Indestructible loses to bounce, shackle/pacifism effects, tap effects, remove from the game effects, -x/-x effects, shuffle-into-library / put-on-bottom-of-library effects. It simply doesn't die to damage and destruction.
Hexproof is immune to spot EVERYTHING, barring combat damage.
I stand by what i said. Hexproof > Indestructible.
It also doesn't help that they abused it on aggresively costed cards in combination with other abilities.
Hexproof loses to sweeps and sac effects. It is definitely better than indestructible which only makes it crazier that cards are so much cheaper when they have hexproof on them.
Given the stupendously dumb flavor fallacy, allow me:
Legends: Less of a problem here as again, you aren't actually summoning anything. Spells and permanents in this game are based on memory; mana warps and changes a piece of reality to make such things manifest. However, if you really want to abide by the summoning notion, here's a tip: everything's power level in this game is defined by context. If most spells cost 4 or more, Black Lotus is looking slightly less potent. If Painter's Servant hadn't been printed, Grindstone wouldn't be a powerhouse now. Similarly, if general copy effects weren't so abundant (e.g. 1-2/block, at least), the clone problem wouldn't be there, at least not as much. WotC has no problem with changing in-world rules as to how things work (mana burn, anyone?) regardless of sensibilities, so why not just print new clone effects from here on in to be limited to nonlegendaries or to not clone legendary status? Yes, other clones in Eternal formats persist, but given the right power boost, the new ones will take focus, even if not 100%. Doubt the persistence of the new? One word that shows up here often: HEXPROOF.
Planeswalkers: what they SHOULD have done was just tweak the rules for the word "loyalty" to actually matter. As in, if the loyalty of the card entering the battlefield is higher than the previous one, it stays and the original goes. If there's a tie, go with timestamp (a la world cards), and if there's still a tie, active player, and if there's still a tie, player's choice. There. Done. Interesting strategy and future design to boot.
People, the reason why Ripple and Splice onto Arcane are bad keywords is because they are narrow and have next to no application outside the sets they appear in. Banding is bad because it is overly complicated and confusing.
Anyway, good luck finding worse keywords.
For the love of...THINK, people!
ONE: Ripple can be tacked onto VIRTUALLY ANY KIND OF CARD IN EXISTENCE. We saw it on spell cards, on an Aura, and on a creature. It's a linear mechanic considering it's only really effective when the card in question is in spades, but that's its only real flaw, which is only a flaw if you consider linearity a problem.
Brilliant Insight 1U
Instant
Draw a card.
Ripple 6
-minrar: common
Migration Path 4G
Sorcery
Put a 4/4 green Beast creature token onto the battlefield.
Ripple – Sunburst
-minrar: uncommon
Epiphany Flare 1UR
Instant
Epiphany Flare deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Ripple 7
-minrar: uncommon
TWO: Splice != splice onto Arcane. ...I have next to zero comprehension as to why people continue to think that subtypes or referencing subtypes somehow equal mechanics in their own right; wake up! E.g. if protection in its initial outing was just "protection from black" or the like, would you honestly think black is required for the mechanic? No, of course not, that's incredibly narrow-minded. Splice is a spell mechanic: you could just as easily do splice onto white/green sorcery/instant or sorcery/Trap/Goblin instant or sorcery/etc.
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.
Given the stupendously dumb flavor fallacy, allow me:
Legends: Less of a problem here as again, you aren't actually summoning anything. Spells and permanents in this game are based on memory; mana warps and changes a piece of reality to make such things manifest. However, if you really want to abide by the summoning notion, here's a tip: everything's power level in this game is defined by context. If most spells cost 4 or more, Black Lotus is looking slightly less potent. If Painter's Servant hadn't been printed, Grindstone wouldn't be a powerhouse now. Similarly, if general copy effects weren't so abundant (e.g. 1-2/block, at least), the clone problem wouldn't be there, at least not as much. WotC has no problem with changing in-world rules as to how things work (mana burn, anyone?) regardless of sensibilities, so why not just print new clone effects from here on in to be limited to nonlegendaries or to not clone legendary status? Yes, other clones in Eternal formats persist, but given the right power boost, the new ones will take focus, even if not 100%. Doubt the persistence of the new? One word that shows up here often: HEXPROOF.
Planeswalkers: what they SHOULD have done was just tweak the rules for the word "loyalty" to actually matter. As in, if the loyalty of the card entering the battlefield is higher than the previous one, it stays and the original goes. If there's a tie, go with timestamp (a la world cards), and if there's still a tie, active player, and if there's still a tie, player's choice. There. Done. Interesting strategy and future design to boot.
Saying that the Clone rule wouldn't be much of a problem if copy effects weren't so prevalent is a moot point. The fact is they ARE there, and Wizards has to work in the environment that exists. Besides that, Clone effects are fun and much beloved by a sizable set of players, so lowering the density of these effects in Standard simply to fix interactions with a single supertype would make far too many people unhappy.
Changing the templating on all future clones would have fixed the Clone problem (in future Standards, at least), sure, but there would still be the problem of Legendaries turning into kill spells in a mirror. Besides that, it wouldn't really fix the problem of "no way to clone legendaries" (outside of Sakashima the Imposter). Besides that, outside of tournament settings, the vast majority of games of Magic, whether they be kitchen table casual, competitive play between friends, or a nice big game of EDH, use cards from outside the Standard environment. I think there certainly would have been much more "feel bad" if all Clones from this point on used the "non-Legendary" templating (and besides, you would still get people complaining about the inability to use Clones as kill spells, so there would be whining all around).
Hexproof is a bad example, I think. Hexproof is an upgrade from Shroud power-wise, while a non-Legendary Clone is a downgrade, so I doubt one such would see much play in Eternal environments (even at 1 CMC, which would be pushed to break Standard, people would still most likely prefer Phantasmal Image in Modern for the potential 2 CMC kill on any Legendary Creature).
As for your idea to fix the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule... by Emrakul, could you have possibly come up with something any more complex and difficult to grok? Seriously, all of those layers make Fizzbin seem positively childish by comparison. I will grant that I would rather have had Planeswalkers of the same subtype worked like World Enchantments, but your idea is way too convoluted. Besides, it is much simpler to grasp if Legendaries and Planeswalkers work the same way (besides, I'm sure R&D looked into making PWs work like World - it was probably broken in two).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Someday, I will own all of the dragons. All of them. 43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
I happen to find that using planeswalkers an other legendary permanents as removal is interactive. i have to make choices on how to best use my resources or when making a deck. Do i use this card as removal or do i try an get rid of his creature another way then play mine and force my opponent to have an answer for it.
This isn't interactive at all. The game rules cause both of them to go to the graveyard, there is no actual interaction between you and the other player. That is what is meant by interactive. It would be stuff such as blocking your creature, bolting your creature, attacking you. Non interactive decks often simply include drownyard type effects. A lot of ppl don't consider that to be interaction, but whatever. Anyway, the planeswalker thing is not interaction as it was a game rule that put both of them in the gy. That's the way I look at it.
For those who feel that legendary and planeswalkers now feel less unique, they never felt never unique for me in the beginning anyway since you could still run 4 in a deck, IMO they should have been limited to one-ofs to preserve their uniqueness so any compromise that is more liberal than that is fine by me.
/opinion
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It was probably a lousy spell in the first place."
—Ertai, wizard adept
The biggest danger with the rules update (at least based on my observations of some pre-testing) is clones just got a lot better, and only a little worse. Sure they don't serve as efficient removal sources, but if you look at clones between 2 and 4 mana, the casting cost is appropriate for efficient removal sources. That role can be served by other removal sources. Now, instead of removal sources we have cloning on legends, and undercosted at that, especially those that negate clone drawbacks, like Hexproof or Shroud legends with Phantasmal Image. I'm not saying it's broken, just will lead to some abuse in multiplayer environments.
For example, a group of 4 or 5 commander players where several decks are running numerous efficient clones (very common in my playgroup). No one is casting anything because there's nothing good to clone yet. Finally someone taps out to play a high cost legend or their commander.
In the old format, the best anyone could do is kill it with a clone. Not much gained there, the clone player is just out a card and made an enemy. But in the new format, everyone else can clone that legend, keep it, and still have mana up to defend/ramp/play control and proceed to easily kill the player that played the original. Is that the right sequence of plays to foster? To never be the one that actually plays their commander for the casting cost? It's a danger with the new rulings - no one wants to be the fuel for their own destruction, and this new ruling makes every legend and commander exactly that - fuel for clones.
That said, I'm still in favor of trying the new ruling, I think cards can be printed to help with this danger. It was certainly better than watching the same clone get animated/blinked/recast/etc to just kill legends over and over. Too many games ended this way, so I'm ready for a change.
(They just got a billion times better, and even more fun!)
It's Oracle wording will need a decent update too, since it's original wording was meant to all one of either side of a battlefield as well as two controlled by a single player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Looking to start a clan for Zork fans, PM if interested.
Atrius' Posts1W
Instant
You win target thread. If you aren't Atrius, Atrius wins that thread instead. "Wait, can you actually win a thread?" - Atrius.
It's Oracle wording will need a decent update too, since it's original wording was meant to all one of either side of a battlefield as well as two controlled by a single player.
They more than likey won't change the wording. It'll just mean that any and all players can control up to two Brothers Yamazaki.
The biggest danger with the rules update (at least based on my observations of some pre-testing) is clones just got a lot better, and only a little worse. Sure they don't serve as efficient removal sources, but if you look at clones between 2 and 4 mana, the casting cost is appropriate for efficient removal sources. That role can be served by other removal sources. Now, instead of removal sources we have cloning on legends, and undercosted at that, especially those that negate clone drawbacks, like Hexproof or Shroud legends with Phantasmal Image. I'm not saying it's broken, just will lead to some abuse in multiplayer environments.
My EDH UB deck always contains an Evil Twin. Then drop a Conjurer's Closet and pretty much "Kill, exile, return, repeat."
Either way though, I do like the change. It'll be much more interesting to clone someone else's Legendary for my benefit. LOL
Ah! But see, the M14 Legend Rule Revision makes this seem like every player can control two Bros and the Legend Rule still not apply. IMO
Brothers Yamazik says "ignore the legend rule if there are exactly 2 copies on the battlefield." As soon as you have 3 copies in play the rule comes back and the player with 2 must put one into the graveyard.
Brothers Yamazik says "ignore the legend rule if there are exactly 2 copies on the battlefield." As soon as you have 3 copies in play the rule comes back and the player with 2 must put one into the graveyard.
Hmmm... I see what you're saying... I'll ask MaRo on Tumblr.
I just realized the legendary rule update now solves the legendary werewolf dilemma.
Not quite. There's still the... weirdness of the same player controlling one copy of the Legendwolf face up and another copy face down. I guess it does fix it in that now, should a Legendwolf get printed and this were to happen, one of the copies transforming wouldn't immediately kill both of your Legendwolves.
Okay, you got me, I only posted this comment to make Legendwolf a thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Someday, I will own all of the dragons. All of them. 43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
I don't know why people are stuck on clones. Read the article again and you'll notice that "fixing clones" was the third reasoning, and to me came off more like "Oh yeah, this new rule also fixes clones! Imagine that!".
If they were that concerned with the clone aspect, they would have done something about it a long time ago. These changes were implemented to force a varied reaction(aka, you have to use your guys as guys) to legend mirrors, making you answer their cards with actual answers. It was also implemented because legends are important now, will be important in Theros most likely(VERY VERY safe at this point to assume it will be legendaries matter), and because Mirrored generals in EDH make for bad games, since EDH is all about the generals really.
That is the reason for the changes, the clone thing is just a passing benefit that one of the R & D guys liked because it stopped an old rules loophole no one ever got around to. Stop making it the most important part of the rule changes. It just makes your arguments void on the grounds that you don't even have comprehension skills.
Mirrored generals in EDH make for bad games, since EDH is all about the generals really.
That is the reason for the changes, the clone thing is just a passing benefit that one of the R & D guys liked because it stopped an old rules loophole no one ever got around to. Stop making it the most important part of the rule changes. It just makes your arguments void on the grounds that you don't even have comprehension skills.
I'd suggest avoiding blanket negative statements, the act of contributing to the forum and discussing rules shows a high level of comprehension to begin with even if there are disagreements on purpose or priority.
Above you raise clones and EDH in two successive sentences, and that concern is exactly what some are bringing up. I've witnessed games where players are avoiding playing their high cost generals because it places them at a disadvantage if they know other players have a large number of clones in their deck. Evil Twin on a legend with Haste for example is no longer removal, he is a two for one, removal + the copied general now on their board. Some board states we'll see a stagnation of sorts, unwillingness to cast a general knowing everyone else can get the same for less resources. Decks that aren't running clones will add them, decks that aren't blue may switch. It's a legitimate concern from my observations of test play with the new rules.
Still I prefer to try the new rules out if only to see new interactions between legends. But the concern is valid, and it may turn out to be the most impactful of the changes to EDH.
What are the compelling arguments against just making the soon-to-be-old legendary rules simply apply to your side of the board? I like that my pendalhaven isn't blown up by your pendalhaven. I don't like that you can reset your legendaries and walkers.
This is kinda funny also since MaRo talks all the time about how they like the idea of people not wanting to play 4 ofs so often
If you just made the current rule check only your side of the board, there'd still be situations where you'd draw another copy of a legend you had in play, and it would do absolutely nothing for you. Wizards is trying to actively avoid situations like that.
Under the new rule, that card isn't necessarily dead - you can use it to protect your legend if an opportunity should arise - but it doesn't obviate Legendary's primary drawback, which is "You can have no more than one of these in play at a time."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was really nice to not be that guy casting cyclonic rift every turn, because i could actually kill permanents.
Hexproof loses to sweeps and sac effects. It is definitely better than indestructible which only makes it crazier that cards are so much cheaper when they have hexproof on them.
Legends: Less of a problem here as again, you aren't actually summoning anything. Spells and permanents in this game are based on memory; mana warps and changes a piece of reality to make such things manifest. However, if you really want to abide by the summoning notion, here's a tip: everything's power level in this game is defined by context. If most spells cost 4 or more, Black Lotus is looking slightly less potent. If Painter's Servant hadn't been printed, Grindstone wouldn't be a powerhouse now. Similarly, if general copy effects weren't so abundant (e.g. 1-2/block, at least), the clone problem wouldn't be there, at least not as much. WotC has no problem with changing in-world rules as to how things work (mana burn, anyone?) regardless of sensibilities, so why not just print new clone effects from here on in to be limited to nonlegendaries or to not clone legendary status? Yes, other clones in Eternal formats persist, but given the right power boost, the new ones will take focus, even if not 100%. Doubt the persistence of the new? One word that shows up here often: HEXPROOF.
Planeswalkers: what they SHOULD have done was just tweak the rules for the word "loyalty" to actually matter. As in, if the loyalty of the card entering the battlefield is higher than the previous one, it stays and the original goes. If there's a tie, go with timestamp (a la world cards), and if there's still a tie, active player, and if there's still a tie, player's choice. There. Done. Interesting strategy and future design to boot.
For the love of...THINK, people!
ONE: Ripple can be tacked onto VIRTUALLY ANY KIND OF CARD IN EXISTENCE. We saw it on spell cards, on an Aura, and on a creature. It's a linear mechanic considering it's only really effective when the card in question is in spades, but that's its only real flaw, which is only a flaw if you consider linearity a problem.
Brilliant Insight
1U
Instant
Draw a card.
Ripple 6
-minrar: common
Migration Path
4G
Sorcery
Put a 4/4 green Beast creature token onto the battlefield.
Ripple – Sunburst
-minrar: uncommon
Epiphany Flare
1UR
Instant
Epiphany Flare deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Ripple 7
-minrar: uncommon
Battledrone Myr
2
Artifact Creature – Myr Drone
Ripple 5
1/1
-minrar: common
TWO: Splice != splice onto Arcane. ...I have next to zero comprehension as to why people continue to think that subtypes or referencing subtypes somehow equal mechanics in their own right; wake up! E.g. if protection in its initial outing was just "protection from black" or the like, would you honestly think black is required for the mechanic? No, of course not, that's incredibly narrow-minded. Splice is a spell mechanic: you could just as easily do splice onto white/green sorcery/instant or sorcery/Trap/Goblin instant or sorcery/etc.
Again, THINK!
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.
Saying that the Clone rule wouldn't be much of a problem if copy effects weren't so prevalent is a moot point. The fact is they ARE there, and Wizards has to work in the environment that exists. Besides that, Clone effects are fun and much beloved by a sizable set of players, so lowering the density of these effects in Standard simply to fix interactions with a single supertype would make far too many people unhappy.
Changing the templating on all future clones would have fixed the Clone problem (in future Standards, at least), sure, but there would still be the problem of Legendaries turning into kill spells in a mirror. Besides that, it wouldn't really fix the problem of "no way to clone legendaries" (outside of Sakashima the Imposter). Besides that, outside of tournament settings, the vast majority of games of Magic, whether they be kitchen table casual, competitive play between friends, or a nice big game of EDH, use cards from outside the Standard environment. I think there certainly would have been much more "feel bad" if all Clones from this point on used the "non-Legendary" templating (and besides, you would still get people complaining about the inability to use Clones as kill spells, so there would be whining all around).
Hexproof is a bad example, I think. Hexproof is an upgrade from Shroud power-wise, while a non-Legendary Clone is a downgrade, so I doubt one such would see much play in Eternal environments (even at 1 CMC, which would be pushed to break Standard, people would still most likely prefer Phantasmal Image in Modern for the potential 2 CMC kill on any Legendary Creature).
As for your idea to fix the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule... by Emrakul, could you have possibly come up with something any more complex and difficult to grok? Seriously, all of those layers make Fizzbin seem positively childish by comparison. I will grant that I would rather have had Planeswalkers of the same subtype worked like World Enchantments, but your idea is way too convoluted. Besides, it is much simpler to grasp if Legendaries and Planeswalkers work the same way (besides, I'm sure R&D looked into making PWs work like World - it was probably broken in two).
43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
The Attention Deficit Guy URGU
This isn't interactive at all. The game rules cause both of them to go to the graveyard, there is no actual interaction between you and the other player. That is what is meant by interactive. It would be stuff such as blocking your creature, bolting your creature, attacking you. Non interactive decks often simply include drownyard type effects. A lot of ppl don't consider that to be interaction, but whatever. Anyway, the planeswalker thing is not interaction as it was a game rule that put both of them in the gy. That's the way I look at it.
New to Commander? Read the Above article.
/opinion
"It was probably a lousy spell in the first place."
—Ertai, wizard adept
Legacy: UW Miracle, U MUC, UW StoneBlade, U Merfolk, R Burn, & UB Reanimator
EDH: U Azami, Lady of Scrolls & URG Riku of Two Reflections
Casual: UR Dragonstorm, UB Dralnu-Teachings, U NinjaFae, & UR Izzet EDH
For example, a group of 4 or 5 commander players where several decks are running numerous efficient clones (very common in my playgroup). No one is casting anything because there's nothing good to clone yet. Finally someone taps out to play a high cost legend or their commander.
In the old format, the best anyone could do is kill it with a clone. Not much gained there, the clone player is just out a card and made an enemy. But in the new format, everyone else can clone that legend, keep it, and still have mana up to defend/ramp/play control and proceed to easily kill the player that played the original. Is that the right sequence of plays to foster? To never be the one that actually plays their commander for the casting cost? It's a danger with the new rulings - no one wants to be the fuel for their own destruction, and this new ruling makes every legend and commander exactly that - fuel for clones.
That said, I'm still in favor of trying the new ruling, I think cards can be printed to help with this danger. It was certainly better than watching the same clone get animated/blinked/recast/etc to just kill legends over and over. Too many games ended this way, so I'm ready for a change.
(They just got a billion times better, and even more fun!)
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
It's Oracle wording will need a decent update too, since it's original wording was meant to all one of either side of a battlefield as well as two controlled by a single player.
Atrius' Posts 1W
Instant
You win target thread. If you aren't Atrius, Atrius wins that thread instead.
"Wait, can you actually win a thread?" - Atrius.
They more than likey won't change the wording. It'll just mean that any and all players can control up to two Brothers Yamazaki.
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
My EDH UB deck always contains an Evil Twin. Then drop a Conjurer's Closet and pretty much "Kill, exile, return, repeat."
Either way though, I do like the change. It'll be much more interesting to clone someone else's Legendary for my benefit. LOL
Seems good. Hahaha
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
The current wording means that if both players have 1 out you can't play another.
Ah! But see, the M14 Legend Rule Revision makes this seem like every player can control two Bros and the Legend Rule still not apply. IMO
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
Brothers Yamazik says "ignore the legend rule if there are exactly 2 copies on the battlefield." As soon as you have 3 copies in play the rule comes back and the player with 2 must put one into the graveyard.
Hmmm... I see what you're saying... I'll ask MaRo on Tumblr.
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
Matt Tabak's tumblr already has some discussion of the Brothers Yamazaki issue. The gist is that the new rules work the way AtheistGod says they do, but he's not ruling out the possibility of an erratum...
Wadang. That sucks, but at least I know the truth now! Thanks man!
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
Not quite. There's still the... weirdness of the same player controlling one copy of the Legendwolf face up and another copy face down. I guess it does fix it in that now, should a Legendwolf get printed and this were to happen, one of the copies transforming wouldn't immediately kill both of your Legendwolves.
Okay, you got me, I only posted this comment to make Legendwolf a thing.
43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
The Attention Deficit Guy URGU
It's comments like this that made me originally stay around MTGSalvation
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"
If they were that concerned with the clone aspect, they would have done something about it a long time ago. These changes were implemented to force a varied reaction(aka, you have to use your guys as guys) to legend mirrors, making you answer their cards with actual answers. It was also implemented because legends are important now, will be important in Theros most likely(VERY VERY safe at this point to assume it will be legendaries matter), and because Mirrored generals in EDH make for bad games, since EDH is all about the generals really.
That is the reason for the changes, the clone thing is just a passing benefit that one of the R & D guys liked because it stopped an old rules loophole no one ever got around to. Stop making it the most important part of the rule changes. It just makes your arguments void on the grounds that you don't even have comprehension skills.
I'd suggest avoiding blanket negative statements, the act of contributing to the forum and discussing rules shows a high level of comprehension to begin with even if there are disagreements on purpose or priority.
Above you raise clones and EDH in two successive sentences, and that concern is exactly what some are bringing up. I've witnessed games where players are avoiding playing their high cost generals because it places them at a disadvantage if they know other players have a large number of clones in their deck. Evil Twin on a legend with Haste for example is no longer removal, he is a two for one, removal + the copied general now on their board. Some board states we'll see a stagnation of sorts, unwillingness to cast a general knowing everyone else can get the same for less resources. Decks that aren't running clones will add them, decks that aren't blue may switch. It's a legitimate concern from my observations of test play with the new rules.
Still I prefer to try the new rules out if only to see new interactions between legends. But the concern is valid, and it may turn out to be the most impactful of the changes to EDH.
This is kinda funny also since MaRo talks all the time about how they like the idea of people not wanting to play 4 ofs so often
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
If you just made the current rule check only your side of the board, there'd still be situations where you'd draw another copy of a legend you had in play, and it would do absolutely nothing for you. Wizards is trying to actively avoid situations like that.
Under the new rule, that card isn't necessarily dead - you can use it to protect your legend if an opportunity should arise - but it doesn't obviate Legendary's primary drawback, which is "You can have no more than one of these in play at a time."