In today's article (The Issue Is Legen—Wait for It—Dary) it has some of the issues with Legendary. Specifically "It doesn't play as well as we like and it creates numerous situations that we feel lead to unfun games."
This is not quite evidence but to me it hints that Grandeur may make an appearance soon. Moreover whatever FTV they release before the set often hints at what the set will be about. (Dragons and the Dragon theme within Alara including Bolas, Relics and Mirridon's affinity for artifacts, Now FTV:Legends...) That may just be me wanting to see where they can take, twist, and contort this mechanic.
I can't believe anyone is excited about this card. It is absolutely unplayable. I wouldn't even play her in LIMITED. Easily the worst walker printed since the green elf one. Absolutely terrible.
I don't understand where these people are that hate legendary, counterspells over removal, etc. I've taken these surveys, and what I complain about is free spell mechanics skewing formats (hoping phyrexian mana doesn't go all cascade on us), one mythic per set being so over the top that it skews the market, and Ken Nagle designed sets.
My question is that if Legendary is unfun and they're going to change it, what about the Planeswalker legendary rule? Is that unfun that you have to kill Jace with Jace or Jace v.1? I'm not sure I'm seeing how this rule is making MtG unfun.
There were plenty of times that I had old Elspeth on the field and drew a copy. It certainly didn't ruin my Magic experience. I think the last legendary creature I used frequently was Rafiq, and it wasn't frowntown if I drew a second copy of him, since you know, creatures die to Doom Blade or what have you.
While you might not have a bad experience every time you play legendary creatures, there is definitely the capability of it creating situations that the player might not like.
Concerning the topic, I don't think Grandeur will see use for a while or will ever be evergreen. It only fixes the dead draw problem. In addition to narrowing how a legend can be designed, it actively makes you want to draw if you consider playing it, likely making it useless in Commander, the only real non-flavor reason to print legends.
nice observation OP, i wasn't even thinking in that direction. what i got out of the article was that it seems like they want to change the legendary rule again. change it to what, i haven't the slightest idea. but some kind of cycling/grandeur type thing may work nicely. the tone of the article had me thinking that by the end he was going to announce the end of the legendary supertype or something.
I'm going on record right now and stating that before the end of 2012 we will see foil dual lands in booster packs (The real, Alpha dual lands). You can quote me on that.
The Legendary issue is the least of their problems considering how Standard has become for the last 2 years. Then it all became clear.
Originally posted by Mark Rosewater:
"The off$hoot of thi$ problem i$ that player$ tend to play fewer than four copie$ of their legendary card$. Thi$ i$ $uboptimal in that it make$ it harder to build around legendary permanent$ and make$ drawing them happen le$$."
Between the easy refutes made here, not the least of which is pointing out that planeswalkers have an even stricter downside attached to their type, as well as overlooking grandeur...I'd be willing to bet my new Inferno Titan that this article was simply phoned in.
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.
Just read the article. Every single problem he stated with the Legendary supertype is doubly true for Planeswalkers. I'd really like to know his view on that. Especially the part about playing your own copies just to answer theirs. Umezawa's Jitte was played as a 4 of in most decks, even if they weren't necessarily creature decks, to kill opposing Jittes, but blue decks run 6 or 7 copies of Jace cause little Jace still kills big Jace.
It's all for the flavor, and in the case of Legendary creatures, I think the flavor more than makes up for any downside in the mechanic. So apparently the answer is just to make them so powerful that you want/need to run 4, and therefore need to buy 4. Money money money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tournament Victories:
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
I feel like I really should share a story here.
I used to run a casual angel deck a few years back, it was a bit top heavy on the mana curve but thanks to cards like land tax it ran well enough.
I ran 4 copies of Akroma, Angel of Wrath in that deck and I can tell you there were plenty of games where my opponent pulled something crazy just to get rid of her only to have me drop another on my very next turn. I found it VERY fun to draw more then one copy. Granted that was casual and Wizards is probably looking more at Standard but I really don't see a reason to change the Legend rule.
The current rule also makes Clone a very fun card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
And I suppose mana-burn as a concept led to "unfun" situations where players were penalized for mismanaging their mana. Heaven forbid players be encouraged to play around rules and think a little outside the box, instead of simply widening the box itself...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you lose to back-to-back Banefires in limited, only to learn they were both passed to the opponent during the draft, you begin to question the stability of your playgroup.
I may be a fan and I may be a boy, but I am by no means a "fanboy."
If they liked Grandeur as a solution to the Legendary problem, we'd have seen it again by now instead of a "we're stumped" article.
Because Grandeur is a clunky and inelegant solution. It requires a bunch of rules text on top of whatever the legend is supposed to do when played normally, and it doesn't work retroactively on older legends. It also doesn't play nice with the Legend-centric Commander format.
Maro is looking for some sort of modification to the Legendary rule that would make playing legends more appealing.
And I suppose mana-burn as a concept led to "unfun" situations where players were penalized for mismanaging their mana. Heaven forbid players be encouraged to play around rules and think a little outside the box, instead of simply widening the box itself...
No, mana burn was removed because in the month of playtesting that they did without it, it never came up. Why have a rule that doesn't ever affect the game?
I like it as it is. Legendary is just another aspect of the game that you have to learn to build around, calculate the cost vs. benefit, and etc. I like Legendary because it keeps me thinking when I'm deck building. I believe that in its current form, it's a vital part of gameplay, and I actually enjoy it less when WOTC tries to make it easier for me to choose between, let's say Visara and AofWoe.
No, mana burn was removed because in the month of playtesting that they did without it, it never came up. Why have a rule that doesn't ever affect the game?
Eh, I guess I'm just a little old-fashioned in that regard, though I would like to think that with mana-burn still as a rule, new players would see some sort of early incentive to learn about managing mana. "So if I don't spend my mana right, I get hurt by my carelessness."
Though I suppose realizing they couldn't cast a certain spell or ability as punishment enough.
I keep thinking that this "make legends more appealing" reasoning is some excuse. If they keep making non-legends at the power level that they do, it's only natural that people would sooner use a Baneslayer Angel over Akroma, Angel of Wrath. Looking at legends in general, they traditionally have had board-changing impacts the second they hit the field, whether it's because of some rule-affecting static ability or simply because of how powerful they were in terms of combat (for crying out loud, Commander Greven il-Vec was considered "Legends worthy" in terms of power at one point in time). One of their only drawbacks have always been the "Legend's Rule" or the simple fact that having more than one copy of many legends would simply be redundant.
The non-legends being made now are becoming so powerful in terms of raw power that the more technique oriented legends are in my belief naturally looked at as irrelevant. When it comes down to it, there's alot more power in playing a creature that says to your opponents "deal with me," rather than simply "hawh, aren't I annoying!?"
I think the Praetors have tried to shift this balance back in the favour of Legends, but it's honestly not going to work if Wizards keeps using mythic rarity as an excuse for printing overly-efficient and undercosted spells that aren't bound by certain game restrictions. Game restrictions that were created with the intent of adding some balance.
I'm not going to assume Wizards will neccessarily make a bad game-changing decision with this info. I do think it's annoying how repeatedly they are suddenly discovering all these "flaws" that no one I honestly know ever found an issue with while playing the game. Either R&D analysts don't properly assess the 2nd and 3rd order effects of releasing the Mythics and Planeswalkers, or Wizard's top decision makers are more interested in the gimmick behind such obvious cash-grabs.
Either way, I am highly of the mentality this "lack of power" that they are talking about is a realization that they are raising the power-curve alot faster than they should be. And instead of stopping for a second, thinking about it, and deciding to slow it back down by lowering the power-level of the following sets, they are pulling a Yu-Gi-Oh and just exponentially increasing card-power as a misguided belief it will provide the "answers" to last season's issue cards, or at least keep players interested.
When will Wizards admit that many of their fans simply appreciate "Magic the Gathering" being stamped on the back of their cards, and not the Power/Toughness on the front corner?
Maybe I'm just looking too far into this...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you lose to back-to-back Banefires in limited, only to learn they were both passed to the opponent during the draft, you begin to question the stability of your playgroup.
I may be a fan and I may be a boy, but I am by no means a "fanboy."
SpeedGrapher
I remember the first rules set was basically when my legend comes into play it destroys yours and that was unfair and not fun.
It was the other way around.The legend that was already on the battlefield stayed and any other copy the was cast,or put on to the battlefield, went to the graveyard.Leading to who ever played it first in mirror matchs to have the edge and the opponent haveing a mostly useless card in hand.
The only way i can see for them to improve the current rule is to add another rule to the legendary supertype like....At any time there is a card onthe battlefeild with the same name as this card, you may discard this card and draw a card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
To be honest, I didnt like that article too, because they might as well say the same thing about Planeswalkers then, most of the time I see Jace 2s are played to destroy the other player's Jace, so I guess his article applies to PWs as well?
I really think Grandeur is a good mechanic, they should've just keyworded it, this way they can give the legend some really nice ability, and a Grandeur ability. Because from future sight, because of Grandeur's reminder text, they didnt have enough space for original ability.
I think they are setting up for legendary Duals with cycling / grandeur or modified versions of these mechanics. Going to be fun!
I would actually want to see that, i think that grandeur gave the legendaries a more legendary feel in my book, and in fact my Khorlash is one of the few cards I actually play multiples of due to grandeur. (I really don't like using multiples)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trying to live that Character Fantasy hahaha.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is not quite evidence but to me it hints that Grandeur may make an appearance soon. Moreover whatever FTV they release before the set often hints at what the set will be about. (Dragons and the Dragon theme within Alara including Bolas, Relics and Mirridon's affinity for artifacts, Now FTV:Legends...) That may just be me wanting to see where they can take, twist, and contort this mechanic.
In reference to XXWB Mythic Sorcery - Return X creatures from among any graveyards in to play under your control.
Whats more fun than nuking your opponents legend by dropping your own and watching them both be ripped to aether by the forces of the universe.
Haha. I guess not all magic players have a vivid imagination. Such a shame.
▲
▲ ▲
My question is that if Legendary is unfun and they're going to change it, what about the Planeswalker legendary rule? Is that unfun that you have to kill Jace with Jace or Jace v.1? I'm not sure I'm seeing how this rule is making MtG unfun.
There were plenty of times that I had old Elspeth on the field and drew a copy. It certainly didn't ruin my Magic experience. I think the last legendary creature I used frequently was Rafiq, and it wasn't frowntown if I drew a second copy of him, since you know, creatures die to Doom Blade or what have you.
Maybe I'm not seeing it, I don't know.
Concerning the topic, I don't think Grandeur will see use for a while or will ever be evergreen. It only fixes the dead draw problem. In addition to narrowing how a legend can be designed, it actively makes you want to draw if you consider playing it, likely making it useless in Commander, the only real non-flavor reason to print legends.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
▲
▲ ▲
Originally posted by Mark Rosewater:
"The off$hoot of thi$ problem i$ that player$ tend to play fewer than four copie$ of their legendary card$. Thi$ i$ $uboptimal in that it make$ it harder to build around legendary permanent$ and make$ drawing them happen le$$."
"Serious question, why are the people in the mtgsal thread so ****ing stupid?"
What Magic Color are You, MORON ?
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.
It's all for the flavor, and in the case of Legendary creatures, I think the flavor more than makes up for any downside in the mechanic. So apparently the answer is just to make them so powerful that you want/need to run 4, and therefore need to buy 4. Money money money.
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
See my alters here: http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/jimmy2do/Cards/
I used to run a casual angel deck a few years back, it was a bit top heavy on the mana curve but thanks to cards like land tax it ran well enough.
I ran 4 copies of Akroma, Angel of Wrath in that deck and I can tell you there were plenty of games where my opponent pulled something crazy just to get rid of her only to have me drop another on my very next turn. I found it VERY fun to draw more then one copy. Granted that was casual and Wizards is probably looking more at Standard but I really don't see a reason to change the Legend rule.
The current rule also makes Clone a very fun card.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
I disagree that it's worse for Planeswalkers, most specifically because there are non-legendary creatures, but no Planeswalker alternatives.
I may be a fan and I may be a boy, but I am by no means a "fanboy."
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Because Grandeur is a clunky and inelegant solution. It requires a bunch of rules text on top of whatever the legend is supposed to do when played normally, and it doesn't work retroactively on older legends. It also doesn't play nice with the Legend-centric Commander format.
Maro is looking for some sort of modification to the Legendary rule that would make playing legends more appealing.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Eh, I guess I'm just a little old-fashioned in that regard, though I would like to think that with mana-burn still as a rule, new players would see some sort of early incentive to learn about managing mana. "So if I don't spend my mana right, I get hurt by my carelessness."
Though I suppose realizing they couldn't cast a certain spell or ability as punishment enough.
I keep thinking that this "make legends more appealing" reasoning is some excuse. If they keep making non-legends at the power level that they do, it's only natural that people would sooner use a Baneslayer Angel over Akroma, Angel of Wrath. Looking at legends in general, they traditionally have had board-changing impacts the second they hit the field, whether it's because of some rule-affecting static ability or simply because of how powerful they were in terms of combat (for crying out loud, Commander Greven il-Vec was considered "Legends worthy" in terms of power at one point in time). One of their only drawbacks have always been the "Legend's Rule" or the simple fact that having more than one copy of many legends would simply be redundant.
The non-legends being made now are becoming so powerful in terms of raw power that the more technique oriented legends are in my belief naturally looked at as irrelevant. When it comes down to it, there's alot more power in playing a creature that says to your opponents "deal with me," rather than simply "hawh, aren't I annoying!?"
I think the Praetors have tried to shift this balance back in the favour of Legends, but it's honestly not going to work if Wizards keeps using mythic rarity as an excuse for printing overly-efficient and undercosted spells that aren't bound by certain game restrictions. Game restrictions that were created with the intent of adding some balance.
I'm not going to assume Wizards will neccessarily make a bad game-changing decision with this info. I do think it's annoying how repeatedly they are suddenly discovering all these "flaws" that no one I honestly know ever found an issue with while playing the game. Either R&D analysts don't properly assess the 2nd and 3rd order effects of releasing the Mythics and Planeswalkers, or Wizard's top decision makers are more interested in the gimmick behind such obvious cash-grabs.
Either way, I am highly of the mentality this "lack of power" that they are talking about is a realization that they are raising the power-curve alot faster than they should be. And instead of stopping for a second, thinking about it, and deciding to slow it back down by lowering the power-level of the following sets, they are pulling a Yu-Gi-Oh and just exponentially increasing card-power as a misguided belief it will provide the "answers" to last season's issue cards, or at least keep players interested.
When will Wizards admit that many of their fans simply appreciate "Magic the Gathering" being stamped on the back of their cards, and not the Power/Toughness on the front corner?
Maybe I'm just looking too far into this...
I may be a fan and I may be a boy, but I am by no means a "fanboy."
It was the other way around.The legend that was already on the battlefield stayed and any other copy the was cast,or put on to the battlefield, went to the graveyard.Leading to who ever played it first in mirror matchs to have the edge and the opponent haveing a mostly useless card in hand.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
I really think Grandeur is a good mechanic, they should've just keyworded it, this way they can give the legend some really nice ability, and a Grandeur ability. Because from future sight, because of Grandeur's reminder text, they didnt have enough space for original ability.
I like Grandeur, its indeed a good mechanic
I would actually want to see that, i think that grandeur gave the legendaries a more legendary feel in my book, and in fact my Khorlash is one of the few cards I actually play multiples of due to grandeur. (I really don't like using multiples)