quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
After further review, I totally hate the new land drop rule. But I'll get over it.

---

I just skimmed the article, that's the huge difference? TLDR me...

"Did you know that right now (assuming you're reading this article before July 13, when these rules changes take effect), whenever you play a land, if more than one rule or effect allows you to play that land, you must specify which rule or effect you're using? Yeah, most people didn't. In practice, this means that if you control something like Oracle of Mul Daya and play a land, the correct play is to specify that this is your additional land for the turn. Furthermore, you could then bounce the Oracle and recast it. Then you could play an additional, additional land. You could then go on to play your land for the turn. What a mess."

What a mess? What a crock.

So you're telling me that even though the game considers the Oracle a totally different object on its second go around, that the game now remembers how many extra lands I'm allowed to play, and that I was at negative one while the oracle was not on the battlefield? I think that's horse****.

Flavor? Who cares. Plenty of things in this game don't make sense. This change was made for game play purposes.

This change wasn't made so noobs can drop their legend w/o a penalty, its so that mirror matches (which happen a ton these days) don't come down to die rolls. There is actually a chance for skill to be involved. Want to show and tell an emrakul into play... if you do I might have one and get to attack first.

The SB rule isn't really any change for an actual tournament, it will just mean less game losses handed out because players are playing quickly (or sloppy in some cases). See SCG this weekend where it was Loam v Lands in legacy and the lands player dredges then draws? Yah, game losses for small mistakes suck, at least this sideboard one can be eliminated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Here's an excerpt:

"Did you know that right now (assuming you're reading this article before July 13, when these rules changes take effect), whenever you play a land, if more than one rule or effect allows you to play that land, you must specify which rule or effect you're using? Yeah, most people didn't. In practice, this means that if you control something like Oracle of Mul Daya and play a land, the correct play is to specify that this is your additional land for the turn. Furthermore, you could then bounce the Oracle and recast it. Then you could play an additional, additional land. You could then go on to play your land for the turn. What a mess."

What a mess? What a crock.

So you're telling me that even though the game considers the Oracle a totally different object on its second go around, that the game now remembers how many extra lands I'm allowed to play, and that I was at negative one while the oracle was not on the battlefield? I think that's horse****.

---

Ya but it also seemed to be stupid that i could play Azusa play 3 lands and then bounce her play her again and play 2 more lands when i've already played my 2 additional lands for turn.

I am in favor of this change that the number of additional lands is something that is remembered like the number of spells that have been played in a turn.

I think the changes are good because they again make it so you can "play your cards" rather than having them die because someone else played a card first.

I think this is the first rule change where there is a large amount of acception rather than people screaming its the end of magic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WeedIan:
Ya but it also seemed to be stupid that i could play Azusa play 3 lands and then bounce her play her again and play 2 more lands when i've already played my 2 additional lands for turn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
its a new azusa, they are new bonus lands. It doesn't seem too far fetched or difficult to follow.

---

I agree, and in my EDH league I'll move we ignore this rule. What questions me is why aren't the EDH players commenting on the new legend rule? Looking at what it does for tournament / FNM formats is useful, but the consensus seems to be it only affects niche cases or Jace. In my league three of us have Grimgrin decks, and although its nice to avoid the Mexican stand-off of who plays him when having three on the board simultaneously sounds a bit ridiculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pail42:
I'm not following this part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
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... ⊥.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nylarotep:
Flagstones actually gets worse, since you're no longer getting an extra landfall trigger because only one will die if you play another one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
legend rule change seems interesting to me. I really want to play w/ it and see how it goes. Its nice to not have your opponent drop a jace, brainstorm, then you play yours and get zero value.... why? play skill? nope! Opponent own the die roll so obviously they deserve the advantage. Now things play out a bit more fair, but I'm not certain how well games will progress with multiple jace/liliana in play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pail42:
You still get value by being the second player to play Jace - you kill your opponent's Jace. Under the OLD legend rule you got zero value from your Lin Sivvi if your opponent won the die roll and got to play his first. In terms of planeswalkers (and some legends), the first person to play will get extra value because they have one extra turn to use their card, but the current rules don't completely screw anybody.

---

Yeah, pre Lin-Sivvi rules completely owned someone for going second. Those rules were the suck for sure.

Neither the post-Sivvi old rules or the new rules COMPLETELY screws either side. But if you play a Jace after your opponent just played a Jace and Jacestorm'd, you do pretty much get zero value in cards in that exchange. With a fetch, they could be up 3 cards with you tapped-out.

I like the new rules in that it doesn't matter as much who is on the play/draw. And as mentioned earlier, it is better in EDH now that clones aren't just general removal. Definitely wish they'd stop it there and not allowed players to choose which legend copy survives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGO:
Does the new land rule affect Explore? Can I play 2 of them and get 3 land drops?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfitzg88:
Bertoncini does it with only one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGO:
Does the new land rule affect Explore? Can I play 2 of them and get 3 land drops?

---

Wouldn't that work better for everyone?

The sideboard thing is alright, the reason is not. Players were too often starting a game with 61/14 split and getting a game loss? So? A game loss sucks and it's a bad penalty, a warning and some minor correction is just fine. But it's unnecessary to change SB rules to save players from newbie mistakes.
And a max of 15 in games 2 and 3 is kind of crap. If i want to play 64/15, i can add in any number without a 1-for-1 basis but i can't just drop 4?

I always thought indestructible should be a keyword. Retroactively neutering old cards is not ok, though. Boros Charm states a true fact about YOU, your spell gives you powers to protect anything you control. I don't feel it's supposed to or SHOULD give that ability individually to each permanent. Bad flavor, bad for your subsequent perms, bad if your opponent somehow stupidly gains control of your crap.
Will Elspeth read soemthing like "Gains Indestructability" and not work for future permanents?

I don't get why unblockable can't be a keyword.
What's a mess is the fact they had Fear, and cards like Seeker, Skirk Ridge Shaman, then Intimidate.
Making unblockable a keyword is not a mess just because you have Goblin War Drums and stuff like that. It'd be a mess to say "Two-Headed Sliver - Slivers have Two-headedness"
You have landwalk already. Unblockable alone without referencing all the abilities that describe how it CAN be blocked is alright. One is UNBLOCKABLE, others just have limitations on how it can be blocked.
That said though, unblockable does not need to be a keyword.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pail42:
The new land rules primarily affect permanents that had continuous effects that granted land extra land drops. Explore and similar spells are essentially unaffected.

---

Not totally though. If one of your static abilities gets nuked in response to Explore, you don't get to play the land off Explore. It's beyond awful. Now quit firing me up over it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sovarius:
Flavorwise, i always thought it would be appropriate if each player got their own legend.
It's not until years later, now, that i see how it actually effects gameplay. You should both get your legend, and you yourself should not get two.
However the ability to keep one when a second comes into play is wrong. Being able to choose is just worse.
I'd like to see a rule where you cannot cast another legend or walker, then if a second comes into play through some other means (reanimate, warped, 'put' onto field), the old one trumps the new as a state based effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sovarius:

But it's unnecessary to change SB rules to save players from newbie mistakes.

---

If you want to win with technicalities instead of beating face with your deck, then maybe play something else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myy:
If you want to win with technicalities instead of beating face with your deck, then maybe play something else?

~Myy

---

Story Time-

I was playing at a Modern PTQ roughly 3 months, ago, rolling along into the 3rd round with 2 wins under my belt. Feeling good, obviously. So I sit down, my opponent shows up, and we start prepping for our match. After decks are presented, judges come up for a random deck check. No big deal.

Here's where the problems start. Making small-talk with my opponent, he drops that red-flag phrase that usually indicates you are going to be playing against a rules lawyer - "I hope we can be gentlemen/good sportsman during the match, you seem like a nice guy". It's sad that such a thing sets off warning bells for me, but experiences have proven that douchebags often lead off with this insincere line.

Anyways, the judges come back, no problems with either deck, and we get going. Both of us are playing aggro variants of Jund, so the games are pretty fast-paced. My hunch of playing with an angle-shooter were confirmed when I decided to change the target of my lightning bolt mid-sentence, i.e. "gonna bolt your kird ape, I mean experiment one". His response - "sorry bro, gonna hold you to that first target", followed up by a judge call and my opponent asserting that he was given a chance to respond by some phantom pause on my part. Internally, I'm strangling this guy to death, but obviously I need to simply continue the game and play with the lawyering in mind.

I win game one, and despite all the previous BS, I have the game 2 board state essentially locked into a win. My opponent then looks at the clock, sees that there's over 25 minutes left of gametime, and proceeds to make the voluntary decision to angle shoot literally everything possible for the rest of the match.

"Can I count your graveyard? Maindeck? Cards in hand (this one about 15 times)?"

Asks judge "do those sleeves look like they have any kind of debris or damage on the back?"

Asks judge "can you check his sideboard to see if it's correct? I inform him that we literally just had a deck check before the match, and it's game 2 of a match where he's already confirmed the card count of my grave, maindeck, and hand. "Just to be sure, bro."

Steps aside with judge twice to ask "rulings questions".

Asks me to recount the order of the removal spells in my graveyard, as well as what targets I used them on. I told him in the politest way possible to **** off and play his turn.

After all of this, he checks his hand for the thousandth time, then tries the old "collect my cards together on the table and hope I scoop up my stuff as well". I watch him try this for literally 30 seconds before I ask him if he's conceding. He shrugs, puts his cards down then sticks his hand out and says "yeah you got this one man, good game".

Never been so glad to jam a match slip in someone's outstretched hand in my life. First time I've ever kept my board state completely intact until a judge could come over to verify the match slip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Story Time-

I was playing at a Modern PTQ roughly 3 months, ago, rolling along into the 3rd round with 2 wins under my belt. Feeling good, obviously. So I sit down, my opponent shows up, and we start prepping for our match. After decks are presented, judges come up for a random deck check. No big deal.

Here's where the problems start. Making small-talk with my opponent, he drops that red-flag phrase that usually indicates you are going to be playing against a rules lawyer - "I hope we can be gentlemen/good sportsman during the match, you seem like a nice guy". It's sad that such a thing sets off warning bells for me, but experiences have proven that douchebags often lead off with this insincere line.

Anyways, the judges come back, no problems with either deck, and we get going. Both of us are playing aggro variants of Jund, so the games are pretty fast-paced. My hunch of playing with an angle-shooter were confirmed when I decided to change the target of my lightning bolt mid-sentence, i.e. "gonna bolt your kird ape, I mean experiment one". His response - "sorry bro, gonna hold you to that first target", followed up by a judge call and my opponent asserting that he was given a chance to respond by some phantom pause on my part. Internally, I'm strangling this guy to death, but obviously I need to simply continue the game and play with the lawyering in mind.

I win game one, and despite all the previous BS, I have the game 2 board state essentially locked into a win. My opponent then looks at the clock, sees that there's over 25 minutes left of gametime, and proceeds to make the voluntary decision to angle shoot literally everything possible for the rest of the match.

"Can I count your graveyard? Maindeck? Cards in hand (this one about 15 times)?"

Asks judge "do those sleeves look like they have any kind of debris or damage on the back?"

Asks judge "can you check his sideboard to see if it's correct? I inform him that we literally just had a deck check before the match, and it's game 2 of a match where he's already confirmed the card count of my grave, maindeck, and hand. "Just to be sure, bro."

Steps aside with judge twice to ask "rulings questions".

Asks me to recount the order of the removal spells in my graveyard, as well as what targets I used them on. I told him in the politest way possible to **** off and play his turn.

After all of this, he checks his hand for the thousandth time, then tries the old "collect my cards together on the table and hope I scoop up my stuff as well". I watch him try this for literally 30 seconds before I ask him if he's conceding. He shrugs, puts his cards down then sticks his hand out and says "yeah you got this one man, good game".

Never been so glad to jam a match slip in someone's outstretched hand in my life. First time I've ever kept my board state completely intact until a judge could come over to verify the match slip.

Long story short - anything that discourages the angle-shooting behavior at high-REL events should be applauded. This is a card game, not a nuclear submarine.

---

So, did you get to bolt his experiment one?

__________________
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myy:
If you want to win with technicalities instead of beating face with your deck, then maybe play something else?

~Myy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myy:
If you want to win with technicalities instead of beating face with your deck, then maybe play something else?

~Myy

---

No, i think you missed a line, or misunderstood it.
"A game loss sucks and it's a bad penalty, a warning and some minor correction is just fine."

I mostly like the new SB rules, but the reason of 'accidents happen and you shouldn't be punished' is crap to me because they should change the penalty of such accidents. I added a suggestion to the end of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Story Time-

---

So, did you get to bolt his ooze?

If he counted your board after it was already deck-checked, and walked away several times to ask the judge questions and ask him to check out your sleeves, you should have been able to get a time extension.

I was playing T2 a couple months ago, some naya agrro-ish midrange-ish homebrew featuring Aurelia and Cloudshifts. Opponent has got a few creatures, including Thalia and some other 1-thoughness dudes.
"Aurelia's fury on..." paused to make sure i had the targets i want, hadn't pointed or said multiple targets or one target or otherwise. He sees i'm obviously going to kill creatures and just plays boros charm for them.
So i kind of go "...2 damage to you". He gets really upset and like "how can you do it to me, i already cast my spell"
"Well i didn't declare targets so you can't cast a spell, now i know you have it and since i already started it i'm just going to choose you."
So we were both wrong of course, and he was definitely mad at this point and kept saying whatever, let's move on.
So two turns later the judge walks by so he calls out to the judge, he comes, this douche asks "What does catslap mean?"
The judge asks what he means, and so he explains that i targeted two creatures (and he specifically shows the judge how i pointed with my pointer and pinky fingers like if were making some devil-horns hand sign, selecting two creatures on opposite sides of the middle one).
I tell the judge i couldn't even point like that with a card in my hand if i tried and i never declared any creatures by name. The judge says we have to rewind, since he wasn't there to see who did what and can't take sides on who's lying and even goes further to say now we know what each other has. I say it's way too late to call a judge now and if it were a problem he should have and what's done is done. I didn't like the results and i probably did all that wrong, but the opponent probably finally realized that it was still worse for me than him, so we left everything the way it was.
Next game he gets manascrewed and i just curve out nicely and the whole time he's slamming his cards and nearly yelling 'go' to end his turn. So it's 2-0 me and as he's shoving his cards back into his box he's asking me how many cards i have in my deck, and if he can count my sideboard. After he counts my board i say nice try and he just storms off to go talk crap about me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
So, did you get to bolt his experiment one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Not totally though. If one of your static abilities gets nuked in response to Explore, you don't get to play the land off Explore. It's beyond awful. Now quit firing me up over it!

---

Yes, situations that involve permanents AND spells granting extra
land drops are part of that "primarily affect permanents" group because they include a permanent.

Situations that involve ONLY spells granting extra drops are unchanged.