wouldn't. They've been respectful of the Commander's independent rules and banlist for this long, so there's no reason to assume it's going to change.
- Impact of allowing planeswalkers as commanders: it will impact the format, heavily, but... Banlist for degenerate planeswaker commanders and that's it.
Which do you think is more likely: they continue releasing select planeswalkers as Commander-legal in a balanced and controlled manner, or they change the rules of the format, issue mass errata, legalize several dozen new commanders many of which are broken, and say "let's see what happens?"?
- Changes being confusing: why? It is a very simple change, I really don't get HOW it can be confusing for anyone who reads the rules. Really, how is it inconveniencing non-commander players? Apart from secondary-market availability, that is.
Non-Commander players will be confused about changing the planeswalker typeline and issuing mass errata for something irrelevant to them (especially when the same thing could have been accomplished by just changing the rule of what can be a Commander).
Commander players could make the mistake of thinking that only pre-Ixalan planeswalkers aren't valid commanders. The extra line of text on the C14 walkers would also become redundant and confusing.
Anyway, after reading the comment from JCaleb, I have to say that it is the one that makes the most sense of it all.
No, it doesn't. As I said, even if both WotC and the people in charge of Commander were both on board with legalizing all planeswalkers as Commanders, which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons, there is a much easier way of doing it: just change the rule for what can be a commander. If they wanted to do it, they would do it that way. Period. There's no reason why mass errata, rules changes, and confusion would make more sense.
Change the legendary rule to include planeswalker subtypes and that's it. Remove the planeswalker uniqueness rule by merging it with the legendary rule. WotC is not new to these kind of things, they changed the legendary rule at least twice.
Yes, they do like to change the legend rule. Do you know what else would change (or rather expand) the legend rule? Making all planeswalkers legendary and getting rid if the planeswalker uniqueness rule. Something which most of which agreed to be almost completely certain several weeks ago.
Here's the real nail in the coffin for this argument: if planeswalkers becoming legendary was just for legality as commanders, how would the new Jace's ultimate work?
It wouldn't. Without changing the legend rule and planeswalker uniqueness rule as we know them, they would be printing a planeswalker ultimate that makes no sense and would not work. There's no way that the rules change you think is going to happen would make any sense given Jace's ultimate ability.
What's the deal with "legendary planeswalkers"? Will there be an errata to all previous planeswalkers?
We believe so. It's the only way Jace's ultimate makes sense. The planeswalker uniqueness rule is going away and instead will be using the same Legendary rule as all the other Legendary permanents.
That would mean that we could have one of each Jace in play since the Legend rules is based on card name. I don't see that happening.
Then Jace's ultimate doesn't work, as the tokes would trigger the planeswalker uniqueness rule based on type. It's pretty much guaranteed that this rule is going away and rolled into the default Legendary rule. This would allow Jace's ultimate to work properly AND explain why the planeswalkers are all legendary.
There are currently 5 Nissas in Standard (4 after Rotation) I think they want to encourage players to use more planeswalkers, and the planeswalker uniqueness rule is a little tricky for some players to remember (I've seen a lot of new players make mistakes with it - especially when the origins double-faced 'walkers were around)
That said - this rule change could cause some trickyness with Arlinn Kord, since you'd be able to have two - one on each side. (That's true of the SOI Avacyn, too)
I think it is more probable that they are going to change the official commander ruling from "legendary creature" to "legendary permanent" and leave the planeswalker rule unchanged.
This would be sweet. I've always wanted Commander to include planeswalkers to be commanders.
I think the extra cards probably have something to do with treasures. That's my gut feeling anyway.
I was thinking something similar-
I just don't really see how DFC fits the theme of this set.
That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's not something that makes tons of sense to me here.
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Well, I guess Narset can turn time walks into Time Stretches, but so does Twincast. Tamiyo is pretty meh unless you mean doubling season. Sorin is probably going to put a huge target on your head faster than you can spell target.
Tezzeret probably wouldn't be a lot different than Arcum and Jace the Mindsculptor wouldn't be problematic at all. Infact, I never even see Jace played in commander at all. Now, if you're talking standard or modern, it's strong, but a free Brainstorm, Scry/Fateseal, or Unsummon per turn is of little power in commander. He's weak compared to Sylvan Library or Necropotence.
But a Sylvan Library or Necropotence is one card in your 100 - each is unlikely to actually be seen most games, just as a JtMS-in-the-99 would be in a current-rules commander deck. JtMS-as-a-Commander-option would be one you know you always have in your 'opening hand' and will have a means to recast (eventually) if it gets taken out. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
Well we can rule out green and white for sure as they are unaffiliated with pirates. We also know that it's not rare or mythic unless it's on some type of extra sheet (like a DFC sheet).
I'm guessing it's an uncommon black instant or sorcery that forces target/each opponent to sacrifice a creature.
If something along the lines of Trial of Ambition or Perilous Predicament is MaRo's favorite card in the set, that's a far more damning statement about the set than the whole rare sheet ever was.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Exactly. Ixalan has 15 more cards than the default for large sets. A large set having 5 or 10 extra cards to add an extra basic land cycle or two is not unheard of, but three extra basic land cycle seems excessive. Weirder still, Rivals of Ixalan has 12 more cards than the defaults for small sets, which rules out anything based on cycles - including land cycles.
Is it possible that these sets just have more commons and uncommons than usual? Yes. But it would be unusual. I would make a lot more sense of the 15 extra cards (and 12 more extra cards in Rivals) are something on an extra sheet, likely including a few extra rares and mythics that didn't appear on the rare/mythic sheet we've seen, as well as extra commons and uncommons. DFCs seem like the most likely possibility given their deciduous status, popularity, and large design space. It could be something else instead on the extra sheet, perhaps something brand new, but my money is on DFCs.
“I once had an entire race killed just to listen to the rattling of their dried bones as I waded through them.”
—Volrath
As much of a dog as Dragon's Maze was, I liked how its land slot always provided a nonbasic (usually 2-color fixing), and sometimes provided a rare land and even had a dedicated mythic.
Between ETBtapped dual cycles (Gates, Refuges, etc), usual-suspects common fixers like Evolving Wilds or Shimmering Grotto, or set-specific flavors like Wastes and Deserts, they could easily fill out a 'land sheet' with a whole lot more variety than the basics-and-more-basics approach they've been using, and doing that could account for any variance in the number-of-unique-cards-in-set count without disrupting their established C-U-R sheet defaults.
That would mean that we could have one of each Jace in play since the Legend rules is based on card name. I don't see that happening.
Yes, it would mean that. Note that it is already possible to control, for example, Silumgar, the Drifting Death and Dragonlord Silumgar at the same time despite the flavor fail, so why not two Jaces? It's always been strange to me that the uniqueness rule for planeswalkers was so much stricter than the uniqueness rule for legendary creatures, even though both serve the same purpose of representing specific characters. With this change each card type will make just as much (or, more acvurately, as little) sense as the other.
It's not going to have a major impact for gameplay either. In standard, they will be decreasing the number of Gatewatch cards outside of planeswalker decks, so we will seldom if ever be seeing multiple playable cards for the same walker. In eternal formats it shouldn't change anything, except perhaps in Commander, where it will be a minor boon to superfriends decks, especially ones with less colors that are forced to play numerous Jaces or Nissas due to limited options.
Imho, the craziest part of such a change wouldn't be the rule change itself, but the massive amount of errata required to implement it. However, we saw mass errata for colorless mana so we could see it happen again.
And every Mono-Green deck's Commander from now till forever will be Gaea's Cradle.
I had alredy had the idea that the legendary pw change may be partially beacause of commander, .
This can allow general to be any Legendary creature/pw (not other permanent types), something that many people were asking after C14 and at the same time the can errata the old commander-PW to remove the "this can be you commander" rider and enable wotc to reprint them more easily (like any core set)
I also think they unlikely to get rid of the planeswalker uniqueness rule entirely, but I think they will link it into the Legendary rule, thus allowing our current understanding of Jace's ultimate to work, while still ensuring that the planeswalker types matter. So it will be something like "Legendary permanents with the same name or planeswalker type", rather than two seperate rules. Since Jace's clones won't have the legendary supertype, they'll be fine having the same planeswalker type, but you can't have both Jace, the Mind sculptor and Jace Beleren out at the same time, preventing it from being a huge functional change.
That's true, but with this rules changes, cards would remain functionally the same 99% of the time. The only time it would ever matter would be if someone plays two different versions of the same planeswalker, or there's a card that cares about legendary permanents. Both will not come up in your average game of Magic. Gameplay-wise this change is only slightly more impactful than colorless mana, and in both cases, some confusion will be created from the difference the new and old styles, but you can understand why they wanted the change and, after a few years, the new way will seem normal.
It's not a massive change in gameplay rules. It's a very minor change in gameplay rules. What it is, however, is a massive amount of errata, but probably less errata (albeit slightly more functional errata) than colorless mana. Plus, the same amount of errata would be required no matter how they change the rules, since presumably all previous planeswalkers will have to become legendary once they release Ixalan.
If by "they", you mean WotC, then no. Commander's rules are not controlled by WotC. This would require approval from both parties, plus it would require just as much errata, except instead of that errata being for the sake of simplicity, it would be for the benefit of a single format despite affecting cards in all formats. Maro has already made it clear that they are not interested in doing things in standard-legal sets exclusively for Commander, such as planeswalkers with "can be your Commander decks" and legendary creatures with partner, and while this would be a slightly different case, it still seems extremely unlikely.
Also, any legendary permanent, or even any legendary nonland permanent, would open up the possibility for all sorts of brokenness in Commander, plus having a legendary artifact or enchantment in most cases violates the flavor and spirit of the format. So even if they wanted planeswalkers to be legal commanders (which is a big if considering that many planeswalkers would be quite broken as commanders), it would make a million times more sense just to say "any legendary creature or planeswalker can be your commander" since it wouldn't require massive errata.
You're joking, right? This would completely reshape the Commander format and require mass errata that will actively confuse many players (whereas getting rid of the planeswalker uniqueness rule would require the same errata, but make the rules simpler and more elegant). Your idea would have a huge impact for Commander players and be a huge inconvenience for everyone else. As I said before, the planeswalker uniqueness rule change would have no impact except on very rare occasions, and probably prevent more confusion than it creates.
Commander is a casual format. House rules are not only allowed but encouraged. If your playgroup wants to allow planeswalkers, or even any legendary nonland permanents, or even legendary lands, that's perfectly fine. But officially changing a fundamental rule of Commander, drastically changing the format (for everyone, not just the people who want to allow it), causing a huge amount of errata, and confusing/inconveniencing/annoying non-Commander players in the process does not make a lot of sense.
As I said, playing both versions of Silumgar at once, or all three Avacyns at once, is legal. Why not two different Jaces?
Starting with Ixalan they will be cutting back on the number of Gatewatch planeswalkers outside of planeswalker decks. There should only be one playable version of a planeswalker in standard at a givwn time. The exception being two Nissas from Kaladesh and Amonkhet, but neither are breaking standard at the moment.
Other formats, save EDH and casual constructed, never have people wanting to play two different versions of one planeswalker anyway.
Are you one of those people who thinks the reserved list is going away with every other masters set being announced? WotC keeps their word, even we wish they wouldn't. They've been respectful of the Commander's independent rules and banlist for this long, so there's no reason to assume it's going to change.
Which do you think is more likely: they continue releasing select planeswalkers as Commander-legal in a balanced and controlled manner, or they change the rules of the format, issue mass errata, legalize several dozen new commanders many of which are broken, and say "let's see what happens?"?
Non-Commander players will be confused about changing the planeswalker typeline and issuing mass errata for something irrelevant to them (especially when the same thing could have been accomplished by just changing the rule of what can be a Commander).
Commander players could make the mistake of thinking that only pre-Ixalan planeswalkers aren't valid commanders. The extra line of text on the C14 walkers would also become redundant and confusing.
No, it doesn't. As I said, even if both WotC and the people in charge of Commander were both on board with legalizing all planeswalkers as Commanders, which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons, there is a much easier way of doing it: just change the rule for what can be a commander. If they wanted to do it, they would do it that way. Period. There's no reason why mass errata, rules changes, and confusion would make more sense.
Yes, they do like to change the legend rule. Do you know what else would change (or rather expand) the legend rule? Making all planeswalkers legendary and getting rid if the planeswalker uniqueness rule. Something which most of which agreed to be almost completely certain several weeks ago.
Here's the real nail in the coffin for this argument: if planeswalkers becoming legendary was just for legality as commanders, how would the new Jace's ultimate work?
It wouldn't. Without changing the legend rule and planeswalker uniqueness rule as we know them, they would be printing a planeswalker ultimate that makes no sense and would not work. There's no way that the rules change you think is going to happen would make any sense given Jace's ultimate ability.
We believe so. It's the only way Jace's ultimate makes sense. The planeswalker uniqueness rule is going away and instead will be using the same Legendary rule as all the other Legendary permanents.
Then Jace's ultimate doesn't work, as the tokes would trigger the planeswalker uniqueness rule based on type. It's pretty much guaranteed that this rule is going away and rolled into the default Legendary rule. This would allow Jace's ultimate to work properly AND explain why the planeswalkers are all legendary.
There are currently 5 Nissas in Standard (4 after Rotation) I think they want to encourage players to use more planeswalkers, and the planeswalker uniqueness rule is a little tricky for some players to remember (I've seen a lot of new players make mistakes with it - especially when the origins double-faced 'walkers were around)
That said - this rule change could cause some trickyness with Arlinn Kord, since you'd be able to have two - one on each side. (That's true of the SOI Avacyn, too)
This would be sweet. I've always wanted Commander to include planeswalkers to be commanders.
I was thinking something similar-
I just don't really see how DFC fits the theme of this set.
That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's not something that makes tons of sense to me here.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Narset Transcendent is the one that most immediately springs to mind.
Tamiyo, Field Researcher could also be pretty crazy with access to literally all the best counter shenanigans.
Sorin Markov may not be quite broken,
but would certainly be in poor taste.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Modern: UB Zombie hunt UB - WR Boros tokens WR - BGW Treefolk tribal BGW
Commander: UR Mizzix, a Storm of spells UR (Decklist)
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/164011796163/whats-the-name-of-your-favorite-card-in-ixalan
What color, do you think?
Well we can rule out green and white for sure as they are unaffiliated with pirates. We also know that it's not rare or mythic unless it's on some type of extra sheet (like a DFC sheet).
I'm guessing it's an uncommon black instant or sorcery that forces target/each opponent to sacrifice a creature.
Standard Decks:
Dinosaurs
Aggro Retired
Aggro Retired
Tokens Retired
Temur White Retired
Dragons Retired
Monsters Retired
Aggro Retired
Midrange Retired
Zombies Retired
The deathgorge is either 2G or 3G
And what's the second one I don't see that name on the list?
But I do have a theory on regisaur alpha
Regisaur alpha 3RG
Creature - Dinosaur 4/4
Dinosaurs you control have haste
When "This" enters the battlefield dinosaurs you control gain trample until end of turn.