quote:

---

Originally posted by Pail42:
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.

I'm not trying to fire you up over it. I'm just answering questions.

---

I think he's mad because he can't play 5 land drops by bouncing his Asuza and replaying her now.

A certain player at our LGS often slow plays when it's clear he has no plays. I mean like he draws a card and just sits there. Doesn't say or do anything for what seems like minutes. How can you prove he is stalling or slow playing to a judge, w/o looking like a jerk?

~MM

__________________
Blah, blah, blah werewolf. Smackity-smack not a werewolf. Suspicious of this fruit loop.
My vote this round will be for Player X.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
I was wondering how to go about this:

A certain player at our LGS often slow plays when it's clear he has no plays. I mean like he draws a card and just sits there. Doesn't say or do anything for what seems like minutes. How can you prove he is stalling or slow playing to a judge, w/o looking like a jerk?

~MM

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
I was wondering how to go about this:

A certain player at our LGS often slow plays when it's clear he has no plays. I mean like he draws a card and just sits there. Doesn't say or do anything for what seems like minutes. How can you prove he is stalling or slow playing to a judge, w/o looking like a jerk?

~MM

---

1. The side board rules needed to be changed and I think this is an overall improvement. This rule change does simplify SBing quite a bit, but only during actual game play, not deck building. This rule seems like another, "we want you to play the deck you intended to." You should be able to side in cards against specific match-ups but not hurt your overall strategy. A good sideboard is key to the game, but it takes a while to realize this for a lot of players. Even when you do, it doesn't mean you're any good at it. For me this is just improvement all over. It's going to hurt the "rule lawyers" and make SBing an easier practice without really hurting the game in any way.

2. After taking a few minutes to seriously think about the land drop rules, I'm really surprised it doesn't already work like this. Cards like Asuza modify how many lands you play. The mechanic should check to see if you've played two additional lands already if you haven't you get to, if you have... you can't. I think the author of the article did a terrible job of explaining this. Whenever you play a card like Azusa or rights of flourishing they should be checking your land play count.
If you flicker a lord you're creatures don't keep the original benefits because you still only have one lord. You shouldn't be able to stack static benefits like this without having multiple sources.

3. The new legend rule is really annoying me. I'm over the fact that copy spells are being nerfed. My problem with this is in the flavor. Before anyone claims rules/gameplay trump flavor, hold your horses. I'm cool with two people being able to have the same legends that does make sense. What I don't like is being able to play multiples on your own side with little to no drawback. Being legendary has always been a drawback, being able to choose which legend you're keeping means being a legend or pw uniqueness just flies out the window as a penalty. You can't argue flavor doesn't matter when the ability itself is for flavor (A spell so powerful/a character that is named so you can only have one, if you try have two they both cease to exist). I think someone said it earlier, If you want cards to behave differently, make a new mechanic, not erase the old one.

4. Indestructible as a keyword, makes sense to me but could have been kept as not so. Do a better job of explaining what it is, don't just print a word and expect it to work. They've always printed indestructible like it was a keyword because it is just a word. But they also print keywords as just words... so yeah it's going to be confusing. I don't really have a problem with this change, I just think they addressed the wrong part of why this was confusing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mcelraca:
3. The new legend rule is really annoying me. I'm over the fact that copy spells are being nerfed. My problem with this is in the flavor.

---

But wouldn't the "most flavorful" version of the legend rule be the old old rule? One legend PERIOD, can't even play the second copy. And universally everyone agrees with that rule being the suck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
But wouldn't the "most flavorful" version of the legend rule be the old old rule? One legend PERIOD, can't even play the second copy. And universally everyone agrees with that rule being the suck.

The new part of the rule that allows controller to choose which legendary copy to destroy seems to be the worst part of the rule change. I said it so many times already, wish WOTC would just change that one part.

---

I agree with the second part of your post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mcelraca:
I agree with the second part of your post.

As for the first comment, I can't really say as I didn't play much whenever the original rule was in place. To me it makes sense in the game mechanics and in flavor to be able to cast a second legend, but they both cease to exist (fade away/explode/whatever death you envision) The original rule still works with flavor, but really gives the game itself some terrible interactions, so I get why they changed it.

---

The problem is that with planeswalkers, the "terrible interactions" is a valid reason for why they altered the rule. It's hardly a solid design perspective when you had "baby jace" just to blow up/pre-empt your opponent's "big jace" from running away with the game. You can argue that JTMS's power level made such deckbuilding a corner case, but we are already seeing the degenerative interaction of planeswalkers blowin' each other up in Modern Jund mirrors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
EDIT- I also cant stress enough that people are skimming over the part where the designer talks about how this rule change lets them do something new mechanically in theros block.

---

I'm guessing that's because it's a terrible reason for making a rules change. If they want to do something new mechanically, it makes much more sense to just make up a new type than to screw with an existing one to make it fit better.

__________________
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 nderdog:
I'm guessing that's because it's a terrible reason for making a rules change. If they want to do something new mechanically, it makes much more sense to just make up a new type than to screw with an existing one to make it fit better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I'm guessing that's because it's a terrible reason for making a rules change. If they want to do something new mechanically, it makes much more sense to just make up a new type than to screw with an existing one to make it fit better.

---

What I find odd is that I don't see you as a player competing in competitive events where this interaction will likely have the most impact. Legacy and modern are currently where you'll actually notice something different happening. In EDH blue also loses a bunch of removal for the general I suppose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mcelraca:
Whenever you play a card like Azusa or rights of flourishing they should be checking your land play count.
If you flicker a lord you're creatures don't keep the original benefits because you still only have one lord. You shouldn't be able to stack static benefits like this without having multiple sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
The problem is that with planeswalkers, the "terrible interactions" is a valid reason for why they altered the rule. It's hardly a solid design perspective when you had "baby jace" just to blow up/pre-empt your opponent's "big jace" from running away with the game. You can argue that JTMS's power level made such deckbuilding a corner case, but we are already seeing the degenerative interaction of planeswalkers blowin' each other up in Modern Jund mirrors.

---

Ok, so i mostly agree with this. I have always thought each player should get their own legend and clones shouldn't work that way (or at least said non-legendary, flavorwise legends are just too cool and 'powerful' for a common shapeshifter to accurately mimic believably right?), but what do you think about the choice of which legend you keep?
That is the big degeneration to me, it's just ok. It's corner-case NOW, but i'm thinking for a while people are going to play with this and it's going to be ridiculous. May or may not take off

__________________
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief, and other vampire females oddities (crimp miscut misprint sign testprint alters etc)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Myy wins the thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
You really do sound like you just want a reason to complain about the change. The legendary permanent issue is largely a non-factor, with the biggest impact coming to cradle, JTMS, LOTV, and mox Opal. Some minor interactions with Thrun, GOST, and V clique. Its really not that big of a deal.

---

I want to complain because it's a terrible change that I think should never have been made. I have never complained about a rules change before, other than perhaps a minor grumble about stuff like removing mana burn, so don't treat me like I just want to keep things like they were in the old days. It doesn't make sense flavor-wise, and getting to choose which one to get rid of is just plain stupid, and dumbs things down. No more getting hosed because I drew into another Cradle. No more worrying about which Planeswalker ability to use, I'll just use the - on this one, then immediately play a new one, get rid of the old one and use the +. EDH is the only place where I think the new rule has any value, and that would be easily addressed with a rule for that format specifically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
What I find odd is that I don't see you as a player competing in competitive events where this interaction will likely have the most impact. Legacy and modern are currently where you'll actually notice something different happening. In EDH blue also loses a bunch of removal for the general I suppose.

Is the largest complaint flavor? I mean, I think that was the thing least considered when this change took place. if you want to get all into storylines and what not, why not grab a good book or play D&D or something? I just feel like magic is more about the interaction between people while playing the game, this change makes things better (in theory since I haven't tested it) when people play.

---

So because I don't play in your area or at high-level competition, my opinion has no value? Good to know that I can't have a take on something because I'm not part of the cool-guy club. The change most certainly affects my in local play. I disagree with the "it increases interaction" theory, and pose that it decreases it. You have a Liliana? Oh well, I do too, so who cares? It allows more goldfishing and solo play, you don't have to worry about what Planewalkers your opponents have, or cloning an Avacyn to get rid of it. Mirror match? Oh well, I can play whatever I want without having to worry that my opponent will kill my Legends with his copy.

__________________
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.

__________________
"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 because I don't play in your area or at high-level competition, my opinion has no value? Good to know that I can't have a take on something because I'm not part of the cool-guy club.

---

I made no mention of "cool guy club" We don't talk about... dammit.

Yes, I feel your opinion means less when it comes to competitive play if you don't actually take part in competitive play.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I disagree with the "it increases interaction" theory, and pose that it decreases it. You have a Liliana? Oh well, I do too, so who cares?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "who cares?" It seems like you're avoiding the fact that we both now have cards that allow us to make decisions. The least interactive decks are those with nothing but counterspells/removal. The most interactive decks are those that win via a board presence. instead of neither of us having said Liliana, we both now have one and are forced to make decisions on which abilities to use based on my opponents board state. Without this rule change, you essentially would assess if you could kill their walker/legend that turn, if you couldn't you slam your own as a removal spell. I'm fairly certain planeswalkers are some of the most interactive cards printed, now this just opens that up to both players being allowed to interact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
It allows more goldfishing and solo play, you don't have to worry about what Planewalkers your opponents have, or cloning an Avacyn to get rid of it. Mirror match? Oh well, I can play whatever I want without having to worry that my opponent will kill my Legends with his copy.

---

I guess I'm slightly confused, if your opponent has a legend/walker and you have one in your hand, are you not casting yours as a removal spell? I'm not sure how placing creatures/walkers on the board is anything related to solo play/goldfishing as those creatures/walkers will then have to interact with your opponents board presence. Now you're forced to take more consideration into deck building if you want to have a way to defeat a walker/legend that you're running.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
I'm done arguing about it until we actually see it in action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
I guess I'm slightly confused, if your opponent has a legend/walker and you have one in your hand, are you not casting yours as a removal spell? I'm not sure how placing creatures/walkers on the board is anything related to solo play/goldfishing as those creatures/walkers will then have to interact with your opponents board presence. Now you're forced to take more consideration into deck building if you want to have a way to defeat a walker/legend that you're running.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
If you're into competitive play, I assume you have goldfished your deck once or twice just to see how things generally go (lots of mana screw/need mana fixing/bad curve/etc). Now with the new legend/planeswalker rule, there's less fuzziness on the potential usefulness of that Liliana in your hand. So yes, one would need to come up with better ideas for removal and such, but there's no question about whether your opponent will be reacting to the one you play or if you'll be using it as a removal spell on turn X.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Exactly, and if we define "dumbing down the game" as a rule that produces a narrower amount of decisions, I'm pretty sure this rule change is the exact opposite of "dumbing down the game", because "is this cast able or a removal spell" is one fork, whereas getting at least 2-3 turns to interact with the board is a ****ton of new decision tree branches

---

C'mon, we all know you aren't really stupid, so stop pretending to be. There's no rule that says that that if it can be a removal spell then it must be used that way. The branch with a ton of decisions is available under both sets of rules, but the old rules added the extra branch, so yes, there are, in fact, more decisions pre-rule change.

__________________
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 nderdog:
C'mon, we all know you aren't really stupid, so stop pretending to be. There's no rule that says that that if it can be a removal spell then it must be used that way. The branch with a ton of decisions is available under both sets of rules, but the old rules added the extra branch, so yes, there are, in fact, more decisions pre-rule change.

---

Disagreeing with you =! pretending to be stupid

The branch with a ton of decisions is available under both sets of rules, and is available in more situations than in the old set of rules, so yes, there are, in fact, more decisions pre-rule change.

Let's call the situations where you can cast your legend and have it stick "complex", and the ones where you can cast it and it doesn't (because of removal, whether that's a Doom Blade or a copy of the card under the old rules) we'll call "simple", because hey, if you're allowed to make heavily value-laden comments with inadequate foundation casually, I want to join in on the fun!

The number of "complex" scenarios have increased, and the number of "simple" scenarios have decreased. One extra possibility (as in, an extra possible source of removal) at the beginning of the decision chain pales in comparison to the amount of new decisions and effects generated by all the new scenarios you suddenly have access to, you know, use them. Let's say I have a multitool that can do all sorts of home repair work - screwing, hammering, measuring, cutting, etc., but 10% of the time randomly, or whenever someone has another multitool of the same model nearby, it doesn't work and can only be used as a hammer.

Now suppose the company has released a new update to the model where that defect of two of them cancelling out has been fixed. Now each time I use it I have a greater chance of putting it to a variety of uses. Naturally, I should immediately begin bitching about how this product update "dumbs down" the art of home repair.

This is like when damage was removed from the stack and people bitched about how it dumbed down mogg fanatic. Well, no, it actually made the card much more skill-testing because you could no longer choose "both" (the correct option 100% of the time) and players are now forced to evaluate whether it is more important to destroy the blocker or ping another creature.
The point is that removing user options at the front end often increases skill-testing and diversity of choices later down the line, rather than narrow them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Disagreeing with you =! pretending to be stupid

The branch with a ton of decisions is available under both sets of rules, and is available in more situations than in the old set of rules, so yes, there are, in fact, more decisions pre-rule change.

Let's call the situations where you can cast your legend and have it stick "complex", and the ones where you can cast it and it doesn't (because of removal, whether that's a Doom Blade or a copy of the card under the old rules) we'll call "simple", because hey, if you're allowed to make heavily value-laden comments with inadequate foundation casually, I want to join in on the fun!

The number of "complex" scenarios have increased, and the number of "simple" scenarios have decreased. One extra possibility (as in, an extra possible source of removal) at the beginning of the decision chain pales in comparison to the amount of new decisions and effects generated by all the new scenarios you suddenly have access to, you know, use them. Let's say I have a multitool that can do all sorts of home repair work - screwing, hammering, measuring, cutting, etc., but 10% of the time randomly, or whenever someone has another multitool of the same model nearby, it doesn't work and can only be used as a hammer.

Now suppose the company has released a new update to the model where that defect of two of them cancelling out has been fixed. Now each time I use it I have a greater chance of putting it to a variety of uses. Naturally, I should immediately begin bitching about how this product update "dumbs down" the art of home repair.

This is like when damage was removed from the stack and people bitched about how it dumbed down mogg fanatic. Well, no, it actually made the card much more skill-testing because you could no longer choose "both" (the correct option 100% of the time) and players are now forced to evaluate whether it is more important to destroy the blocker or ping another creature.
The point is that removing user options at the front end often increases skill-testing and diversity of choices later down the line, rather than narrow them.

---

No, but being smart enough to know better and yet still making an argument based on false logic does. I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who keeps making things up to try and prove their point when they know it's nothing but misleading and intellectually dishonest.

It's obvious to anyone not trying to prove an invalid argument that the number of complex scenarios doesn't change in the least. You're trying to pretend that if I have a legend or planeswalker and the opponent already has that same legend or planeswalker in play that the only possibility to get rid of their card under the old rules is to play my own. That's just plain silly.

__________________
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.