While I would normally agree with that, matter of fact is that it was something that shouldn't have existed in the first place because it makes no sense. Why should both an impostor and the original die?
Magic has lots of things that make no sense. Knowing about all these things is what leads to the few remaining interesting plays and deck construction tricks.
How does that help outside of azhorius, and with a sigarda wearing darksteel plate and the five swords? Voltron decks pump an already hard to deal with creature to new heights, and for simic or monoblue, clones were the only answer.
If they play six powerful cards, you believe they shouldn't have the right to win with it? Why don't we make a new rule, "If two permanents with the same name are on opposite sides of the battlefield, they are all sacrificed." and then we'll add in "If one player can complain enough about a card or rule, that card or rule is discarded for the remainder of the game. If anyone's feelings are hurt by one player playing a better deck, the game ends in a draw." If clone is you guys only answer in your blue deck to a legend, allow me to lend you some bounce, counter, and skills to use them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
Corrected in bold. Day of Judgement, Supreme Verdict and Blasphemous Act are pretty easy plays. Unless you are one of those players who hates losing their stuff? You must not play much Standard if you think clones are the way you deal with hexproofers. How ever did you handle Invisible Stalker? Must have lost those games since clone didn't work the way you expected.
Ah, how I love stupid assumptions. Standard is THE format I play the most, but I love how you assume that I cast Clone against Invisible Stalker - in other words, that I am beyond stupid - rather than present decent arguments. I'm talking about hexproof legends - have been since I started posting here. Maybe you read again what I said?
Geist of Saint Traft costs only 3 mana, is a Blue legend, which means protecting it is very easy. Blasphemous Act as a solution? Are you joking? Which costs 4-5 mana even with 4-5 creatures in play - which is a lot? Supreme Verdict is the one good answer, but guess what, you have to be playing both U and W and not a creature deck.
Cloning as a way to deal with hexproof legends is not a small portion, because in the scope of a color/color combination, it's a big deal. For a UW deck, there's Supreme Verdict. For a UG or UR deck, losing Clone as way to deal with hexproof legends IS a big portion of what qualified as an answer.
Magic has lots of things that make no sense. Knowing about all these things is what leads to the few remaining interesting plays and deck construction tricks.
I believe your arguement here is, I should be able to rules lawer my way into a win. It's unfair for someone learning the game to win based on playing well with a good deck. If they don't know complex rules interactions, then they shouldn't get to win. Mistake me if I'm correct.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
Ah, how I love stupid assumptions. Standard is THE format I play the most, but I love how you assume that I cast Clone against Invisible Stalker - in other words, that I am beyond stupid - rather than present decent arguments. I'm talking about hexproof legends - have been since I started posting here. Maybe you read again what I said?
Geist of Saint Traft costs only 3 mana, is a Blue legend, which means protecting it is very easy. Blasphemous Act as a solution? Are you joking? Which costs 4-5 mana even with 4-5 creatures in play - which is a lot? Supreme Verdict is the one good answer, but guess what, you have to be playing both U and W and not a creature deck.
Cloning as a way to deal with hexproof legends is not a small portion, because in the scope of a color/color combination, it's a big deal. For a UW deck, there's Supreme Verdict. For a UG or UR deck, losing Clone as way to deal with hexproof legends IS a big portion of what qualified as an answer.
Quick lesson in sarcasm, I was mocking your argument by presenting it with invisible stalker. My point, if you read carefully (but I'll spell it out for you cause I'm nice like that), is deal with Geist the way you dealt with stalker. Now its the same situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
If a change had to be made, they should have added the clause: spells with the same name as a legendary permanent in play can't be cast, and lands with the same name as a legendary land in play can't be played. That would have changed clone functionalty while not completely screwing with Vorthos's head.
That doesn't solve the problem of dead cards in hand and/or hindered cards on the board.
In any case, it still makes vorthos sense. Two Avacyns?! One must be an imposter! Which is the real angel of hope? We'll settle this in battle! (This doesn't make quite as much sense with lands.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My decks
Standard - RIP Cat
Modern - Death & Taxes
Commander - Mazirek, Trostani, Angry Omnath
Ah, how I love stupid assumptions. Standard is THE format I play the most, but I love how you assume that I cast Clone against Invisible Stalker - in other words, that I am beyond stupid - rather than present decent arguments. I'm talking about hexproof legends - have been since I started posting here. Maybe you read again what I said?
Geist of Saint Traft costs only 3 mana, is a Blue legend, which means protecting it is very easy. Blasphemous Act as a solution? Are you joking? Which costs 4-5 mana even with 4-5 creatures in play - which is a lot? Supreme Verdict is the one good answer, but guess what, you have to be playing both U and W and not a creature deck.
Cloning as a way to deal with hexproof legends is not a small portion, because in the scope of a color/color combination, it's a big deal. For a UW deck, there's Supreme Verdict. For a UG or UR deck, losing Clone as way to deal with hexproof legends IS a big portion of what qualified as an answer.
Sadly, as much as I don't like the ruling you have to look at it in a broader spectrum.
If Geist wasn't there, would this be a problem to you? That one overpowered Legend shouldn't dictate the entire ruling across the board.
I've come to terms with the ruling, mostly because I'm hoping that means Theros has a lot of powerful legends in it, and because I'm really tired of getting matched up against identical commander decks or what-have-you and getting Legended to death (I have a whole blue deck dedicated to cloning).
I pray this leads to more solutions to hexproof/shroud, while they shouldn't be easy to deal with, there should be some silver bullets for it. The spotlight was a step in the right direction. Also these rules come into effect with M14, which means that Geist will only have a measly 3 months to enjoy the spotlight with them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Proud Member of the "Help Fblthp Get Home in DGM" Society
Yes, Hexproof Legends are a pain. They are designed to be a pain. I also agree that they overused Hexproof recently and made those cards a bit too strong. Doesn't change the fact that a clone was nothing but a convenient way out of a situation that makes no sense in flavor and only is functional because of an accident in how the rules work.
In other words, you were exploiting a rules loophole. That loophole was closed. Find a different way out of the situation. There's plenty of options for that and it's much more constructive than complaining about your exploit being taken away.
Funny how we're calling something that has been with us for years an "accident" or "rules exploit" now that they changed it. I don't remember anyone badmouthing the legendary rule before, and calling it a silly exploit or anything like that.
They overuse hexproof by a MILE, not only in quantity but also quality, in some cases like Sigarda and Geist. I agree that the card Evil Twin, for example, never worked as flavorfully intended, and now it will, but it is quite infuriating to see this change announced NOW, where it's all downside (here, have fun playing against Geist and Olivia with the new change for 4 months), instead of waiting until September, with Theros and a bunch of awesome legends and explain it like "here's some awesome legends, and a new rule so we can all have more fun with them".
Why let Geist and this rule coexist in Standard is beyond me, and I hope we see a lot less of hexproof going forward.
I believe your arguement here is, I should be able to rules lawer my way into a win. It's unfair for someone learning the game to win based on playing well with a good deck. If they don't know complex rules interactions, then they shouldn't get to win. Mistake me if I'm correct.
No, my argument is that removing the legend rule that allows you to answer your opponents legends with your own removes interactivity in the game, and is therefore a bad rules change.
Yes, you should be able to use magic rules to make interesting plays. The game is dull enough as it is without systematically removing the few remaining complex interactions.
If a player doesn't know complex interactions, then they should learn them. It's a case of "play better". You don't balance a game around bad players.
That doesn't solve the problem of dead cards in hand and/or hindered cards on the board.
In any case, it still makes vorthos sense. Two Avacyns?! One must be an imposter! Which is the real angel of hope? We'll settle this in battle! (This doesn't make quite as much sense with lands.)
With lands, its more about pulling the energies off the land. A legendary land's mana is very specific so you can't pull off it more than once at a time. Its complicated flavor, but it does make sense that two planeswalkers could pull off it at the same time. In fact it makes more sense than if two planeswalkers tap into it suddenyl no one gets to tap into it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
Yes my casual Tolarian Academy deck gets more powerful. Tap Academy. Drop another Academy and legend rule the old one. Tap 2nd Academy. Play Polar Kraken and Leviathan
Legend Rule Change: I don't feel that this was necessary by any means with the current sets that we have out. I like that this allows more design space for legendary lands but if I had to choose between no legendary lands ever again or the way the rule was changed to now I'd be fine with no legendary lands.
Planeswalker Rule Change: This doesn't seem like it was necessary either.
Sideboard Change: I have no real opinion.
Keyword change: Don't care.
Additional Land Change: Thats a nice loophole to close up.
All in all my frustration means that when I teach people how to play the game its going to be more confusing for them.
No, my argument is that removing the legend rule that allows you to answer your opponents legends with your own removes interactivity in the game, and is therefore a bad rules change.
Yes, you should be able to use magic rules to make interesting plays. The game is dull enough as it is without systematically removing the few remaining complex interactions.
If a player doesn't know complex interactions, then they should learn them. It's a case of "play better". You don't balance a game around bad players.
Not knowing complex rules interactions that one must visit forums or dig into an already huge rules document is not "bad play." Being able to have multiples of a card on either side of the board is more interactive than not being able to. Addition adds, subtraction subtracts. Then game should be about the cards not rules interactions. If you win because of some loophole you found in the rules, you are not playing the game. Closing loopholes is good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
I wanted them to get rid of the Cole problem without actually butchering the legend rule. Something like making Clones not copy a card's name.
MaRo has been complaining about the legend rule for a long time now, but I liked it a lot. Yes, it was a drawback, but the flavor was awesome, and as such I didn't care in the slightest. It's a pity they went ahead and took that away.
No, it means you cannot affect your opponents board position with your own legends. They get to do whatever they were doing.
Gosh, I guess I'll just have to use my Geist to block theirs then. Maybe I'll buff it so mine survives and his doesn't. But I guess those things don't count as interactivity?
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Nirvava »
you can generally tell the easiest road to victory by how many players congregate on it; and the road of counterspells/control has been the freeway of choice in magic for quite some time.
Quote from photodyer »
What I find offensive is not that Wizards is endeavoring to make the game more accessible, but the attitudes of elitists who act as though no one of any age should show their face in the Magic public without first having mastery over the complexities of the game.
Not knowing complex rules interactions that one must visit forums or dig into an already huge rules document is not "bad play." Being able to have multiples of a card on either side of the board is more interactive than not being able to. Addition adds, subtraction subtracts. Then game should be about the cards not rules interactions. If you win because of some loophole you found in the rules, you are not playing the game. Closing loopholes is good.
It is bad play.
Play is relative.
If your opponent knows more about the game than you, and uses this to win, they played better than you.
Also, cards and rules aren't very different from one another. Cards break and modify rules and that's where the interesting stuff comes from.
At the risk of painting a bull's eye on my chest, I don't mind the changes so much. Yeah, it's kinda upsetting from a flavor perspective, there really isn't a good way to do it and retain the flavor. Truthfully, the original flavor rule was the most flavorful, and it was annoying as hell. There was a reason it got changed to begin with. When it comes to a legend rule, it seems like you can either have flavor or functionality, not both. While I'm a vorthos at heart, even I know which trumps which.
Yes, it does make Uril/GoSt/Thrun/etc. a nightmare to deal with, but think about what they all have in common. Without Hexproof, theyre just as easy to get rid of as Grizzly Bears. The real issue with them is that ability, and hopefully they'll be the last ones like that we have to deal with. With any luck, WotC will see how warping they are without this easier way of disposal, and stop tacking Hexproof on already strong creatures and legends.
Finally, this is not meant to be flaming, but the SKY IS NOT FALLING. Changes have to be made periodically to keep the game interesting and evolving, whether you like them or not. If it bombs, they've shown in the past that they're willing to admit failure and try again. Freaking out and ranting about the death of the game does nothing but make long, repetitive threads that will eventually amount to nothing. If you really, really, honestly hate such changes to the point that something like this makes you want to quit, then quit. But if all you're going to do is gripe until your pre ordered box of M14 or Theros gets here, then what's the point of griping?
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
Gotta get that sig'd. Bravo. I wish we could do away with the word, but its a buzz word now and will never go away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
If your opponent knows more about the game than you, and uses this to win, they played better than you.
Also, cards and rules aren't very different from one another. Cards break and modify rules and that's where the interesting stuff comes from.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from that you believe in depth rules knowledge should be an important part of the game. In 3.5 DnD I would agree with you, that being in a cooperative setting. I just feel that is a copout to avoid becoming better with the cards. But at this point its opinion. So I'll call it a draw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
No, interactivity has a clear meaning: you can answer threats. Playing two creatures looking at each other stupidly is interactive because they can answer each other in combat, but it's nothing like the interactivity that comes from playing non-combat answers. So we lost non-combat answers to certain legends and still have about the same amount of combat interactivity. Hence, we lost interactivity on net. It's that easy.
The legend rule was not a complicated rule. It did not take rocket scientist new players to figure it out. This is a "no downsides" change in line with NWO.
Yes, if there were no Sigardas or GoSTs, we wouldn't have any reason to be upset. But they did design those cards. And now they're more powerful than before. Asking whether this would be a problem with those cards is like asking whether a tax rule would be a problem if nobody engaged in evasion—what kind of question is that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Magic has lots of things that make no sense. Knowing about all these things is what leads to the few remaining interesting plays and deck construction tricks.
If they play six powerful cards, you believe they shouldn't have the right to win with it? Why don't we make a new rule, "If two permanents with the same name are on opposite sides of the battlefield, they are all sacrificed." and then we'll add in "If one player can complain enough about a card or rule, that card or rule is discarded for the remainder of the game. If anyone's feelings are hurt by one player playing a better deck, the game ends in a draw." If clone is you guys only answer in your blue deck to a legend, allow me to lend you some bounce, counter, and skills to use them.
Banner ala Lymons
Ah, how I love stupid assumptions. Standard is THE format I play the most, but I love how you assume that I cast Clone against Invisible Stalker - in other words, that I am beyond stupid - rather than present decent arguments. I'm talking about hexproof legends - have been since I started posting here. Maybe you read again what I said?
Geist of Saint Traft costs only 3 mana, is a Blue legend, which means protecting it is very easy. Blasphemous Act as a solution? Are you joking? Which costs 4-5 mana even with 4-5 creatures in play - which is a lot? Supreme Verdict is the one good answer, but guess what, you have to be playing both U and W and not a creature deck.
Cloning as a way to deal with hexproof legends is not a small portion, because in the scope of a color/color combination, it's a big deal. For a UW deck, there's Supreme Verdict. For a UG or UR deck, losing Clone as way to deal with hexproof legends IS a big portion of what qualified as an answer.
I believe your arguement here is, I should be able to rules lawer my way into a win. It's unfair for someone learning the game to win based on playing well with a good deck. If they don't know complex rules interactions, then they shouldn't get to win. Mistake me if I'm correct.
Banner ala Lymons
But really, Geist of Saint Traft is just a ridiculous card.
Quick lesson in sarcasm, I was mocking your argument by presenting it with invisible stalker. My point, if you read carefully (but I'll spell it out for you cause I'm nice like that), is deal with Geist the way you dealt with stalker. Now its the same situation.
Banner ala Lymons
That doesn't solve the problem of dead cards in hand and/or hindered cards on the board.
In any case, it still makes vorthos sense. Two Avacyns?! One must be an imposter! Which is the real angel of hope? We'll settle this in battle! (This doesn't make quite as much sense with lands.)
Standard - RIP Cat
Modern - Death & Taxes
Commander - Mazirek, Trostani, Angry Omnath
Sadly, as much as I don't like the ruling you have to look at it in a broader spectrum.
If Geist wasn't there, would this be a problem to you? That one overpowered Legend shouldn't dictate the entire ruling across the board.
I've come to terms with the ruling, mostly because I'm hoping that means Theros has a lot of powerful legends in it, and because I'm really tired of getting matched up against identical commander decks or what-have-you and getting Legended to death (I have a whole blue deck dedicated to cloning).
I pray this leads to more solutions to hexproof/shroud, while they shouldn't be easy to deal with, there should be some silver bullets for it. The spotlight was a step in the right direction. Also these rules come into effect with M14, which means that Geist will only have a measly 3 months to enjoy the spotlight with them.
RRR Khorenthos - The Red Block (Feedback needed!) RRR
Funny how we're calling something that has been with us for years an "accident" or "rules exploit" now that they changed it. I don't remember anyone badmouthing the legendary rule before, and calling it a silly exploit or anything like that.
They overuse hexproof by a MILE, not only in quantity but also quality, in some cases like Sigarda and Geist. I agree that the card Evil Twin, for example, never worked as flavorfully intended, and now it will, but it is quite infuriating to see this change announced NOW, where it's all downside (here, have fun playing against Geist and Olivia with the new change for 4 months), instead of waiting until September, with Theros and a bunch of awesome legends and explain it like "here's some awesome legends, and a new rule so we can all have more fun with them".
Why let Geist and this rule coexist in Standard is beyond me, and I hope we see a lot less of hexproof going forward.
No, my argument is that removing the legend rule that allows you to answer your opponents legends with your own removes interactivity in the game, and is therefore a bad rules change.
Yes, you should be able to use magic rules to make interesting plays. The game is dull enough as it is without systematically removing the few remaining complex interactions.
If a player doesn't know complex interactions, then they should learn them. It's a case of "play better". You don't balance a game around bad players.
How does this remove interaction? Having two Geists in play seems to increase interaction, not decrease it. Think before you speak people.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
With lands, its more about pulling the energies off the land. A legendary land's mana is very specific so you can't pull off it more than once at a time. Its complicated flavor, but it does make sense that two planeswalkers could pull off it at the same time. In fact it makes more sense than if two planeswalkers tap into it suddenyl no one gets to tap into it.
Banner ala Lymons
No, it means you cannot affect your opponent's board position with your own legends. They get to do whatever they were doing.
Planeswalker Rule Change: This doesn't seem like it was necessary either.
Sideboard Change: I have no real opinion.
Keyword change: Don't care.
Additional Land Change: Thats a nice loophole to close up.
All in all my frustration means that when I teach people how to play the game its going to be more confusing for them.
Not knowing complex rules interactions that one must visit forums or dig into an already huge rules document is not "bad play." Being able to have multiples of a card on either side of the board is more interactive than not being able to. Addition adds, subtraction subtracts. Then game should be about the cards not rules interactions. If you win because of some loophole you found in the rules, you are not playing the game. Closing loopholes is good.
Banner ala Lymons
MaRo has been complaining about the legend rule for a long time now, but I liked it a lot. Yes, it was a drawback, but the flavor was awesome, and as such I didn't care in the slightest. It's a pity they went ahead and took that away.
The other changes I quite like, though.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Also, Maro said it is now much more likely they will do legendary lands, and that's something I'm really looking forward to.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Gosh, I guess I'll just have to use my Geist to block theirs then. Maybe I'll buff it so mine survives and his doesn't. But I guess those things don't count as interactivity?
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
It is bad play.
Play is relative.
If your opponent knows more about the game than you, and uses this to win, they played better than you.
Also, cards and rules aren't very different from one another. Cards break and modify rules and that's where the interesting stuff comes from.
Yes, it does make Uril/GoSt/Thrun/etc. a nightmare to deal with, but think about what they all have in common. Without Hexproof, theyre just as easy to get rid of as Grizzly Bears. The real issue with them is that ability, and hopefully they'll be the last ones like that we have to deal with. With any luck, WotC will see how warping they are without this easier way of disposal, and stop tacking Hexproof on already strong creatures and legends.
Finally, this is not meant to be flaming, but the SKY IS NOT FALLING. Changes have to be made periodically to keep the game interesting and evolving, whether you like them or not. If it bombs, they've shown in the past that they're willing to admit failure and try again. Freaking out and ranting about the death of the game does nothing but make long, repetitive threads that will eventually amount to nothing. If you really, really, honestly hate such changes to the point that something like this makes you want to quit, then quit. But if all you're going to do is gripe until your pre ordered box of M14 or Theros gets here, then what's the point of griping?
Gotta get that sig'd. Bravo. I wish we could do away with the word, but its a buzz word now and will never go away.
Banner ala Lymons
We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from that you believe in depth rules knowledge should be an important part of the game. In 3.5 DnD I would agree with you, that being in a cooperative setting. I just feel that is a copout to avoid becoming better with the cards. But at this point its opinion. So I'll call it a draw.
Banner ala Lymons
The legend rule was not a complicated rule. It did not take rocket scientist new players to figure it out. This is a "no downsides" change in line with NWO.
Yes, if there were no Sigardas or GoSTs, we wouldn't have any reason to be upset. But they did design those cards. And now they're more powerful than before. Asking whether this would be a problem with those cards is like asking whether a tax rule would be a problem if nobody engaged in evasion—what kind of question is that?