http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/248e

Thumbs Down

Jitte mirrors? Tap my cradle, draw a bunch of cards, play an untapped cradle? 2 players with JTMS on the field? This is dumb.

__________________
"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

"OMG WOTC SUUUUCKS" times forever, basically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
-1

Thumbs Down

Jitte mirrors? Tap my cradle, draw a bunch of cards, play an untapped cradle?

---

Doesn't this make Jitte wars less horrible? If you played the second Jitte it was bad, now being second isn't so bad. Same with PW's. It really sucks when someone goes first, plays turn 4 Jace does Fact of Fiction. Now when you go 2nd and play your turn 4 Jace, it's not so bad.

Controlling two of the same legend is still state-based so you can't tap 2 Cradles?

I prefer the older rules, but I like that clones don't absolutely demolish generals anymore in EDH. I also don't have to worry about slow-rolling my lands in EDH just so they don't get Legend-ruled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:

Controlling two of the same legend is still state-based so you can't tap 2 Cradles?

---

You choose which one to destroy, you don't lose both.

So Tap one, play second, destroy taped one, rinse repeat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Crovax:
You choose which one to destroy, you don't lose both.

So Tap one, play second, destroy taped one, rinse repeat.

---

Okay, misread. Thanks for clarification.

When I saw "state-based," I auto assumed that the new one would get killed off just like the old rule.

I thought the new rule would just affect the copy that your opponent would get. And that the "old uniqueness rules" still applied to each individual player.

It actually makes Jace v Jace matchups more interesting in the end because if you play the 2nd jace you don't just get the value of paying 2UU kill jace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGO:
This game is starting to look more and more like patty cake. God forbid someone gets hurt feelings from losing due to legendary rule.

---

The only positive I have found so far is that there is less for individual players to track in multiplayer games thanks to this rule. You no longer have to worry about who else has a Jace or Garruk out, for example.

I like the keywording of indestructible. Other than that, I can take or leave the new rules. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nylarotep:
If they wanted to change it, I think it should've been that the newer copy always kills the older copy. More in line from a flavor perspective of "there can only be one".

---

Flavor wise that would be better, but game wise, people would be mad

__________________
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 Bruised:
Eh rule makes sense, blue was never supposed to have blue hero's demise that can hit shroud/hexproof. However since I amw a magic player prone to overreaction this will undoubtedly be the death knell of magic and we should all pack up our cards, quit, and go home.

---

It really doesn't make any sense, except in the "let's not make the little kiddies cry when they drop a huge fattie legend and have it nuked by a Clone" kind of way. That's the whole fricking point of Legendary creatures, that they can be more powerful, but they have a drawback of being a little more fragile. The only possible place it makes real sense in EDH, and it seems like a rule for EDH specifically would have been far better.

This rule seems targeted at the group of people that play at my shop, and those are the ones that have driven me from the game because they aren't remotely any fun to play with.

__________________
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:
Yeah, the new Legendary/Planeswalker rules just might be the change that tips me from taking a few months off to permanently being a collector only. Dumbing down the game doesn't do anyone any favors.

---

Don't lose heart. If the rule is really as horrible as the "choosing which Legendary copy dies" clause makes it out to be, they can just change that clause.

Taking out complexity doesn't mean the game is going to ****. It can actually make it better. imo, "damage on the stack" leaving has been great.

Can you imagine how horrible magic would have been with damage on the stack and Restoration Angel?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
It really doesn't make any sense, except in the "let's not make the little kiddies cry when they drop a huge fattie legend and have it nuked by a Clone" kind of way. That's the whole fricking point of Legendary creatures, that they can be more powerful, but they have a drawback of being a little more fragile. The only possible place it makes real sense in EDH, and it seems like a rule for EDH specifically would have been far better.

This rule seems targeted at the group of people that play at my shop, and those are the ones that have driven me from the game because they aren't remotely any fun to play with.

---

Well, how exactly can WOTC placate the adult cry-babies who constantly complain about losing to mana-screw, mana-flood, going second, etc.? There's always going to be people crying about something (eg, Modern Masters). I honestly don't think WOTC dumbs/changes the game for reason other than to make it better. This rule included even though the old rule was fine.

At least now you don't get hosed planeswalker-wise when on the draw.

I understand your frustration with certain player demographics though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
Don't lose heart. If the rule is really as horrible as the "choosing which Legendary copy dies" clause makes it out to be, they can just change that clause.

Taking out complexity doesn't mean the game is going to ****. It can actually make it better. imo, "damage on the stack" leaving has been great.

Can you imagine how horrible magic would have been with damage on the stack and Restoration Angel?

---

I loved that change. I had no problems with it at all. Rules changes can definitely make things better, I just disagree that this particular one does anything positive for the game.

__________________
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 Bruised:
Eh rule makes sense, blue was never supposed to have blue hero's demise that can hit shroud/hexproof.

---

Was it supposed to have two Jace activations in a single turn?

I'm not at all happy with the update to the Legend rule, for many reasons already mentioned:

*What's still legendary about these permanents? Are there really two identical Progenituses in the MTG world? Two Teferis? Identity of indiscernibles, damn it!

*Getting twice the mileage out of my own legends strikes me as potentially quite powerful and generally unfun (e.g. two Jace activations, two Cradle activations (Cradle is actually much better now, since you actually want to run multiples), etc.).

*I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of Progenitus vs. Progenitus races (or Emrakul vs. Emrakul, or whatever). Previously, the legend rule helped to equalize things. Now, for similar/mirror matches, it's even more of a race than before.

I also don't like the SB changes. I'm ok with the "up to 15" change, which doesn't seem problematic (although I don't see why you'd ever start with fewer than 15 cards in the SB), but I'm really unhappy about the fact that SBing is no longer done on a one-to-one basis. That's a pretty fundamental change, and I just don't see any reason for it.

As for indestructible/unblockable... they should just demote most of the keywords they introduced a couple years ago. They're unnecessary, and having cards with keywords that aren't keywords is just confusing.

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

RIP Ari

Legendary versions of Revised Duals may be coming as a result.

That would be good, I think. But I'd prefer not to have the Legend rule changed; almost all the cards that get better make things less fun for everyone.

__________________
"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 Goaswerfraiejen:
Was it supposed to have two Jace activations in a single turn?

I'm not at all happy with the update to the Legend rule, for many reasons already mentioned:

*What's still legendary about these permanents? Are there really two identical Progenituses in the MTG world? Two Teferis? Identity of indiscernibles, damn it!

*Getting twice the mileage out of my own legends strikes me as potentially quite powerful and generally unfun (e.g. two Jace activations, two Cradle activations (Cradle is actually much better now, since you actually want to run multiples), etc.).

*I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of Progenitus vs. Progenitus races (or Emrakul vs. Emrakul, or whatever). Previously, the legend rule helped to equalize things. Now, for similar/mirror matches, it's even more of a race than before.

I also don't like the SB changes. I'm ok with the "up to 15" change, which doesn't seem problematic (although I don't see why you'd ever start with fewer than 15 cards in the SB), but I'm really unhappy about the fact that SBing is no longer done on a one-to-one basis. That's a pretty fundamental change, and I just don't see any reason for it.

As for indestructible/unblockable... they should just demote most of the keywords they introduced a couple years ago. They're unnecessary, and having cards with keywords that aren't keywords is just confusing.

---

The sideboard change doesn't bother me and will hopefully result in fewer problems for tournaments.

The lands thing has never come up for me and I prefer the simpler approach.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
I'd prefer not to have the Legend rule changed; almost all the cards that get better make things less fun for everyone.

---

quote:

---

I hope that you trust that these changes will make the game more fun as a whole, and that we will use the additional design space in good ways to make more fun and interesting cards, which will lead to better games of Magic. I look forward to Theros and beyond, and to revealing some of the interesting things this change has allowed us to do.

---