-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Magic: the GAFering |OT2|
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
divisionbyzorro
Member
Meh. If you have Thalia in your deck, you're not playing many non-creature spells anyway. A Thalia mirror isn't suddenly going to get out of control.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Following the Kirblar rule, we should have seen this coming. Maro talked about how he didn't like Legends in one of his recent podcasts, since making something Legendary was strictly a downside in terms of gameplay mechanics, despite how Legendary creatures are supposed to be more awesome in terms of flavor. That guy really does give away when things are about to change.
I don't think that two of the same permanent on either side of the board will ruin the game. It may change the pace of games, but I don't think it makes the games worse.
This is for sure my biggest concern. Drawing a second planeswalker now lets you take a second action with that walker on that turn.
I don't think that two of the same permanent on either side of the board will ruin the game. It may change the pace of games, but I don't think it makes the games worse.
This is for sure my biggest concern. Drawing a second planeswalker now lets you take a second action with that walker on that turn.
This rule is actually good in theory, but the details are going to be problematic. I really want the option to time-cop my opponent's stuff.
*Stokes Chin*
The old rule was a good safety value on some powerful legendary permanents and Planewalkers and helped prevented double dipping on PW abilities. I'm curious & concerned about how this will play in practice. I'm also curious as to how this will influence design + development. Are we going to see a nerfing of legends and PWs because this safety value is gone?
Also with the timing of the change, I agree that Theros is probably Legend heavy. Time fore Grandeur to come back?
The old rule was a good safety value on some powerful legendary permanents and Planewalkers and helped prevented double dipping on PW abilities. I'm curious & concerned about how this will play in practice. I'm also curious as to how this will influence design + development. Are we going to see a nerfing of legends and PWs because this safety value is gone?
Also with the timing of the change, I agree that Theros is probably Legend heavy. Time fore Grandeur to come back?
Black Sun's Zenith but I'm stretching here. WTF
I HATE how this interacts with Hexproof legends- hopefully we don't see any more of them for a while after Geist rotates. I think the Planeswalker rule is overdue- over the last 2 years they have lowered the overall power level of planeswalkers, so I don't think Standard will be affected that much.
Old school Wrath effects (ie, pre-zendikar) all prevent regeneration.
Old school Wrath effects (ie, pre-zendikar) all prevent regeneration.
Is this what leads to the death of Jace in legacy?
It leads to the death of speculation of JTMS getting unbanned in modern, for sure.
I'm pretty sure WOTC doesn't care enough about Legacy at this point to see how it affects it.
divisionbyzorro
Member
I think this is also meant to increase the design space for 2CMC planeswalkers.
As it stands now, they have to account for the fact that a 2CMC Jace functions as 2CMC Sorcery, Destroy Target Jace. This takes that away. Which I think is actually a positive.
Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I like the fact that you can't "legend" your opponent's planeswalkers. It makes games less about racing to slam the planeswalker first. In the Jace mirror match, you can't just cast Jace, fight over the Jace, and feel good about being tapped out yet sticking the Jace. In the current rules, if your opponent responds with Jace, he's still incredibly far behind. You get to untap with your opponent tapped out, and you got a Jace activation out of the deal. But now you'll untap at parity.
I don't like being able to rebuy a planeswalker by casting it again though. Time will tell if that's too good.
As it stands now, they have to account for the fact that a 2CMC Jace functions as 2CMC Sorcery, Destroy Target Jace. This takes that away. Which I think is actually a positive.
Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I like the fact that you can't "legend" your opponent's planeswalkers. It makes games less about racing to slam the planeswalker first. In the Jace mirror match, you can't just cast Jace, fight over the Jace, and feel good about being tapped out yet sticking the Jace. In the current rules, if your opponent responds with Jace, he's still incredibly far behind. You get to untap with your opponent tapped out, and you got a Jace activation out of the deal. But now you'll untap at parity.
I don't like being able to rebuy a planeswalker by casting it again though. Time will tell if that's too good.
Keru_Shiri
Member
I'm actually okay with the changes they've made, including the sideboard one. It never made sense why a sideboard had to be 15 or 0, especially when you could just put in filler cards. All it did was potentially hurt/disqualify someone who might have misplaced a card on their way to the tournament, which is enough of a drawback, imo.
divisionbyzorro
Member
The sideboard rule change is very good, IMO. Getting a game loss for siding into a 61 card deck by mistake was dumb in the first place; all the mistake did was make your deck worse.
EDIT: Oh you know what card just got a lot better? Mox Opal.
As did Gaea's Cradle. Being able to choose which legend you sacrifice is broken.
divisionbyzorro
Member
They jumped from $25 to $32 on MODO since the announcement.
I don't think they get broken in half, but there is now very little reason to run any less than four in a deck that would have run at least one in the first place. This will likely increase demand, and thus price.
I don't think they get broken in half, but there is now very little reason to run any less than four in a deck that would have run at least one in the first place. This will likely increase demand, and thus price.
ThLunarian
Member
Hmm wow that's a good point. Additional copies that you draw can always just act as Lotus Petals at worst. Interesting interaction here.
In other news, Mirror Gallery's stock plummets; Brothers' Yamikaze's fate as yet undetermined.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm torn. On the one hand, I think the Legend rule change is really dumb from a flavor perspective. On the other hand I honestly can't remember when having a copy of a legend someone else had out was relevant. It may be more of an issue in non-casual constructed formats though.
I know it's a lot less important than the legend rules change, but I find the new 'land plays' rule incredibly confusing and counter-intuitive, and at the same time it also hugely reduces the level of choice and interaction with effects that allow you to play extra lands.
I'm sure I'll get used to it, and its probably better for a beginner, but I will miss the old interactions between cards that let you play extra lands.
I'm sure I'll get used to it, and its probably better for a beginner, but I will miss the old interactions between cards that let you play extra lands.
divisionbyzorro
Member
To be honest, I always thought it was dumb that a clone would cause both itself and the legend to blow up. This change to me exchanges one silly flavor fail for another.
I want the rule back, but as an option on the resolution of cast spells. Bypasses both the strip mine problem and the Clone problem.
What's the new land plays rule?
It works much more like how you think it should, lol. If your # of lands played is less than your current "max possible land drops" for the turn, you can play more lands! If it's not? You can't!
Blinking an Oracle doesn't get you a third land drop now.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Yeah, unless you were knowingly abusing extra land drop effects, you won't even notice the rules change.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Haha! Show and Tell mirrors are straight up ridiculous now. Whoever casts the Show and Tell first loses - lol.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Hah. And doable without actually casting any spells.
Ah, never knew about that.
Also, I don't see what's the problem with Show and Tell? There's no difference with whoever plays their legend card first, no?
It's a big difference in who gets to attack first.
If you blind SnT then Emrakul is by far the safer choice since if they drop an Emrakul you're still protected by legend rule. Now they'll get to swing first and wipe out yours. Unquestionably makes the card and deck worse. Even a Vialed Image can wreck the SnT player.
On the plus side maybe it'll knock down the talk of a ban.
Inflammable Slinky
Member
Heh, I don't know, an uncounterable, unstifleable 20/20 on turn 2 seems preeeetttty good.
Crop Rotation + Life from the Loam + Living Wish = the new sneak and show hotness?
New Legend rule was inevitable. I didn't think it'd come this soon though -- Theros must be a legendary block.
The old one was pretty feel-bad and a bit of a slap in the face to Vorthos, but, if you all remember, it was absolutely necessary to prevent situations in tournaments where players raced to get out a legendary creature.
I guess Wizards feels we have a diverse enough array of answers that this isn't relevant anymore, but you can also tell that powerhouses like Geist and Sigarda were printed as Legendary as weakenesses to clone.
.... which, I must add, is one of the most intellectually dissatisfying things ever.
D: Sup! I'm a legendary dragon. Rawr.
C: I'm very clearly a clone. I'm also you.
D: Holy shit, my brain cannot comprehend this. I am dead now.
C: So am I, apparently!
is a lot less intuitive than
D: Sup! I'm a legendary dragon.
C: I'm also a legendary dragon. I'm a clone of you.
D: Rrerr.
C: Also rrerr.
I really don't think Niv-Mizzet is going to commit suicide because he sees himself on the other side of the field. Any Vorthoses dissatisfied by this change are too attached to their own headcanon on how the previous rule worked -- this change is for them.
(It's baffling how many self-proclaimed Vorthoses on MTGS and Reddit are against it.)
As a Vorthos, I love the change... as a spike, I hate it.
The old one was pretty feel-bad and a bit of a slap in the face to Vorthos, but, if you all remember, it was absolutely necessary to prevent situations in tournaments where players raced to get out a legendary creature.
I guess Wizards feels we have a diverse enough array of answers that this isn't relevant anymore, but you can also tell that powerhouses like Geist and Sigarda were printed as Legendary as weakenesses to clone.
.... which, I must add, is one of the most intellectually dissatisfying things ever.
D: Sup! I'm a legendary dragon. Rawr.
C: I'm very clearly a clone. I'm also you.
D: Holy shit, my brain cannot comprehend this. I am dead now.
C: So am I, apparently!
is a lot less intuitive than
D: Sup! I'm a legendary dragon.
C: I'm also a legendary dragon. I'm a clone of you.
D: Rrerr.
C: Also rrerr.
I really don't think Niv-Mizzet is going to commit suicide because he sees himself on the other side of the field. Any Vorthoses dissatisfied by this change are too attached to their own headcanon on how the previous rule worked -- this change is for them.
(It's baffling how many self-proclaimed Vorthoses on MTGS and Reddit are against it.)
As a Vorthos, I love the change... as a spike, I hate it.
I always thought the players were able to summon legendary creatures from different times - for example, I can choose to play Mikaeus both alive and posthumously, or Nicol Bolas both pre-spark and post-spark. Even both at the same time. Without this ability, you wouldn't be able to use characters who are dead in the story, like Venser or Momir Vig.
So the new rule doesn't seem that out of place flavourwise - if you control Emrakul, then I can still summon the Emrakul that was around a few days before yours.
Not being able to summon the same character twice to your own side doesn't fit with this, but that's required for balance (and sometimes mechanical) reasons. Plus it would remove the only difference between legends and normal permanents.
So the new rule doesn't seem that out of place flavourwise - if you control Emrakul, then I can still summon the Emrakul that was around a few days before yours.
Not being able to summon the same character twice to your own side doesn't fit with this, but that's required for balance (and sometimes mechanical) reasons. Plus it would remove the only difference between legends and normal permanents.
I was a bit surprised when I saw that in the update, since I never realized it worked that way. I had always played like the rules now are, rather than how they apparently were, now I'm sad I never built some edh deck to abuse it.
I'm a little confused on what this would do. Does it just not have the counters on it when you copy it?
divisionbyzorro
Member
I've been thinking a lot about this all afternoon/evening (being in Australia, the news hit right at lunchtime at work for me).
On the positive side: I think it's a net positive for the game to reduce some of the odd interactions between legendaries and Pacifism-style effects. The fact that Pacifism effects double as Meddling Mage effects against legendaries isn't something I believe was intended. And it's certainly a corner case, but preventing feel-bad blowouts with blinking Journey to Nowhere effects is a positive as well, in my opinion.
I also like that this means that drawing multiple legendary creatures isn't as bad of a thing. You still don't get to have two of them, but if something happens to the one on the battlefield (say it gets a bunch of -1/-1 counters on it), your additional draw can act as a re-buy. I feel like it makes flavor sense, and prevents a lot of feel-bad moments. Which I think is overall good for the game.
What I don't like is the interaction with your opponent's board. I don't like that multiple of these creatures can exist on the battlefield at any given time. Taking that drawback away from Legendary creatures isn't necessarily a bad thing in a vacuum, but so many overpowered creatures have been printed with the justification being that "they're legendary" that I would be very afraid of doing this.
Regarding Planeswalkers: I really, really like the effect that this rule has on my interactions with my opponent. I'm no longer punished for choosing to play the more expensive version of a planeswalker. I'm no longer punished for losing the die roll. Under the old rules, if my opponent got the walker off first, even if I removed it with mine, he still got an activation out of it. Planeswalkers don't have summoning sickness; games that involve a race to get out the first walker are not fun.
I also think (and I mentioned this earlier) that this opens up design space for 2CMC planeswalkers. Imagine if they printed a 2CMC Jace right now. He could have no abilities on him, and he would still be a "2CMC Sorcery - Destroy target Jace" and "2CMC Enchantment - Your opponents can't cast Jace." He's already playable without any abilities. This means that you can't make his abilities very good. But by changing this rule, you're free to make 2CMC Jace a good card without worrying about the other stuff that comes with him.
But what I hate about the new rules is getting to buy extra planeswalker activations by spending a card. I can just imagine a Modern Jund deck playing a T2 'Goyf, T3 Liliana (edict), T4 +1 Lili, cast another Lili, +1 again. Or a Modern Tron deck freely exiling your best thing before resetting Karn and taking something else. Maybe that won't prove to be too overpowered, but I feel like it's going to create some incredible blowout states.
TLR; I think the rule improves creature interaction on your side, but makes the interaction between you and your opponents worse with regards to creatures. And I have basically the opposite opinion with regards to planeswalkers: I think it makes the inter-player interactions better, but buying extra actions on a turn seems dangerous.
On the positive side: I think it's a net positive for the game to reduce some of the odd interactions between legendaries and Pacifism-style effects. The fact that Pacifism effects double as Meddling Mage effects against legendaries isn't something I believe was intended. And it's certainly a corner case, but preventing feel-bad blowouts with blinking Journey to Nowhere effects is a positive as well, in my opinion.
I also like that this means that drawing multiple legendary creatures isn't as bad of a thing. You still don't get to have two of them, but if something happens to the one on the battlefield (say it gets a bunch of -1/-1 counters on it), your additional draw can act as a re-buy. I feel like it makes flavor sense, and prevents a lot of feel-bad moments. Which I think is overall good for the game.
What I don't like is the interaction with your opponent's board. I don't like that multiple of these creatures can exist on the battlefield at any given time. Taking that drawback away from Legendary creatures isn't necessarily a bad thing in a vacuum, but so many overpowered creatures have been printed with the justification being that "they're legendary" that I would be very afraid of doing this.
Regarding Planeswalkers: I really, really like the effect that this rule has on my interactions with my opponent. I'm no longer punished for choosing to play the more expensive version of a planeswalker. I'm no longer punished for losing the die roll. Under the old rules, if my opponent got the walker off first, even if I removed it with mine, he still got an activation out of it. Planeswalkers don't have summoning sickness; games that involve a race to get out the first walker are not fun.
I also think (and I mentioned this earlier) that this opens up design space for 2CMC planeswalkers. Imagine if they printed a 2CMC Jace right now. He could have no abilities on him, and he would still be a "2CMC Sorcery - Destroy target Jace" and "2CMC Enchantment - Your opponents can't cast Jace." He's already playable without any abilities. This means that you can't make his abilities very good. But by changing this rule, you're free to make 2CMC Jace a good card without worrying about the other stuff that comes with him.
But what I hate about the new rules is getting to buy extra planeswalker activations by spending a card. I can just imagine a Modern Jund deck playing a T2 'Goyf, T3 Liliana (edict), T4 +1 Lili, cast another Lili, +1 again. Or a Modern Tron deck freely exiling your best thing before resetting Karn and taking something else. Maybe that won't prove to be too overpowered, but I feel like it's going to create some incredible blowout states.
TL
R; I think the rule improves creature interaction on your side, but makes the interaction between you and your opponents worse with regards to creatures. And I have basically the opposite opinion with regards to planeswalkers: I think it makes the inter-player interactions better, but buying extra actions on a turn seems dangerous.The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, since the counters are an ETB effect, and the Stage doesn't "enter the battlefield as a copy of" the way Clone does
The Stage becomes a copy of the Dark Depths, but it's already on the battlefield so it doesn't get counters put on it, so it immediately triggers the release of Marit Lage's avatar.
I don't have any Dark Depths, sadly, but I'd really love to try this deck out if I did. I love Thespian's Stage and this seems like a powerful combo that can be pulled off farily easily, but still is easy enough to neuter if your opponent has the right cards (ie: sacrifice effects, bounce or clones).
Similar threads
- Locked