Several big bombs, that may or may not still make sense in terms of rules.
Well, we're here to start some dialogue in the aftermath. Possibly clear some things up, possibly panic and run along side you with our heads cut off.
So I got the squad assembled. And since it was Thursday or Friday, it was honestly kinda like this... But it was still impressive to see this kind of response time out of TGZ's finest.
ANYWAY, RULE CHANGES!!!
LEGEND RULE/PLANESWALKER UNIQUENESS
-Each player can now have a copy of the same legend or planeswalker
-If a player possesses two copies, that player may choose which copy to sacrifice
-Planeswalkers have a similar rule, but it's based on card type. You and your opponent can each have a copy of a Jace, but if you have two different kinds, you choose which to sacrifice.
Every iteration of this rule that wizards comes up with drives the execution of legendary creatures (and some noncreatures too I guess) further and further away from the flavor of legendary creatures. Unique and powerful individuals. This is why it is only allowed for there to be one of them at a time: there is only one period. Now there can be a whole mess of them running around. Flavor fail.
Mechanically, this has big implications for gameplay, particularly in Commander where many games revolve around your ability to deal with a Legendary creature. I don't really have an opinion on whether this is good or bad, but I am somewhat curious as to why they really made this change. They said that they wanted to bring clones back in line with what R&D originally designed them for, but it seems like it has come at the cost of completely stripping the intuition out of how Legendary permanents work. It seems like the only thing that really benefited straight up is the toughest to kill creatures, namely Geist of St. Traft.
Final thought: Does anyone know if this changes how the Sharuum - Sculpting Steel interaction works? Can you still get infinite with Disciple of the Vault?
UL: Yeah, you can still go infinite. Cause you choose which one to sacrifice. Steel comes into play, copies Sharuum, Sharuum's sacrificed, Copy ability triggers, Sharuum comes back, etc. Also, this combo is cool with Bitter Ordeal.
Venser's Journalist- THUMBS DOWN (PLANESWALKER THUMBS UP)
Legendary Creatures are legendary for a reason: because they're freakin' LEGENDARY. Nobody ever heard of the Legend of Sleepy HOLLOWS or the Legend of TWO Paul Bunyans. Grandpa Growth hit the nail on the head with "Flavor fail," because Wizards has definitely failed to see what made legendary cards so legendary.
One example that Wizard's gave was "creating a copy of a legendary permanent controlled by another player will simply give you a copy... Clones do what they were intended to do" (Magic 2014 Core Set Rules Preview). I have mixed feelings about this. On the side of flavor, they are absolutely right in saying that a player should be able to have a copy if using cards like Clone or with Clone-effects. However, they could have just made this the only part of the legendary rule that changed. On the side of gameplay, now Wizards has effectively made Blue slightly less powerful in terms of Commander removal. All my Blue EDH decks had some form of Clone, which was a multi-purpose card: removal or an extra creature (usually an extra Drogskol Reaver). Now Clone's scope is limited to the latter.
Perhaps it is the current obsession with time/dimensional travel (J.J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot) that makes this rule relevant to the modern day MTG player; I for one will not stand for it. However, Planeswalkers are a different story. By definition, Planeswalkers walk the planes of existence. They are like Time Lords going place to place saving (or destroying) entire races and fighting or teaming up with one another along the way. Although I've never seen an episode of Doctor Who with two of the same Doctors (save that one where Amy Pond watched the Matt Smith Doctor get killed by a spaceman), the time-bending nature of Planewalkers may allow for multiple Jaces or multiple Chandras to be on the battlefield (though under different players' controls). This is one part of the change that can fit the flavor.
Johnny Confidant- OPTIMISTIC THUMBS UP
Okay, Here's the flavor of Magic as I understand it, Hang with me Zoners I'll take you on a trip then bring you right back.
In the lore of Magic there exists a "Universe", a universe made up of many other Universes known as a Multiverse. We are "Planeswalkers" beings of magic that traverse this Multiverse experiencing many worlds that makes it so vast. The longer you play Magic the more worlds you see, therefore the more powerful you are and the more allies (Other planeswalkers) you can call upon and creatures/spells you can conjure.
Previously (Before this rule change takes effect (July)) Summoning Niv-mizzet from original Ravnica while your opponent had also summoned him caused what I called a "Paradox" and they both went away. Summoning a Niv-Mizzet from new Ravnica while your opponent had the original Ravnica Niv out did not cause this "paradox" to occur allowing both to remain in a kind of Wormhole theory state. With Planeswalkers this was not shared, No matter the time period you called upon your ally if his past/future self was already there you got the "paradox".
This was a confusing argument that presented a problem, How can one instance of a Creature with different names exist when two Planeswalkers of different names did not share this benefit?
This called for a Parallel Universe to be created, an infinitely duplicated Universe that exists for each player. Now you and your friend can both Summon the same instance of Niv-Mizzet without a paradox due to the fact that your Niv-Mizzet is of a separate but similar world than your friends. Likewise with Planeswalkers as long as you do not bring the same Creature Name or Planeswalker type to the field to exist at one time in your Universe. Although, it still doesn't solve the separate-but-same legendary creature instance per example Niv-Mizzet.
Now that we are back to reality, the impact of this rule change is sure to be a significant change to how we approach deckbuilding. No more will cheap clones destroy a legendary just by existing, likewise this will also help people who run common legendaries to keep them. I believe that change is good and that it forces us to become better by adapting to it, while this rule change can be rendered non-applicable by the EDH Rules Committee it's still going to be something we all have to think about. I hope that if it grows too out of hand, EDH will be the only game-variant where this legendary rule does not apply.
Uncle Landdrops- NOT SURE
I don't like to sound indecisive, but I'm not going to bash this one until I've played it. Cause this is our future, Zoners, and we need to accept change if we can, regardless of whether or not we think it's dumb.
My team is right though. The flavor is now super-dumb. I feel like they could've just reversed the changes they made in Kamigawa to the legend rule and it would've provided well for all the explanations that WotC outlined with Clone functionality and the like. Just let the first person to slam a legend keep theirs. Reward the aggressor. Force the control players to actually play control. It seems economical to support built-in strategies to the game that have existed for years versus teaching us new tricks which come at a serious compromise.
As far as planeswalkers are concerned- this was bound to happen. With the increasing amounts of iterations of each character, it was kind of inevitable that they make sure this happens. As VJ pointed out, it will be very much like Doctor Who watching himself get murdered, and I don't have a problem with that- but "loyalty counters" no longer make sense.
What I'm more worried about with P-Dubs is a lack of removal mostly. I'm guessing that m14 plans to change this though. Least I hope so. They wouldn't have any testing without influence of the "Future-Future League," so I'm hopeful.
Overall, I think that this rules change has the potential to sway players away from playing Magic, especially EDH, and that kinda makes me sad. That's why I'm not too happy about it, but it's not going to stop me from playing Commander at this stage.
SIDEBOARD
-Sideboard is now UP TO 15 cards
-You are no longer required to swap cards 1-for-1 between games. You're just required to have 15 cards or less at any time in your sideboard during games 2 and 3.
 |
| Sideboards: They Can Be Anything These Days. |
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS UP
Months ago, I made an important decision to become an exclusive Commander player. It's all the Magic I like, and it's the only kind of game I want to play. So this rule really doesn't affect me much.
But I still think it's pretty sweet. I like the idea that Magic is trying to create new opportunities in the Standard environment, and it opens up some design space.
The cool thing that this change seems to create for me though is that there will definitely be a possibility for people to play basic land in their sideboard. And that seems awesome.
Johnny Confidant- THUMBS UP (FOR WHOM IT EFFECTS)
I'm all about EDH, and really only have a 60 deck to satisfy some friends and to play other game types so that my primary does not get tedious. I'm happy for the flexibility of the rule allowing more freedom of choice between main-board and sideboard.
Grandpa Growth- THUMBS DOWN, BUT REALLY THUMBS UP
I am totally down with the idea of having an up to 15 card sideboard. The 0 or 15 ultimatum was really unnecessary and had stuck around too long. No problems there. What I do have a minor issue with is the idea that you no longer have to sideboard on a 1 for 1 basis. Normally this shouldn't be an issue because siding in a bunch of nonland cards would up your curve and if your curve is altered by that much post-board you previously had to include some amount of land in your SB to compensate. That was a small, but fair price. Now you get to manipulate your mana curve and land/nonland ratio on a whim between any game. One of the examples given in the announcement article even stated that you could begin game 1 with a 75 card main deck and then side down to 60/15 after game one. Why does this upset me? Because it inherently favors control decks over aggro and combo decks and it favors multicolored decks over mono colored decks.
Here is why: Control decks are built on the principle of having the correct ratios of threats, answers, card draw, disruption, and lands at the right time. It is easy to keep this ratio intact while adding a few more cards and not have to sacrifice card quality. Combo decks can't afford to add 'air' to their deck, they need it to be sleek and streamlined to insure the maximum chance of assembling the combo. Aggro decks can't really add more cards because the cards they would be adding are worse than the threats they already had. That would just make their decks worse. Control decks don't experience this to the same degree because 1. they typically play fewer 4-ofs and 2. most constructed quality removal spells are nearly equivalent.
All that said I think it will be a long time before these changes start to affect deck construction, but don't be surprised when you start seeing more 61-65 card decks floating around the tournament tables.
Venser's Journalist- NOT SURE
I'm confused by this change. As much as I love Commander, Standard is also important to my competitive side. The 15 card sideboard was meant for situations when you need to swap out certain cards to fit your opponent. But having "up to 15" cards in your sideboard seems redundant. First of all, you don't need a sideboard, but they're good to have. Secondly, like GG stated, not swapping cards 1-for-1 could seriously screw with your mana curve. I will say, though, against mill decks, it may be a good idea to up the number of cards in your library. The only way I'll know if I'm truly upset or pleased with the new rule is by actually seeing it in practice.
LANDS
-"Land plays" will now be quantified and more clearly defined.
-This is aimed at preventing bouncing and re-casting Azusa and Oracle of Mul Daya for infinite land triggers.
-Wizards example used Djinn of Wishes. If you remove a wish counter and draw a land, you can only play the land if you have a "land play" to use.
I was one of these guys. Bouncing my Oracle and netting additional lands and completely out tempo-ing my opponents and painting a target on myself. To be honest I'm a little sad to see my loophole go, but ultimately glad that it was implemented. Tempo is huge in Magic and being able to out-tempo your opponents allowed you to do more and have more control over the game, usually the fastest won the game.
With this rule in place players who use Oracle, Azusa, Exploration, ect... will still be able to gain the advantage but the distance won't be so far that your opponents won't or can't catch up. Ideally, you want to get at least one land per turn, anything else is just bonus and even with bouncing your additional mana dorks, unless your whole hand is land, you wont be dropping 10 lands a turn.
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS UP
Never would've changed the way I played the game. I'm glad it is changing the way other people play though. I feel kinda the same way I did about the Jace TMS banning in Standard a few years back. Thank goodness. This is the kind of change that makes me think I could trust in WotC to properly govern their game. Yay for fixing mistakes.
Grandpa Growth- THUMBS UP
Embarrassingly, I admitted to UL that I thought this is how the rule worked already. I am happy that I am now correctly informed, but I don't have a real opinion on this change.
Venser's Journalist- ONE THUMB UP, ONE THUMB DOWN
Before, bouncing Azusa or Mul Daya was a possible source of mana ramp. Now, not so much. On the one hand, there is more fairness in terms of land plays, so that nobody will be trying any silly infinite land drop combos. On the other hand, my favorite Djinn is less effective. I used Djinn of Wishes in my Isperia 1.0 deck for a long time, and when it wasn't getting me 7-drop creatures for 2UU, it was ramping my land. Now, poor Djinn is forced to exile your lands unless you use his ability before you play lands. Looks like I'll have to put Djinn in my sideboard now...
KEYWORDS
-Indestructible is now a key word
-Unblockable is definitely not a key word
This is confusing. I mean, really confusing. So now, spells like Boros Charm change a card's text and Artful Dodge does not. I didn't think Unblockable ever was a keyword, but okay Wizards, sure you have to be double, super clear about it, but turning Indestructible into a keyword was more than what was bargained for. I'd use cards like Boros Charm to prevent a board wipe from leaving me defenseless. If I so happen to cast a creature on that same turn, I'd expect it to be indestructible like the other "permanents you control" since creatures I cast are "permanents you control." Maybe Indestructibility shouldn't be grandfathered into Cloudshifted creatures, but that's going to take some getting used to on my part.
Johnny Confidant- THUMBS UP
It's weird to read something that you more than likely understood completely then get totally confused by it. To further explain, a KEYWORD is an ability(s) that is attached to rules text, also known as Reminder Text. (Ex. Flying (This creature can only be blocked by creatures with Flying or Reach)
For Indestructible, this means that when this creature is/becomes Indestructible the ability doesen't blanket on additional permanents that enter afterwards, Excluding Avacyn's Blanket. so be careful when you play Boros Charm or Withstand Death.
Unblockable however doesn't change functionally- just how we understand it.
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS UP
As game designers get a clearer and clearer picture of the game, players will get all kinds of rewards.
Face-value doesn't tell us much about these rules, but I'm sure it'll influence future cards and help us to have better quality interactions across other facets of Magic, which is something we should value as EDH players. Cause we have by far the most expansive collection of cards to use, and the strangest interactions to control.
Commander really tests the outer boundaries of these rules, and so I can't help but feel like they're catering to us in the majority of these changes. We have quite a bit more frequency of plays and opportunity to make these plays at our table, so I feel like they've done some good things here, and I look forward to having better game design in Commander.
Grandpa Growth-THUMBS UP
I wish they would have done this sooner, but I also wish it didn't mean a change in functionality. I think that at some point in the future Wizards will rectify the discrepancy that occurs when a cards characteristics are overwritten by a blanket effect and when its key words are overwritten by a blanket effect. This example was described in more detail in the announcement. The nuance is frankly, more of a nuisance.
That's all we got for this Tuesday. Till next time, Stay Classy, Make Everyone Come See How Good You Look, Chuck a Burrito, Maybe Lay Low For A Little Bit, But For God's Sake-
DON'T LET THE MAN PUNT BAXTER.
If you do, you'll know where to find me.
Thanks For Stopping By.
-UL
No comments:
Post a Comment