Wizards: "Lets take all the common sense and good decisions and THROW THEM OUT THE WINDOW!"
What is this garbage!? I've been calling for MaRo to be removed from MtG for a while now, I hope this boneheaded decision solidifies it happening even though I know it won't. This is terrible.
This feels like a reaction for EDH more than it is constructed. "OMGGGGGG MAI EDH DECK IZ S00000 GEWD NAO! LEWK AT ALL DEEZ G3NRLZ I C4N HAZ NAO! BWOOOOOOKEN!"
If Commander had a problem with Legend Rule, then Commander should have amended its rules to account for it.
I don't know how else to say it, so I'm just going to say it: <you're an idiot.>
The logic that the commander rules committee could have foreseen this rule being implemented, and changed the rules to deal with it while it was currently supported by the existing comp rules defies any sense of logical or intelligent thought process.
I really don't think any of these are going to really have huge impacts on the game at the higher levels except MAYBE the sideboarding change which I still have no clue why it needed changing. The game will endure as it always has, but I'm really wondering what the hell is happening that necessitated these changes.
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Wizards: "Lets take all the common sense and good decisions and THROW THEM OUT THE WINDOW!"
What is this garbage!? I've been calling for MaRo to be removed from MtG for a while now, I hope this boneheaded decision solidifies it happening even though I know it won't. This is terrible.
Let's not completely scapegoat Maro on this, please? This decision is dumb as hell, but it was most likely not spearheaded by only maro.
I wish my 4/4s with haste and first strike that acted as Goblin Warchiefs were better and didn't die to instants and overshadowed all other 4 drops in the format. And that they had evasion too, and some way to dodge wrath effects.
I have never threatened to rage-quite Magic before. I've always had an attitude of "we'll adapt" to rules changes. These changes, I can't get behind. They make no flavor sense and make both legendaries and 'walkers more powerful than they need to be. It cheapens them both. Strongly dislike and I hope they reconsider.
Someone please break down The Land Thing. I have read it twice and still can't figure it out.
It's not much different, actually, if you think about it. You get to play one land per turn (that is, taking the special action of playing a land). Effects that let you play additional lands just add to your number of land plays for the turn, and you don't have to say which effect you're applying when you play an additional land. Permanents with static abilities that let you play additional lands only let you do so while they're on the battlefield; if they leave the battlefield, you lose any unused plays they might've given you.
For example, you start with one land play. You play a land. Then you play Exploration, which gives you another land play, and you have one left for the turn. If you play another land, you have none left for the turn. If you don't and your opponent Disenchants Exploration, you can't play any more lands that turn.
This is wrong. It's actually very different, and very counter-intuitive. The change actually makes a lot of cards not work as intended. For example, if you control Oracle of Mul Daya and play your two lands for the turn, bouncing and re-casting the Oracle doesn't actually let you play any more lands.
Even worse, if you control Oracle of Mul Daya, play two lands, and cast Explore, then your opponent responds by Bolting your Oracle, Explore won't let you play any additional lands. With Oracle, you had two land plays per turn, then it died and you went to just one, then Explore resolved and put you back at two. But you've played two lands already that turn, so you can't play any more lands. It's weird.
Yeah, there are a number of definite consequences for Legacy due to the changes (Legendary rules and Sideboard rules). I can think of a handful right off the bat. Not sure if they are good or bad yet, but I guess time will tell.
I love Legacy but I think if you're doing so badly against legendary cards that you're actually having to fight them by playing legendary cards, then it says something about the deck you're playing and the format (and it's definitely not saying anything good).
The rule changes announced today make perfect sense across the board, and people complaining about cards like Geist of Saint Traft will just have to learn to deal with him by legitimate means like the rest of the people who aren't playing them and dealing with it.
If people can't see that the legend rule was clearly broken because they were actually playing copies of legends to destroy other legends and they don't see how silly that was, then they need to pull their head out.
Wizards: "Lets take all the common sense and good decisions and THROW THEM OUT THE WINDOW!"
What is this garbage!? I've been calling for MaRo to be removed from MtG for a while now, I hope this boneheaded decision solidifies it happening even though I know it won't. This is terrible.
I know MaRo was involved but i definitely wouldn't blame everything on him though...But this is definitely a little late because hexproof is a thing now...
I'm actually quite disappointed at these changes. I don't usually make posts about rules changes, but I think that this change is fundamental enough to change the entire game and I think Legacy and Vintage have gotten the worse end of the deal: Each player being able to have JTMS, Jitte, Vendillion Clique, Thalia, Geist is only to make the format more clogged.
I don't see the just reasoning in changing two rules that have been FUNDAMENTALS to how Magic has been taught and played over the past 20 years.
Yup. And it's the first time in my 19 years of playing I have said this. New legend/walker rule is terrible flavor. Terrible. Why fix what wasn't broke?
Flavorwise, this makes next to no sense for me; ruleswise it makes even less sense.
To me, being Legendary was an intentional weakness of the card; not only could you only have one copy out at the time, but your card being legendary made it vulnerable to more cards than an ordinary creature (Clones, your opponent's copies of it, etc.). Smart players could use interactions with the legendary rule to create interesting combos and gamestates (The two Sharuum the Hegemon combo comes to mind). Not a fan of rules changes that reduce the interactions cards can have.
If this is the case, though, the game's been changed in accordance with this going forward, so it's an entirely new experience, as opposed to the three months or so we'll be playing with the new rules before INN block rotates.
My primary worry is what happens during the Wild Wild West period from rule changes to INN being out. I trust (perhaps naively) that if Theros is Legend heavy, they're not making Geist 2.0 or Sigarda 2.0 or something good enough to totally warp Standard around without being able to clone it to death.
One benefit to the rules change is that we should see more Legendary Lands printed - WotC largely stopped printing them (Eye of Ugin and Maze's End are Legendary to restrict you to one copy) because they didn't like how they basically acted like a Strip Mine if your opponent was playing the same land.
As a fan of the flavor of Legendary Lands, that is a big plus for me.
Huh. Not sure how I feel about this. I think overall it's a good thing, but:
1. Damn, Heat Shimmer and Shapesharer were two of my favorite EDH cards.
2. As if Geist of Saint Traft needed to be harder to kill...
Then again, you can still clone their Geist and start beating with it. I do like that. I also like that two people can play the same Commander.
Relatively new player here, didn't the Legendary rule work differently back in the dim and distant past anyway?
The change to planeswalker uniqueness makes my Vorthos-brain hurt. Also it removes hate-boarding to get rid of todays flavour of overpowered Jace, so I'm not best pleased about that.
@Pouncing Kavu: That's a good question. Maybe it'll errata to "If you control exactly two".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Coming from a casual player's perspective: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? I'm not happy with these updates. The Planeswalker one sends shivers down my spine. Two Jaces being able to brainstorm every turn? Two Eldrazis? Not good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander:
1v1
Talrand, the Sky Summoner
Multi
Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius
Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What is this garbage!? I've been calling for MaRo to be removed from MtG for a while now, I hope this boneheaded decision solidifies it happening even though I know it won't. This is terrible.
This feels like a reaction for EDH more than it is constructed. "OMGGGGGG MAI EDH DECK IZ S00000 GEWD NAO! LEWK AT ALL DEEZ G3NRLZ I C4N HAZ NAO! BWOOOOOOKEN!"
Why!? WHY!? POR QUEEEEEE!?!?!?!?
You think this is a joke post. It isn't.
I don't know how else to say it, so I'm just going to say it: <you're an idiot.>
The logic that the commander rules committee could have foreseen this rule being implemented, and changed the rules to deal with it while it was currently supported by the existing comp rules defies any sense of logical or intelligent thought process.
I really don't think any of these are going to really have huge impacts on the game at the higher levels except MAYBE the sideboarding change which I still have no clue why it needed changing. The game will endure as it always has, but I'm really wondering what the hell is happening that necessitated these changes.
Please don't insult others. -TK
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Being legendary is still a downside, just less of one.
Let's not completely scapegoat Maro on this, please? This decision is dumb as hell, but it was most likely not spearheaded by only maro.
My current decks!
http://tappedout.net/users/ThePhasewalker/
Did they forget to say that these first two rules were for EDH?
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
It's not much different, actually, if you think about it. You get to play one land per turn (that is, taking the special action of playing a land). Effects that let you play additional lands just add to your number of land plays for the turn, and you don't have to say which effect you're applying when you play an additional land. Permanents with static abilities that let you play additional lands only let you do so while they're on the battlefield; if they leave the battlefield, you lose any unused plays they might've given you.
For example, you start with one land play. You play a land. Then you play Exploration, which gives you another land play, and you have one left for the turn. If you play another land, you have none left for the turn. If you don't and your opponent Disenchants Exploration, you can't play any more lands that turn.
This is wrong. It's actually very different, and very counter-intuitive. The change actually makes a lot of cards not work as intended. For example, if you control Oracle of Mul Daya and play your two lands for the turn, bouncing and re-casting the Oracle doesn't actually let you play any more lands.
Even worse, if you control Oracle of Mul Daya, play two lands, and cast Explore, then your opponent responds by Bolting your Oracle, Explore won't let you play any additional lands. With Oracle, you had two land plays per turn, then it died and you went to just one, then Explore resolved and put you back at two. But you've played two lands already that turn, so you can't play any more lands. It's weird.
I like the sb rule. It is wierd, but I think it is very cool to do
Thanx to Bookworm10 for the Sig.
Check out my YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ThyrixSyx
Cockatrice: shadowkill
Rules Adviser
I love Legacy but I think if you're doing so badly against legendary cards that you're actually having to fight them by playing legendary cards, then it says something about the deck you're playing and the format (and it's definitely not saying anything good).
The rule changes announced today make perfect sense across the board, and people complaining about cards like Geist of Saint Traft will just have to learn to deal with him by legitimate means like the rest of the people who aren't playing them and dealing with it.
If people can't see that the legend rule was clearly broken because they were actually playing copies of legends to destroy other legends and they don't see how silly that was, then they need to pull their head out.
(Also known as Xenphire)
yay for Geist of Saint Traft
To be fair... you'd get to swing first with Emrakul. Now that's terrifying if you're a Show and Tell player.
I know MaRo was involved but i definitely wouldn't blame everything on him though...But this is definitely a little late because hexproof is a thing now...
I don't see the just reasoning in changing two rules that have been FUNDAMENTALS to how Magic has been taught and played over the past 20 years.
The only thing I don't really understand is the land drops change,
Yes, but the disadvantage was only half of what MaRo dislike about the rule. The other was that clones of legendary creatures died instantly.
What perplexes me is why Planeswalkers came along for the ride...
- Main Cube
- No Brains, All Feelings Cube
Yup. And it's the first time in my 19 years of playing I have said this. New legend/walker rule is terrible flavor. Terrible. Why fix what wasn't broke?
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
To me, being Legendary was an intentional weakness of the card; not only could you only have one copy out at the time, but your card being legendary made it vulnerable to more cards than an ordinary creature (Clones, your opponent's copies of it, etc.). Smart players could use interactions with the legendary rule to create interesting combos and gamestates (The two Sharuum the Hegemon combo comes to mind). Not a fan of rules changes that reduce the interactions cards can have.
Hey you know... they are WotC ...
He who posted it shall be roasted for it.
Hey, think we can start one of those lame "Change.org" petitions to get Mark fired?
As a fan of the flavor of Legendary Lands, that is a big plus for me.
1. Damn, Heat Shimmer and Shapesharer were two of my favorite EDH cards.
2. As if Geist of Saint Traft needed to be harder to kill...
Then again, you can still clone their Geist and start beating with it. I do like that. I also like that two people can play the same Commander.
How does this affect Brothers Yamazaki?
The change to planeswalker uniqueness makes my Vorthos-brain hurt. Also it removes hate-boarding to get rid of todays flavour of overpowered Jace, so I'm not best pleased about that.
@Pouncing Kavu: That's a good question. Maybe it'll errata to "If you control exactly two".
Art is life itself.
1v1
Talrand, the Sky Summoner
Multi
Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius
Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite