quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
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.

---

1) you are waaaaaay too emotional about this still, to conclude that anyone who is disagreeing with you is being deliberately underhanded. Consider checking your blood pressure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:

It's obvious to anyone not trying to prove an invalid argument that the number of complex scenarios doesn't change in the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
1) you are waaaaaay too emotional about this still, to conclude that anyone who is disagreeing with you is being deliberately underhanded. Consider checking your blood pressure.

2) It's pretty clear you're not understanding what I'm expressing, so I give up. Enjoy your pointless ****fit.

---

I understand it, I just don't buy it. Take your example and replace legend/planeswalker with kill spell. Are you saying that Dreadbore dumbs down the game because it makes the thing not work properly? Of course not, it's all part of the game. More options is always better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Devonin:

So how is it dumbing things down then, exactly, if it isn't decreasing complexity?

---

You missed the part of the discussion where we were saying that both ways have the same number of "complex" options, but the old rules had "simple" options as well that the new rules don't. Less options = dumbing down.

__________________
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 Devonin:
Except that the simple interaction of "This spell becomes a highly limited copy of Vindicate, or else is a dead card in my hand" is replaced by every single interaction you can have while your copy of the legend/PW is on the field with theirs, and that is a much larger possibility space.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
As nderdog pointed out, playing the second legend was not the only way to kill one in the current rules. Why does everyone assume it's a dead card like you've never played magic before today? A good example of a dead card is having oxidize in hand and learning after game 3 that your opponent never had an artifact.

---

If you have a Legend/PW in hand, and there is one in play, you have two things to think about

1/ Do I have a way to get rid of theirs in a timely manner sufficient to play mine to good effect?

2/ If not, do I want to spend the mana to convert my copy into a kill spell?

That's a pretty small possibility space compared to the possibility space surrounding yours being able to coexist and impact the board state in ways besides "Is Vindicate" with their copy.

The only reduction argument about this rule that actually works at all is that it reduces the versatility of Legends and Planeswalkers because they can't do double duty as a card and a kill spell anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Devonin:
If you have a Legend/PW in hand, and there is one in play, you have two things to think about

1/ Do I have a way to get rid of theirs in a timely manner sufficient to play mine to good effect?

2/ If not, do I want to spend the mana to convert my copy into a kill spell?

That's a pretty small possibility space compared to the possibility space surrounding yours being able to coexist and impact the board state in ways besides "Is Vindicate" with their copy.

The only reduction argument about this rule that actually works at all is that it reduces the versatility of Legends and Planeswalkers because they can't do double duty as a card and a kill spell anymore.

I feel that reduction is completely and utterly made up for by the increase in complexity that comes from you being able to strategize around using multiple copies of a legend/PW in your own strategy, and the increase in complexity that the board state gains by having multiple copies of some of these permanents on the battlefield.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
I don't understand people who have less than 0 interest in the story behind the game but to each their own.

---

I don't believe them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
More options is always better.You missed the part of the discussion where we were saying that both ways have the same number of "complex" options, but the old rules had "simple" options as well that the new rules don't. Less options = dumbing down.

---

I don't really grasp your argument where 2 JTMS's on the field is somehow a less complex board state. The fateseal/brainstorm possibilities alone result in more "lines of play" than the current rules, not to mention the thousands of scenarios where dropping your JTMS to unsummon an opposing creature and then kill the opponent's JTMS through combat is viable...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myy:
I don't believe them.

They love the fantasy lore, why else would they play Magic the Gathering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
I think the everyone can have their own legend thing is pretty cool...but the "choose which one you want to live when you play a second is stuuuuuupid".

---

I haven't been around for much of these discussions so I'll simply add that this is the part of the changes that I have the biggest issue with.

I'm perfectly fine with you playing a Liliana, making me sacrifice a guy, then next turn not wanting to tick her up, playing a second copy to edict me again. Your board state is the same as before, only now you've used up a second copy of your own Planeswalker as a 3 mana edict. There's a reason people play Liliana over Diabolic Edict. They're some of the most versatile cards in the game.

And while I don't think these changes necessarily do, and only to play devil's advocate, what is so wrong about dumbing down the game? Allowing me to play with the cards I have is never a bad option.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CubFan81:
I haven't been around for much of these discussions so I'll simply add that this is the part of the changes that I have the biggest issue with.

I'm perfectly fine with you playing a Liliana, making me sacrifice a guy, then next turn not wanting to tick her up, playing a second copy to edict me again. Your board state is the same as before, only now you've used up a second copy of your own Planeswalker as a 3 mana edict. There's a reason people play Liliana over Diabolic Edict. They're some of the most versatile cards in the game.

And while I don't think these changes necessarily do, and only to play devil's advocate, what is so wrong about dumbing down the game? Allowing me to play with the cards I have is never a bad option.

The only change I would make to the rule is that if there are two legends/planeswalkers with the same name/identity controlled by a single player then both are gone.

---

And now we have a better lotus petal, potentially a more stupid version of tolarian academy...

I know WOTC has been dumbing the game down, they've expressed that. They've also grown their player base which is great. I'm certainly not quiting the game over this. Just stupid to see cards like Cradle that were totally fair get busted over this rules change. Couldn't we have started with the each player can have their own legend...and then moved on to the if you have two, you sacrifice one. Seems like a lot of change that could have been separated first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
And now we have a better lotus petal, potentially a more stupid version of tolarian academy...

I know WOTC has been dumbing the game down, they've expressed that. They've also grown their player base which is great. I'm certainly not quiting the game over this. Just stupid to see cards like Cradle that were totally fair get busted over this rules change. Couldn't we have started with the each player can have their own legend...and then moved on to the if you have two, you sacrifice one. Seems like a lot of change that could have been separated first.

---

Sigh... this is exactly why theorycrafting before the rules go into effect is a poor decision.

First off, metalcraft is still on Mox Opal, so good luck convincing the decks that run lotus petal to even bother looking at a replacement/upgrade. Affinity doesn't really make very good use of the extra mana, and ravager already provided a way to "recycle" extra opals for value. There's a possiblity that Erayo Affinity gets a tiny boost from the rule change, but that's not really a bad thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Honestly, I'm skeptical of that. How many times is that second Cradle going to allow you to win where you otherwise wouldn't?

---

The flavor of magic, particularly the Weatherlight Saga, is what kept me into the game for so long - I took a haitus after Apocalypse to only come back when Ravnica original came out.

The concept of being a legendary creature (or planeswalker for that matter, i.e. Karn) is that you are one of a kind, and paramount to the storyline of the set/block (i.e. Greven, Crovax, etc.).

In a dual facing two planeswalkers, thus, three things can happen in the face of playing a legendary creature:

1. Player X casts his Legend. Player Y casts same Legend next turn. They see each other and some weird time continuum crap kills them both (old rule).

2. Player X casts his Legend. Player Y casts same Legend next turn. Both see each other and say 'Meh, I'm gonna kill my evil twin' (new rule).

3. Player X casts his Legend. Player Y casts same Legend next turn. New Legend beats old Legend, or vice versa.

Personally, flavor wise, I think scenario 1 makes the most sense.

The new way, where each player is separate, just doesn't make sense flavor wise to me.

Obviously scenario 3 is OP - killing opponents legend while getting your own doesn't seem fair. Would drastically stall many mirror matches.

4* - I understand that this is looking at opposing players, so I'll entertain the whole play a legend, same player plays a legend again - This makes sense as well, but I think it should ALWAYS be the new one kills the old one. Makes more sense (but I would think that that would be the correct play 95% of the time, whether the old Legend got enchanted, or is tapped and you want it untapped [new one] - only scenario where I feel you WOULDN'T want to keep the new one is if you are just going for an ETB effect.

TL;DR - New rule seems weird, each dueling planeswalker having their own Legend. Old rule seemed more in line flavorwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Sigh... this is exactly why theorycrafting before the rules go into effect is a poor decision.

First off, metalcraft is still on Mox Opal, so good luck convincing the decks that run lotus petal to even bother looking at a replacement/upgrade. Affinity doesn't really make very good use of the extra mana, and ravager already provided a way to "recycle" extra opals for value. There's a possiblity that Erayo Affinity gets a tiny boost from the rule change, but that's not really a bad thing.

Second, the "cradle is OP" argument is so silly. You don't beat elves by somehow preventing cradle from activating - you beat elves with removal, activated ability hate, or a degenerative board state. That's how you beat elves currently, and that's not going to change after the rules are altered. Using hyperbole to strengthen your argument doesn't help your cause.

---

Well if the argument against running 4 cradles was "it's not fantastic because it's legendary", why wouldn't you run 4 now? I'm sure a lot of the time you get a second cradle activation you can easily still win without it, but now it's not a dead card to draw into provided you haven't land dropped. I wasn't using hyperbole, I was using cards that were already competitive and certainly didn't need much of a boost. In a deck that is pure artifacts essentially, opal is going to be a petal that is reusable, and multiple opals are going to be petals where the last one sticks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
Well if the argument against running 4 cradles was "it's not fantastic because it's legendary", why wouldn't you run 4 now? I'm sure a lot of the time you get a second cradle activation you can easily still win without it, but now it's not a dead card to draw into provided you haven't land dropped. I wasn't using hyperbole, I was using cards that were already competitive and certainly didn't need much of a boost. In a deck that is pure artifacts essentially, opal is going to be a petal that is reusable, and multiple opals are going to be petals where the last one sticks.

This certainly won't warp the format in either case, but nonetheless it seems like there is a lot going on, that could have been spread out over several rules updates.

---

1. The decks running petal aren't "all artifact" decks, they are combo decks, usually storm, charbelcher, or some variant. That's why opal is completely divergent from petal in terms of deck archetypes, so there's no real impact there aside from the decks that ALREADY run opals.

2. Running 4 cradles in elfball is already unnecessary when crop rotation exists. Yes, this makes 3 cradles likely the ideal number in the elfball decks (up from 2), but that's not exactly a gamebreaking change, nor will it significantly change the win-rate of elfball. Like I said, you beat elfball through other means than shutting down cradle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
1. The decks running petal aren't "all artifact" decks, they are combo decks, usually storm, charbelcher, or some variant. That's why opal is completely divergent from petal in terms of deck archetypes, so there's no real impact there aside from the decks that ALREADY run opals.

2. Running 4 cradles in elfball is already unnecessary when crop rotation exists. Yes, this makes 3 cradles likely the ideal number in the elfball decks (up from 2), but that's not exactly a gamebreaking change, nor will it significantly change the win-rate of elfball. Like I said, you beat elfball through other means than shutting down cradle.

At most, this change affects mirror matches only, with very slight variations in terms of deckbuilding.

---

I think the question might be how many artifacts do you have to run to make it worth running 4 Mox opals as lotus petal 5-8

If your only artifacts are 4 LED, 4 Petal, probably not. but if you are running 4 LED, 4 Petal, 4 Chrome mox, 4 Mox opal then maybe its worth it.

I do agree that Ad Nasuem Storm can easily play 4x of them and be quite happy.

And now the sky has fallen.