__________________
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

quote:

---

Originally posted by paris:
Aww, I really liked chording or podding for Phantasmal Image to kill off legendary creatures. Maybe I should add Karakas to my deck if I can't use Image anymore.

---

By the way I read it, it'll still kill off those legend creatures, but instead of your image dying, now it's a copy of that creature and still on board. Should make Venser the sojourner quite powerful with metamorphs.

So far I haven't seen any meaningful support for claims that these rules changes are a bad idea. All I've seen is "I don't like this because I don't like change!" and "but what about this handful of corner case cards!", which seems to imply there's something catastrophic and unforeseen about how among over 15,000 cards made under different rules, there might be (gasp) ten or so that work differently now!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by flam flawless:
By the way I read it, it'll still kill off those legend creatures, but instead of your image dying, now it's a copy of that creature and still on board. Should make Venser the sojourner quite powerful with metamorphs.

---

no, you read it wrong. Each player can have a Geist of St Traft, or a Jace. When ONE player has two or more, they choose 1 to keep and the rest go to the graveyard. Your clone can now only kill YOUR stuff, not theirs.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

<@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
<@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
So far I haven't seen any meaningful support for claims that these rules changes are a bad idea. All I've seen is "I don't like this because I don't like change!" and "but what about this handful of corner case cards!", which seems to imply there's something catastrophic and unforeseen about how among over 15,000 cards made under different rules, there might be (gasp) ten or so that work differently now!!

---

So you haven't actually read the thread, then, or you just ignore things that don't fit your view? It has nothing to do with cards working differently now, it's that they've taken the Legendary rule and crapped all over it. Flavorwise, it fails in that it makes no sense to have 2 of the same "legendary" object in play at once. Gamewise, it is a major shift that neuters the hell out of what Legendary means. Every example of a card that is ridiculously stupid now isn't a corner case, it's an example of why the change is dumbing down the game, not advancing it.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:

So far I haven't seen any meaningful support for claims that these rules changes are a bad idea. All I've seen is "I don't like this because I don't like change!" and "but what about this handful of corner case cards!", which seems to imply there's something catastrophic and unforeseen about how among over 15,000 cards made under different rules, there might be (gasp) ten or so that work differently now!!

---

I'd say there are a number of valid arguments against the change to legends, and they're more than the trivial "change bad" sort.

I'll readily admit to not having a principled argument to back up my dislike for the second SB change other than it's a big change to a fundamental game mechanic with no explicit rationale behind it. But I'll gladly give up on SBs in exchange for the legend rules.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
So you haven't actually read the thread, then, or you just ignore things that don't fit your view?

---

Oh no, I have, it's just that the bulk of it (besides wondering how Jitte and Cradle will impact legacy now) has amounted to a lot of crotchety old farts whining about change. You most vocally and angrily.

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with cards working differently now, it's that they've taken the Legendary rule and crapped all over it. Flavorwise, it fails in that it makes no sense to have 2 of the same "legendary" object in play at once.

---

And yet you can put Lightning Greaves on an Armada Wurm. Crazy, huh?

You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're actually trying to say that the new legend rule is less coherent flavorwise than the old one. Because having two characters on the battlefield at the same time is far more comprehensible in fantasy than having an attempt to summon for yourself a character already present somehow causing her to explode. Like, really?

The most flavor-comprehensible solution is to either have the first copy trump all that follow, or to have subsequent copies destroy and replace previous ones (which you'll notice is now what happens on each respective side of the battlefield). However, both of these on a global scale make for absolutely atrocious gameplay.

quote:

---

Gamewise, it is a major shift that neuters the hell out of what Legendary means.

---

Yes, that's how rules changes work. They change the rules of things.

Also, it doesn't change the "a legendary card is a representative of a specific character" idea, just the "legendary is a huge drawback if your opponent is running them too" part. Which makes gameplay much better. And making gameplay better - hold on to your butts, guys - advances the game.

quote:

---

Every example of a card that is ridiculously stupid now isn't a corner case,

---

this happens every time there is a rules change. People never seem to understand that.
As for the specific examples of tournament-worthy cards, well gee, I guess they'll either change the metagame, or Wizards will just ban the cards. Problem solved.

quote:

---

it's an example of why the change is dumbing down the game, not advancing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Oh no, I have, it's just that the bulk of it (besides wondering how Jitte and Cradle will impact legacy now) has amounted to a lot of crotchety old farts whining about change. You most vocally and angrily.

And yet you can put Lightning Greaves on an Armada Wurm. Crazy, huh?

You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're actually trying to say that the new legend rule is less coherent flavorwise than the old one. Because having two characters on the battlefield at the same time is far more comprehensible in fantasy than having an attempt to summon for yourself a character already present somehow causing her to explode. Like, really?

The most flavor-comprehensible solution is to either have the first copy trump all that follow, or to have subsequent copies destroy and replace previous ones (which you'll notice is now what happens on each respective side of the battlefield). However, both of these on a global scale make for absolutely atrocious gameplay.

Yes, that's how rules changes work. They change the rules of things.

Also, it doesn't change the "a legendary card is a representative of a specific character" idea, just the "legendary is a huge drawback if your opponent is running them too" part. Which makes gameplay much better. And making gameplay better - hold on to your butts, guys - advances the game.

this happens every time there is a rules change. People never seem to understand that.
As for the specific examples of tournament-worthy cards, well gee, I guess they'll either change the metagame, or Wizards will just ban the cards. Problem solved.

I am soooooo tempted to formulate a response to this that would earn me a karma smack, but I won't both for that and but also because I do respect you Jeff, I just think you're being overly emotional over a minor rules change, and that's hardly a reason to crucify people. But this bull**** about how change 'x' is "dumbing down the game" is steaming horse crap and needs to stop. I'm not feeling generous enough to make this easier on you and assume the burden of proof, because I don't actually have to, because until somebody actually provides proof that something "dumbs the game down", that whine is nothing more than empty hot air. Dumb down the game? It literally does not. It makes the gameplay different. But dumber? No. Just, no.

---

Changing rules just to change rules is never good for the game. Changing it in the way that they're doing is flat-out terrible. Just because we're upset about a change doesn't mean we hate change, we hate this specific bad change. Brushing us off as if we're just whining about nothing just makes you look silly.

You need to re-read the change. The new one doesn't blow up, it's whatever one the player damn well feels like. That's not remotely flavorful.

I fail to see how 2 people having Emrakul or Griselbrand or Avacyn or x somehow advances gameplay. Makes it sillier, sure. Makes it so that you don't have to pay as much attention to what's on the board when you cast a legend in case it might die, sure. Makes it so that you don't have to think so hard about whether to use specific Planeswalker abilities because you can always just drop another one with no major drawback.

Just like the faux-Slivers issue, another M14 abomination, if WotC wants to open design space and have certain things behave a certain way, the correct response is to create a new type, not bastardize one that has been around for ages and works a specific way. They're becoming the Stephanie Myers of card games, completely reinventing parts of the game without a good reason to do so.

Changing the Legends rule definitely is a dumbing-down. As I pointed out above, it makes so many situations easier for the player. No more worrying about if the opponent has a Clone or something. No more concerns in mirror-matches about whether the other player might be holding the same card you need to win, so you have to mind-game a little.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by flam flawless:

Edit- just read more on lunch. That's even worse than I had hoped. 2 jtms out? Guy waits to get to 8 mana and casts avacyn then you spend 3 & 2 life & make a copy leaving them both in play? Kinda dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Keep calm and win the game. Angel doesn't necessarily stop ya.

---

No, but having a group of elves out turn 3-4 with a cradle, tapping it, playing another from your hand, maybe casting something that lets ya play another land, laying your 3rd cradle is insane. It's why they invented the legend rule back then. IMO, they just took a MAJOR step backwards doing this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schwingzilla:
I know, right, all those formats where you can play multiple academys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schwingzilla:
I know, right, all those formats where you can play multiple Tolarian Academies.

Gaea's Cradle is the only card that I've seen a compelling argument for getting meaningfully better or worse. I don't believe it will significantly change its price. It's already very expensive, and Elves is a very specific Legacy deck.

---

Depending on how you interpret "meaningfully", I'd say the following cards, at least, are now non-negligibly better than they were:

Gaea's Cradle
Mox Opal
Karakas
Liliana of the Veil
Jace, The Mind Sculptor
Flagstones of Trokair
Dark Depths (via Thespian's Stage)
Geist of Saint Traft
Basically every Planeswalker, really

+Possibly Umezawa's Jitte, depending on your interpretation. At least, it gets a lot trickier.

It's hardly an exhaustive list, of course. And it's not a giant number of cards either. But I think it's clear they're a potent and heavily played/playable set of cards (and the rules change makes some, like Cradle, much more widely playable and desirable), so it seems fair to infer that the impact of the rule will be non-negligible.

As for the flavour-thing... well, the way I used to think about it, the reason they both disappeared was that they were receiving conflicting orders/summons, and so were effectively removed from the board ("dying" being a bad metaphor/interpretation). Yeah, it's rough and tendentious. This change, however, requires us to reject the identity of indiscernibles, and that's a much bigger logical leap. I could accept two slightly different versions of the same legend/planeswalker in play simultaneously (I'd index each to a time, and shrug it off as time travel). But two identical ones... ⊥.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by mm1983:
Having a Jace Beleran and a Jace the Mind Sculptor on the same players side at the same time still can't happen because they are both considered as Jace and would kill each other, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
How will the legend/planeswalker rule affect 2HG games? Can two players on the same team have a Garruk each?

---

Since the rule change specifically references "player", there can be up to 4 garruks out on the field, assuming each player controls only 1 of them. 2HG rules merely dictate the sharing of turns and life totals, which is why things like megrim + burning inquiry work the way they do in 2HG.

@ the "is this good or bad for the game" argument - I understand the need to theorycraft, but the rules changes are minor, at best. They affect maybe a handful of decks in modern and legacy, and even then it's really only going to boil down to some game theory alterations for a few mirror matches.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
I'm actually loving the sideboard rules change. Makes tutors theoretically more useful in deck construction

---