I'm sorry but the simplest solution is just to go card by card and decide whether the intent was to hit Planeswalkers cards or not and add "or Planeswalkers." to them. Changing it to just say target is just trading one rules confusion for another. This change has been a long time coming as far as I'm concerned. Everyone I play with just says target your walker already anyway.
I think the more feasible thing would be Planeswalkers can be targeted and dealt damage as if they were players. and it covers everything I can think of (it also needs a clarification about how they want protection to work and some better wording to make mass damage more intuitive, but that's it). Essentially, it would be a change similar to how the attack rule was changed.
In large part because planeswalkers don’t have hands or libraries or graveyards or life total, don’t have a next turn, can’t control permanents... all these things have been safe to assume in design for all cards that could target players to date. It’s why I asked the question above about Blightning. Same for Anathemancer, Flames of the Blood Hand, Hit // Run, Friendly Fire...
There are so many ways that this answer raises more questions that it would result in just as much errata to clarify these things.
Would you intend life loss to translate to loyalty loss, or just have life loss be something a planeswalker-target could not do/pay? Remorseless Punishment?
Probably something like "anything that can target a player can target a planeswalker" even though it might not have an effect like discard. But things that don't "target" are left as is.
What if Wizards would consider planeswalkers closer from creatures than from players ?
Look at Fated conflagration for example: it allows to target creatures and planeswalkers but not players (for obvious power level issues)
This way they can template their future burn spell to target "permanents" or "damageable permanents" and let players interaction aside.
I'll confess that that thought had crossed my mind.
Setting aside my dislike for PW cards, I will say that WotC really botched PW cards in a big way. WotC obviously wants them to occupy the same category as... well... you, a Planeswalker. But they lack pretty much everything you, the player, possesses. But WotC didn't want them occupying another Creature slot either.
As a result, they occupy this sort of half-***** category that's kinda sorta like a creature and kinda sorta like a player but not being able to occupy both. And there's an entire class of spells that whacks them directly.
So, with the Legend rule update, I was thinking another rule update would bring them closer to where they should have been in the first place, a creature.
But that probably weakens them more than WotC wants to.
What if Wizards would consider planeswalkers closer from creatures than from players ?
Look at Fated conflagration for example: it allows to target creatures and planeswalkers but not players (for obvious power level issues)
This way they can template their future burn spell to target "permanents" or "damageable permanents" and let players interaction aside.
I'll confess that that thought had crossed my mind.
Setting aside my dislike for PW cards, I will say that WotC really botched PW cards in a big way. WotC obviously wants them to occupy the same category as... well... you, a Planeswalker. But they lack pretty much everything you, the player, possesses. But WotC didn't want them occupying another Creature slot either.
As a result, they occupy this sort of half-***** category that's kinda sorta like a creature and kinda sorta like a player but not being able to occupy both. And there's an entire class of spells that whacks them directly.
So, with the Legend rule update, I was thinking another rule update would bring them closer to where they should have been in the first place, a creature.
But that probably weakens them more than WotC wants to.
I wonder how the game would have evolved if planeswalker cards weren't around to this day.
I don't understand this. I'm probably missing something.
If they're going to get rid of the PW redirection rule, why don't they just get rid of it? Why do they need to errata anything?
Or are they getting rid of the rule and wanting to errata every card that could previously redirect damage to a PW, so that it can still damage a PW? If so, why not just keep the rule since it's the same end result?
Can someone explain this better?
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
I'm sorry but the simplest solution is just to go card by card and decide whether the intent was to hit Planeswalkers cards or not and add "or Planeswalkers." to them. Changing it to just say target is just trading one rules confusion for another. This change has been a long time coming as far as I'm concerned. Everyone I play with just says target your walker already anyway.
This is probably what they're doing, although I wouldn't discount "or planeswalker" beind added to every spell that targets and "each planeswalker that player controls" for spells that do not. Most of the cards that would get a serious buff from this are legacy-only anyways. I mean the big ones are Earthquake, Sulfuric Vortex, and Hurricane, right? And the first already has been "fixed" for Magmaquake.
I don't understand this. I'm probably missing something.
If they're going to get rid of the PW redirection rule, why don't they just get rid of it? Why do they need to errata anything?
Or are they getting rid of the rule and wanting to errata every card that could previously redirect damage to a PW, so that it can still damage a PW? If so, why not just keep the rule since it's the same end result?
Can someone explain this better?
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
I don't understand this. I'm probably missing something.
If they're going to get rid of the PW redirection rule, why don't they just get rid of it? Why do they need to errata anything?
Or are they getting rid of the rule and wanting to errata every card that could previously redirect damage to a PW, so that it can still damage a PW? If so, why not just keep the rule since it's the same end result?
Can someone explain this better?
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
Exactly. We all know how it's supposed to work, and we've been playing that way anyways since they were created even though technically we were doing it wrong. It's a good rule change but it will come with a truck of errata.
I don't understand this. I'm probably missing something.
If they're going to get rid of the PW redirection rule, why don't they just get rid of it? Why do they need to errata anything?
Or are they getting rid of the rule and wanting to errata every card that could previously redirect damage to a PW, so that it can still damage a PW? If so, why not just keep the rule since it's the same end result?
Can someone explain this better?
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
Exactly. We all know how it's supposed to work, and we've been playing that way anyways since they were created even though technically we were doing it wrong. It's a good rule change but it will come with a truck of errata.
Pretty much, it's only a matter of time before they make cards that interact with Emblems. Keep messing with good things wizards...
I don't understand this. I'm probably missing something.
If they're going to get rid of the PW redirection rule, why don't they just get rid of it? Why do they need to errata anything?
Or are they getting rid of the rule and wanting to errata every card that could previously redirect damage to a PW, so that it can still damage a PW? If so, why not just keep the rule since it's the same end result?
Can someone explain this better?
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
Exactly. We all know how it's supposed to work, and we've been playing that way anyways since they were created even though technically we were doing it wrong. It's a good rule change but it will come with a truck of errata.
Pretty much, it's only a matter of time before they make cards that interact with Emblems. Keep messing with good things wizards...
How are Emblems a good thing? If Players are Planeswalkers then why can't Players interact with Emblems from Planeswalkers in the same manner that Players can interact with spells from Players? Yes, I know the argument that you can just pop off a PW before the ultimate, but that really isn't the point. The point is, WotC calls these cards Planeswalkers but the interaction is nowhere the same as it is with Players, who just happen to also be Planeswalkers.
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
Exactly. We all know how it's supposed to work, and we've been playing that way anyways since they were created even though technically we were doing it wrong. It's a good rule change but it will come with a truck of errata.
Pretty much, it's only a matter of time before they make cards that interact with Emblems. Keep messing with good things wizards...
How are Emblems a good thing? If Players are Planeswalkers then why can't Players interact with Emblems from Planeswalkers in the same manner that Players can interact with spells from Players? Yes, I know the argument that you can just pop off a PW before the ultimate, but that really isn't the point. The point is, WotC calls these cards Planeswalkers but the interaction is nowhere the same as it is with Players, who just happen to also be Planeswalkers.
The whole thing is just a mess.
I get why the emblems exist, since you want the ultimates to actually be worth the time and effort, and the emblems being unable to be interacted with helps that a lot. As to whether or not emblems should exist, I'd say they shouldn't on principle, since you can't ever get rid of them, and not all emblems are that difficult to plant.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
Exactly. We all know how it's supposed to work, and we've been playing that way anyways since they were created even though technically we were doing it wrong. It's a good rule change but it will come with a truck of errata.
Pretty much, it's only a matter of time before they make cards that interact with Emblems. Keep messing with good things wizards...
How are Emblems a good thing? If Players are Planeswalkers then why can't Players interact with Emblems from Planeswalkers in the same manner that Players can interact with spells from Players? Yes, I know the argument that you can just pop off a PW before the ultimate, but that really isn't the point. The point is, WotC calls these cards Planeswalkers but the interaction is nowhere the same as it is with Players, who just happen to also be Planeswalkers.
The whole thing is just a mess.
I get why the emblems exist, since you want the ultimates to actually be worth the time and effort, and the emblems being unable to be interacted with helps that a lot. As to whether or not emblems should exist, I'd say they shouldn't on principle, since you can't ever get rid of them, and not all emblems are that difficult to plant.
I don't mean to derail the argument or OP, but it's just along that same slippery slope of extreme changes. They were originally supposed to be "For the rest of the game..." as per the original Elspeth, not until they are removed. Emblems, for the most part, are supposed to be game ending (not all are but they have build up costs for a reason). Anyway it was beyond the point and I'm sorry for the off-hand opinion.
Planeswalkers are permanents so the text should say the type of permanent it's intended for. Saying "target permanent" should be fine, because you can't target illegal target (e.g. Bolting an enchantment). It's really not a mess at all, again IMO.
Well... no, unfortunately you're wrong. It's an awful, awful mess. The only way to avoid the absolute worst of it is to either issue a massive power-level errata to every single spell and effect that currently only deals damage to players (such as Lava Axe, Vicious Shadows, Blightning, Flamewave Invoker, Breath of Malfegor etc.) and declare that from now on they really can only damage players. Alternatively, you could probably restrict further design space rather drastically by never making any effects that can only damage players but not planeswalkers, and keep the functionality of all these existing cards intact. Anything else is just going to horribly break things.
Think about Lava Axe, for example. You could errata it to say "target player or planeswalker" to keep the current functionality, and any further printings of Lava Axe would just say "deals 5 damage to target player or planeswalker". But what if they want to create a card that really can damage only players, but not creatures and planeswalkers? Let's call this spell Lava Hatchet. How would you now template it? "Lava Hatchet deals 5 damage to target player" ? So then you'd have approximately 67 bajillion existing Lava Axes that had the exact same text as the new Lava Hatchet, yet the difference in function would be very significant. I think the problem here is obvious.
Unfortunately, their Lightning Strike example shows they're going to create this exact problem with cards that currently can damage everything. In the future, they're going to create a mess if they ever want to make a card that only damages players and creatures, but not planeswalkers. Or at least I can't figure out how a card like that could be templated without breaking the old cards at the same time. So, in the future we would have old template Lightning Strikes "deals 3 damage to target creature or player" (can also target planeswalkers without saying it), new template Lightning Strike "deals 3 damage to any target" (any target still not including permanents other than creatures and planeswalkers) and Restricted Lightning Strike "deals 3 damage to target creature or player" (can't target planeswalkers, despite having the exact same text as the old template Lightning Strike). It's just... gaah, my brain is melting. :I
Inconsistent errata, such as declaring some "damage to target player" effects to be able to also damage planeswalkers would also create an enormous mess. So let's say something like Lava Axe could continue to damage players and planeswalkers, while things like, I dunno, Blightning, Flame Rift and Sulfuric Vortex could only damage players? On what basis would you even make this distinction, and how would you expect players to know every single one of these differences when everything still says "damage to target player"?
The existing redirection rules are clunky and awkward, but they were clearly implemented to avoid most of this exact problem. I assume these new rules were implemented because of the new Magic: Arena online game. The old rules would feel even more clunky and unintuitive in that environment, and it's rather easy to avoid these kind of templating issues in the digital realm by just recreating the old cards to read exactly as intended. Unfortunately that means throwing the physical card game under the bus but hey, what can you do.
It's pretty darn awkward that the signature card type of the game, planeswalker, is so clunkily integrated within the game itself. When also taking into account the mess that the restricted list creates, I wonder how many times Wizards and / or Hasbro has seriously debated just rebooting the whole damn game, or maybe just canceling the cardboard version and transfering the game entirely online...
I just disagree with your point of view. Removing the rule simplifies a, as you put it, 'clunky' game interaction/design. If they have the intention of being able to damage or target a walker directly then it will say as such (as in Hour of Devastation, Fated Conflagration and the like)which they have been doing more recently.
As far as a 'massive power-level errata' of 'approximately 67 bajillion' cards, then that's pointless busy work, and I have to agree with you there. A lot of the older erratas-to-be would probably only be important to obscure EDH/Casual brews, and not in a serious light, IMO.
Furthermore, the speculation that the game is moving to an exclusive online game, is probably not really a series threat to the paper format. They sell supplemental products for EDH & Casual players on the regular and seem to be making good returns on these products and markets annually, so that probably is just speculation. Unless in the event that MTG:Arena (or whatever it's called) becomes more popular digitally than hearthstone, then it's just not a reality. Even then you'd be expecting collectors/players/LGSs to renounce the paper game and transfer to digital, yet you would still have those who support the secondary market and play the game. (This last paragraph is off-topic which I am again sorry for derailing).
This is probably what they're doing, although I wouldn't discount "or planeswalker" beind added to every spell that targets and "each planeswalker that player controls" for spells that do not. Most of the cards that would get a serious buff from this are legacy-only anyways. I mean the big ones are Earthquake, Sulfuric Vortex, and Hurricane, right? And the first already has been "fixed" for Magmaquake.
I do wonder, now that Planeswalkers can be legendary, if they will consider adding other properties to a Planeswalker. Probably not since the text box is usually quite full.
But for example above, "Magmaquake" is only supposed to hit nonflyers. We have Planeswalkers that are clearly flyers (Ugin and Bolas for recentish examples), so technically they should not be hit by Magmaquake, but they are with the new reading. If a Planeswalker could have Flying, then Magmaquake would still fit thematically. (Of course it would have to be errata'ed to say "each creature and planeswalker without flying")
Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms that they probably don't necessarily want to jump into.
This is probably what they're doing, although I wouldn't discount "or planeswalker" beind added to every spell that targets and "each planeswalker that player controls" for spells that do not. Most of the cards that would get a serious buff from this are legacy-only anyways. I mean the big ones are Earthquake, Sulfuric Vortex, and Hurricane, right? And the first already has been "fixed" for Magmaquake.
I do wonder, now that Planeswalkers can be legendary, if they will consider adding other properties to a Planeswalker. Probably not since the text box is usually quite full.
But for example above, "Magmaquake" is only supposed to hit nonflyers. We have Planeswalkers that are clearly flyers (Ugin and Bolas for recentish examples), so technically they should not be hit by Magmaquake, but they are with the new reading. If a Planeswalker could have Flying, then Magmaquake would still fit thematically. (Of course it would have to be errata'ed to say "each creature and planeswalker without flying")
Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms that they probably don't necessarily want to jump into.
The Planeswalker Commanders at least show that it's possible to have something on the card other than the loyalty abilities. That could give them a bit more mileage, but it's territory you have to tread cautiously through.
I'd also point out that one significant restriction on planeswalkers that artifacts and creatures don't have as much trouble with is their inability to do anything interactive during your opponent's turn (except with Teferi's emblem). On the other hand, this is necessary, as loyalty abilities tend to be busted if they can be used at instant speed.
This is probably what they're doing, although I wouldn't discount "or planeswalker" beind added to every spell that targets and "each planeswalker that player controls" for spells that do not. Most of the cards that would get a serious buff from this are legacy-only anyways. I mean the big ones are Earthquake, Sulfuric Vortex, and Hurricane, right? And the first already has been "fixed" for Magmaquake.
I do wonder, now that Planeswalkers can be legendary, if they will consider adding other properties to a Planeswalker. Probably not since the text box is usually quite full.
But for example above, "Magmaquake" is only supposed to hit nonflyers. We have Planeswalkers that are clearly flyers (Ugin and Bolas for recentish examples), so technically they should not be hit by Magmaquake, but they are with the new reading. If a Planeswalker could have Flying, then Magmaquake would still fit thematically. (Of course it would have to be errata'ed to say "each creature and planeswalker without flying")
Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms that they probably don't necessarily want to jump into.
I'm not sure Magmaquake backs up your point, since it can already tag Ugin and Bolas.
1. If a card damages "target creature or player", it becomes "target creature, planeswalker or player".
2. If a card damages "target player", the text doesn't change.
3. If a card damages "each player", the text doesn't change.
4. If a card damages "each creature and each player", the text doesn't change.
I feel like that is the only way to implement a rules change about damage redirection. I am against such a change, because it changes functionality of certain cards. That being said, they cannot address every card, and I think this is the cleanest way to do it.
What would be missing / not covered / problematic with these blanket rules?
Is there a way of changing 2-4 so that it includes planeswalkers without rules issues? 4 can be changed to "each creature, planeswalker and player". It increases the power level against planeswalkers, and makes it unplayable in planeswalker decks.
If #4 included planeswalkers, would it be picked up by ‘each player and each creature with (quality)?’ Earthquake, Hurricane, Borrowing the East Wind, Rolling Earthquake?
How would Bonfire of the Damned work? Disorder? Collective Defiance / Incendiary Command? Lavalanche / Flame Wave?
1. If a card damages "target creature or player", it becomes "target creature, planeswalker or player".
2. If a card damages "target player", the text doesn't change.
3. If a card damages "each player", the text doesn't change.
4. If a card damages "each creature and each player", the text doesn't change.
I feel like that is the only way to implement a rules change about damage redirection. I am against such a change, because it changes functionality of certain cards. That being said, they cannot address every card, and I think this is the cleanest way to do it.
What would be missing / not covered / problematic with these blanket rules?
Is there a way of changing 2-4 so that it includes planeswalkers without rules issues? 4 can be changed to "each creature, planeswalker and player". It increases the power level against planeswalkers, and makes it unplayable in planeswalker decks.
I really think that 2 should be able to target planeswalkers too, and 4 should hit them too.
1. If a card damages "target creature or player", it becomes "target creature, planeswalker or player".
2. If a card damages "target player", the text doesn't change.
3. If a card damages "each player", the text doesn't change.
4. If a card damages "each creature and each player", the text doesn't change.
I feel like that is the only way to implement a rules change about damage redirection. I am against such a change, because it changes functionality of certain cards. That being said, they cannot address every card, and I think this is the cleanest way to do it.
What would be missing / not covered / problematic with these blanket rules?
Is there a way of changing 2-4 so that it includes planeswalkers without rules issues? 4 can be changed to "each creature, planeswalker and player". It increases the power level against planeswalkers, and makes it unplayable in planeswalker decks.
I really think that 2 should be able to target planeswalkers too, and 4 should hit them too.
I erred on the side of caution. I think the issue with 2 is Blightning needs to now have two targets or new wording. Also Anathemancer doesn't make sense if it targets a planeswalker. Chandra's Fury also doesn't make sense, and planeswalkers don't control creatures.
I think 2 can hit planeswalkers, but there have to be exceptions:
2. If a card damages "target player", the new text says "target planeswalker or player"
2a. Unless the spell becomes non-functional, as in the case of cards listed:
Regarding #4, I don't think each creature and each player should get Planeswalkers added to the mix. I don't think Earthquake should hit multiple planeswalkers. That's my opinion, though I think it would be okay ruleswise to give it that treatment.
Also, I forgot damage worded like Burning Earth.
5. Cards that damage players for performing specific actions, like burning earth, do not have a text change. The alternative requires targeting, which can get messy.
Modern: WUBRG Humans - GBW Traverse - GWU Knightfall - GRW Bushwhacker Zoo -
As I said before:
There are so many ways that this answer raises more questions that it would result in just as much errata to clarify these things.
More fun:
Quenchable Fire (a planeswalker can't pay mana!)
Skullscorch
Would you intend life loss to translate to loyalty loss, or just have life loss be something a planeswalker-target could not do/pay? Remorseless Punishment?
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
I'll confess that that thought had crossed my mind.
Setting aside my dislike for PW cards, I will say that WotC really botched PW cards in a big way. WotC obviously wants them to occupy the same category as... well... you, a Planeswalker. But they lack pretty much everything you, the player, possesses. But WotC didn't want them occupying another Creature slot either.
As a result, they occupy this sort of half-***** category that's kinda sorta like a creature and kinda sorta like a player but not being able to occupy both. And there's an entire class of spells that whacks them directly.
So, with the Legend rule update, I was thinking another rule update would bring them closer to where they should have been in the first place, a creature.
But that probably weakens them more than WotC wants to.
I wonder how the game would have evolved if planeswalker cards weren't around to this day.
The theme of planeswalkers is that they are players. You attack them like players, and once a turn they cast a spell (loyalty ability) like a player. So thematically, a Lava Axe and Lightning Bolt should be able to deal them damage as if they are players. There's just one catch: Neither of those spells can actually target a planeswalker! In Axe's case only players are legal targets, and in bolt's case only creatures and players are legal targets. So how can I get around this? The current rules are the planeswalker redirection rule. If I bolt the the controller of the planeswalker I can, as it resolves, then redirect the damage to the planeswalker. So if this rule goes away, players wouldn't be able to use most burn spells on planeswalkers. When you say "bolt your Jace" you're actually proposing a shortcut for "Cast lightning bolt, targeting you, with the expressed intention to have the damage redirected to your Jace, Cunning Castaway." I mean, that's a mouthful so no one really does it except for the most competitive of environments when you don't want to reveal anything ever.
So in summery: If you ditch the redirection rule, you won't be able to burn planeswalkers with old cards unless you errata them.
This is probably what they're doing, although I wouldn't discount "or planeswalker" beind added to every spell that targets and "each planeswalker that player controls" for spells that do not. Most of the cards that would get a serious buff from this are legacy-only anyways. I mean the big ones are Earthquake, Sulfuric Vortex, and Hurricane, right? And the first already has been "fixed" for Magmaquake.
I suppose this is another instance where flavour can cause issues with gameplay. I guess they figured that the unique rules regarding planeswalkers were adding needless complexity to the game, so they're revising/removing them to improve the card type.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
How are Emblems a good thing? If Players are Planeswalkers then why can't Players interact with Emblems from Planeswalkers in the same manner that Players can interact with spells from Players? Yes, I know the argument that you can just pop off a PW before the ultimate, but that really isn't the point. The point is, WotC calls these cards Planeswalkers but the interaction is nowhere the same as it is with Players, who just happen to also be Planeswalkers.
The whole thing is just a mess.
I get why the emblems exist, since you want the ultimates to actually be worth the time and effort, and the emblems being unable to be interacted with helps that a lot. As to whether or not emblems should exist, I'd say they shouldn't on principle, since you can't ever get rid of them, and not all emblems are that difficult to plant.
Planeswalkers are permanents so the text should say the type of permanent it's intended for. Saying "target permanent" should be fine, because you can't target illegal target (e.g. Bolting an enchantment). It's really not a mess at all, again IMO.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
Well... no, unfortunately you're wrong. It's an awful, awful mess. The only way to avoid the absolute worst of it is to either issue a massive power-level errata to every single spell and effect that currently only deals damage to players (such as Lava Axe, Vicious Shadows, Blightning, Flamewave Invoker, Breath of Malfegor etc.) and declare that from now on they really can only damage players. Alternatively, you could probably restrict further design space rather drastically by never making any effects that can only damage players but not planeswalkers, and keep the functionality of all these existing cards intact. Anything else is just going to horribly break things.
Think about Lava Axe, for example. You could errata it to say "target player or planeswalker" to keep the current functionality, and any further printings of Lava Axe would just say "deals 5 damage to target player or planeswalker". But what if they want to create a card that really can damage only players, but not creatures and planeswalkers? Let's call this spell Lava Hatchet. How would you now template it? "Lava Hatchet deals 5 damage to target player" ? So then you'd have approximately 67 bajillion existing Lava Axes that had the exact same text as the new Lava Hatchet, yet the difference in function would be very significant. I think the problem here is obvious.
Unfortunately, their Lightning Strike example shows they're going to create this exact problem with cards that currently can damage everything. In the future, they're going to create a mess if they ever want to make a card that only damages players and creatures, but not planeswalkers. Or at least I can't figure out how a card like that could be templated without breaking the old cards at the same time. So, in the future we would have old template Lightning Strikes "deals 3 damage to target creature or player" (can also target planeswalkers without saying it), new template Lightning Strike "deals 3 damage to any target" (any target still not including permanents other than creatures and planeswalkers) and Restricted Lightning Strike "deals 3 damage to target creature or player" (can't target planeswalkers, despite having the exact same text as the old template Lightning Strike). It's just... gaah, my brain is melting. :I
Inconsistent errata, such as declaring some "damage to target player" effects to be able to also damage planeswalkers would also create an enormous mess. So let's say something like Lava Axe could continue to damage players and planeswalkers, while things like, I dunno, Blightning, Flame Rift and Sulfuric Vortex could only damage players? On what basis would you even make this distinction, and how would you expect players to know every single one of these differences when everything still says "damage to target player"?
The existing redirection rules are clunky and awkward, but they were clearly implemented to avoid most of this exact problem. I assume these new rules were implemented because of the new Magic: Arena online game. The old rules would feel even more clunky and unintuitive in that environment, and it's rather easy to avoid these kind of templating issues in the digital realm by just recreating the old cards to read exactly as intended. Unfortunately that means throwing the physical card game under the bus but hey, what can you do.
It's pretty darn awkward that the signature card type of the game, planeswalker, is so clunkily integrated within the game itself. When also taking into account the mess that the restricted list creates, I wonder how many times Wizards and / or Hasbro has seriously debated just rebooting the whole damn game, or maybe just canceling the cardboard version and transfering the game entirely online...
edit: Typo.
As far as a 'massive power-level errata' of 'approximately 67 bajillion' cards, then that's pointless busy work, and I have to agree with you there. A lot of the older erratas-to-be would probably only be important to obscure EDH/Casual brews, and not in a serious light, IMO.
Furthermore, the speculation that the game is moving to an exclusive online game, is probably not really a series threat to the paper format. They sell supplemental products for EDH & Casual players on the regular and seem to be making good returns on these products and markets annually, so that probably is just speculation. Unless in the event that MTG:Arena (or whatever it's called) becomes more popular digitally than hearthstone, then it's just not a reality. Even then you'd be expecting collectors/players/LGSs to renounce the paper game and transfer to digital, yet you would still have those who support the secondary market and play the game. (This last paragraph is off-topic which I am again sorry for derailing).
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
I do wonder, now that Planeswalkers can be legendary, if they will consider adding other properties to a Planeswalker. Probably not since the text box is usually quite full.
But for example above, "Magmaquake" is only supposed to hit nonflyers. We have Planeswalkers that are clearly flyers (Ugin and Bolas for recentish examples), so technically they should not be hit by Magmaquake, but they are with the new reading. If a Planeswalker could have Flying, then Magmaquake would still fit thematically. (Of course it would have to be errata'ed to say "each creature and planeswalker without flying")
Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms that they probably don't necessarily want to jump into.
The Planeswalker Commanders at least show that it's possible to have something on the card other than the loyalty abilities. That could give them a bit more mileage, but it's territory you have to tread cautiously through.
I'd also point out that one significant restriction on planeswalkers that artifacts and creatures don't have as much trouble with is their inability to do anything interactive during your opponent's turn (except with Teferi's emblem). On the other hand, this is necessary, as loyalty abilities tend to be busted if they can be used at instant speed.
I'm not sure Magmaquake backs up your point, since it can already tag Ugin and Bolas.
1. If a card damages "target creature or player", it becomes "target creature, planeswalker or player".
2. If a card damages "target player", the text doesn't change.
3. If a card damages "each player", the text doesn't change.
4. If a card damages "each creature and each player", the text doesn't change.
I feel like that is the only way to implement a rules change about damage redirection. I am against such a change, because it changes functionality of certain cards. That being said, they cannot address every card, and I think this is the cleanest way to do it.
What would be missing / not covered / problematic with these blanket rules?
Is there a way of changing 2-4 so that it includes planeswalkers without rules issues? 4 can be changed to "each creature, planeswalker and player". It increases the power level against planeswalkers, and makes it unplayable in planeswalker decks.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
How would Bonfire of the Damned work? Disorder? Collective Defiance / Incendiary Command? Lavalanche / Flame Wave?
There is no easy blanket rule here.
I really think that 2 should be able to target planeswalkers too, and 4 should hit them too.
I erred on the side of caution. I think the issue with 2 is Blightning needs to now have two targets or new wording. Also Anathemancer doesn't make sense if it targets a planeswalker.
Chandra's Fury also doesn't make sense, and planeswalkers don't control creatures.
I think 2 can hit planeswalkers, but there have to be exceptions:
2. If a card damages "target player", the new text says "target planeswalker or player"
2a. Unless the spell becomes non-functional, as in the case of cards listed:
Regarding #4, I don't think each creature and each player should get Planeswalkers added to the mix. I don't think Earthquake should hit multiple planeswalkers. That's my opinion, though I think it would be okay ruleswise to give it that treatment.
Also, I forgot damage worded like Burning Earth.
5. Cards that damage players for performing specific actions, like burning earth, do not have a text change. The alternative requires targeting, which can get messy.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers