I'm all for shaking up things. Not a big fan of adding power to power while doing so, though. I believe the general rules of thumb in case of big, more or less groundbreaking changes should be as follows:
1) if the change makes previously weak cards stronger, it's okay
2) if the change makes previously strong cards weaker, it's okay
3) if the change makes previously strong cards stronger, it's NOT okay
The new Legend Rule is solidly Type 3, and I see a contradiction with this and the alleged interest in lessening the frustration of new players. Planeswalkers and especially Legendary Mythics like Geist of Saint Traft are going to see their prices in the secondary market levitate more and more. How is that a good thing for new players who want to try their hands at Standard or Modern Constructed? (Not even pretending that the access to Legacy is a concern at all here, since this is the kind of move that seems to actively work against that).
Bottom line: maybe next time let's shake up things by trolling the lazy players with money cards, not the other way around.
@Leviathan: I share your general feelings — I also had the definite impression that this move was to make new players think less. I don't buy the necessity of design space, because I can't see one being opened here (as MaRo always says, it's the constraints that generate ideas, not the absence of them: working around the Legend Rule created nice cards like Sakashima and Lazav — whose very recent creation has me really perplexed about who actually thought of this change, and when).
Also, what kind of design space does the reworking of the sideboard open? That's just to avoid players thinking too much between games, simple as that.
This said, I have to strongly disagree on your assessment of what seems to go for "ye good days of olde" when there was land destruction galore, and similar things. Those were NOT fun times. And especially not HEALTHY times for the game. We put up with them, but that was pretty much the opposite extreme of what we're lamenting today. And you can't fight one extreme (the alleged "dumbing down") with the other (the proliferation of frustrating game states. And by the way, there's really nothing smart in casting Dark Ritual into Sinkhole turn 1).
I'd like for a more widespread intellectual honesty about the early days of Magic: kudos to Garfield for the idea, but the practical elements of that game, especially after the first few expansions came out, and in light of a more serious, competitive panorama, were just badly designed. They fixed it in the following years (otherwise, arguably, the game would have ceased to exist long ago, let alone going strong into its 20th year.) I'm grateful for that, I would never want to come back. I'm first generation, and yet I'm glad we lost the P9 pretty fast, because, let's face it once and for all: they weren't just powerful, they were WRONG. As in, "We've made a huge mistake". Playing with them is like when you insert a cheat code to get infinite ammo in a shooter. You maybe have fun, but you can't say you're intellectually stimulated. Indeed, Black Lotus is possibly the dumbest design ever.
I'm really impatient about the modern masters information. I doubt that I'm going to be able to draft it in paper because of the availability, so I want to know info about the mtgo version. At least I have a date now: June 14th.
CF: my answer to Levi in SOTP for my opinion on the "why" of the legendary rule change. I do think this would have been a great conversation to have on a podcast though, it is too bad that didn't happen.
I think we need to remember when WOTC does things like this, part of the reason is to troll the players. I don't mean in a malicious sense. But they have stated in the past that they enjoy shaking up the status quo in ways that may make some people outraged and others joyful. Another part is that they have stated they feel the need for changes on a philosophical level. If the game never changes in any fundamental way it stagnates. These are the reasons I would attribute to the changes.
I don't think this change is all that important really other than bonusing the owners of St Traft (woe is me for not having the $$$ for him) and perhaps making some junk rares slightly less junky.
While I agree that the flavor of this sucks (as did mana burn going away) it isn't all that amazingly bad or good. As for nuance, I imagine they feel the game has plenty to spare that they can nudge things in the direction they want without spoiling things. Even if the effect is Bull >> China shop.
Maybe "dumb's down" isn't the best way to describe what I was saying. It's probably more of "removing everything 'bad' is super annoying, and pandering to the lowest common denominator doesn't make the game better." What's the point of this move, really? Increasing design space and player acquisition/retention, right? I thought I covered both of those in my first post.
I'm not saying that they're killing the game. This isn't a change that is going to make me throw my digital cards in the digital trash can to never come back again. But they're removing additional nuance and complexity in the game that doesn't need to have removed. And it has a pretty large effect on the only format I play now (Commander in case you were curious). So I felt like saying something.
I've been playing this game since revised. This is the first time I've ever complained about anything that Wizards has done I think. Not that it matters, it's a done deal. But I don't mind pointing out how I feel.
By changing the way Clone effects work they just made hexproof a LOT better.
One advantage to running Jitte was that you could deal with the other guy's Jitte if he had one.
The announcement, to me at least, sounded like they were saying, "The problem's too hard for us to figure out! We gave up and changed the rules."
You forgot on your list of sources the 3 tumblr blogs: Maro's, Dougs (for creative), and the rules one (I think by Tabak). At least on Maro's and Doug's there was a lot of recent responses to the legendary questions; so having read both the change didn't surprise me.
Mirrodin limited was so fun! (I'm serious by the way, I loved Mirrodin limited. Especially Mesmeric Orb (yes in limited))
In reply to the first poster: I really don't get how this change "dumbs down" the game. I've yet to see someone articulate how it actually dumbs the game down. Really it is just people complaining for the sake of complaining. It goes at the end of a very long list of changes WotC has made that would just kill the game (most recently double-faced cards and infect). The response that was highlighted in the article really sums it up the best: despite years of trying R&D has yet to accomplish killing the game.
Pacifism effects on legendary creatures take a hit, as do Vesuva and Thespian's Stage as ersatz clone strip mines. Some creatures are now a lot harder to kill, hexproof and shrouded legends especially.
From a purely selfish standpoint I'm not a fan of the legendary rule change. From a flavor perspective, legends are supposed to be iconic, and it makes sense that only one of them is on the battlefield at any time. From a game play perspective, being able to deal with legendary (and usually high powered) permanents by casting your own was an elegant form of removal. And it prevented things like having multiple copies of nutty stuff like Gaea's Cradle on the board at any one time.
What concerns me more, however, is that it appears that the main 2 reasons for making the change are 1) lack of design space, and 2) dumbing down the game.
There were more than a couple quotes similar to Forsythe's above (we want Thrun to be cooler, we can't print Faith's Fetters variants anymore, etc.) Are you freaking kidding me?!!?? With all the vast brainpower at R&D you can't think up creative ways around this problem implementing the rules we already have? I know that coming up with 5 or 6 new sets a year is taxing, but people, come on. I'm sure there's a way around this without significantly changing the rules.
As for 2), I understand that WotC is mainly concerned with new player acquisition, and slightly less concerned with player retention. But it seems like they've worked hard at getting rid of everything that new players find "icky." No more land destruction, less counterspells. Turning MTGO into DotP II. Printing a crap ton of new legends for Commander. But at some point you just gotta stop catering to the lowest common denominator. When I started playing, targeted land destruction was a real thing, and I know there are a lot of other players out there who experienced the same thing. And yet we didn't run away screaming. Basically removing every draw back from the game makes it less interesting to play. End rant.
I like the structure and I like your writing style. I even like that I sometimes disagree with you, but it is always your own opinion in the opinion section
Rules update: They're changing the legend rule. For those of you that don't know about it, basically the "legendary rule" only affects cards on your side of the board. On top of that, the legends don't cancel each other out, and you get to keep the copy of the legend you want in play. This basically means that you can't use Clone effects to kill opposing Commanders. Here are a couple quick examples I pulled from MTGSalvation:
Legends:
- You control Teysa, Orzhov Scion. Your opponent enchants it with Pacifism. You cast another Teysa, Orzhov Scion. You choose the new one to remain on the battlefield. The one enchanted by Pacifism is put into its owner's graveyard (and then so is the Pacifism).
- Your opponent controls Ruric Thar, the Unbowed. You cast Progenitor Mimic, copying it. Both creatures may stay on the battlefield as long as they're controlled by different players. After Progenitor Mimic's ability creates a token copy of Ruric Thar, you must choose one to stay on the battlefield. The other will be put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action.
Planeswalker's:
- You control Jace Beleren. On your turn, you activate one of his abilities. You then cast Jace, Architect of Thought. You now control two Planeswalkers with the Planeswalker type Jace. You choose Jace, Architect of Thought to remain on the battlefield. Jace Beleren is put into your graveyard. You can activate one of the loyalty abilities of Jace, Architect of Thought.
- Your opponent controls Chandra Nalaar. You cast Chandra, the Firebrand. Both permanents may stay on the battlefield as long as they're controlled by different players.
This rule change is indeed a Major one. I'm Ok for the change in the Legendary cards or SB section. But real trouble will be in the Planeswalkers as this will make them even more powerful. And after lots of annoying Jace wars, Wizards may even ban Jace,tms in Legacy (or in Classic or Vintage) to balance this. Liliana of the Veil may share the same fate in the Modern too.
Oh yes. Even later on, in the Mirage block, Nettletooth Djinn was getting the same treatment. (If you're unfamiliar with him, he's 3G for a 4/4 who Juzams you every turn.)
In that era, the strongest aggro 4-drops were Erhnam Djinn and Juggernaut. They pretty much dominated the tournament scene.
Some decks were even using Wirecat for redundancy!
While I understand that impression I imagine the other scenario. They were getting rich unexpectedly (though nowhere near their apex of fortune making) and they were totally and utterly stoned every day they went to work until sometime well after Fallen Empires went to print.
It doesn't help that they mostly seem to have terrible Douglas Shuler or Jeff A. Menges art.
About Fortified Area (I was already playing in 1994, but I don't think I ever saw an actual copy of it, possibly because everybody kept destroying all of them right out of the boosters to avoid being caught in possession of one). It actually uses an opposite approach to reach the same discomforting result, in that its text is clear and straightforward and it has good art. But let's see, I have to pay 3 mana, of which 2 white, to give +1/+0 to my Walls, i.e. to cards I'm just using as blockers? This confirms my idea that nobody working on Legends ever actually played the game. And the art, yes, it's good-looking, but is that an island, or rocky promontory, covered in wall fortifications? How does that involve the walls that aren't there? And why my enemies should want to land right there, when there's clearly a lot of better landing places on the background? (That one was actually the least likely to be chosen at all, fortifications or not.) And what if they came from the inland, instead? Is the fortified area helping preventing them to use that spot to take off?
Good lord, some of these old cards are the stuff nightmares are made of. You lose sanity points by reading them (not to mention, eyesight. They're like overly long novels with a bad ending twist.)
If you want the technical explanation, "this card will not help you" is the main (independent) clause of the sentence, "unless you actually have formed a truce with your opponent" is the introductory (dependent) clause, and the middle part should be a subordinate clause, meaning it needs to start with a conjunction. As the sentence stands now, it has two independent clauses (a big no-no).
I'm all for shaking up things. Not a big fan of adding power to power while doing so, though. I believe the general rules of thumb in case of big, more or less groundbreaking changes should be as follows:
1) if the change makes previously weak cards stronger, it's okay
2) if the change makes previously strong cards weaker, it's okay
3) if the change makes previously strong cards stronger, it's NOT okay
The new Legend Rule is solidly Type 3, and I see a contradiction with this and the alleged interest in lessening the frustration of new players. Planeswalkers and especially Legendary Mythics like Geist of Saint Traft are going to see their prices in the secondary market levitate more and more. How is that a good thing for new players who want to try their hands at Standard or Modern Constructed? (Not even pretending that the access to Legacy is a concern at all here, since this is the kind of move that seems to actively work against that).
Bottom line: maybe next time let's shake up things by trolling the lazy players with money cards, not the other way around.
@Leviathan: I share your general feelings — I also had the definite impression that this move was to make new players think less. I don't buy the necessity of design space, because I can't see one being opened here (as MaRo always says, it's the constraints that generate ideas, not the absence of them: working around the Legend Rule created nice cards like Sakashima and Lazav — whose very recent creation has me really perplexed about who actually thought of this change, and when).
Also, what kind of design space does the reworking of the sideboard open? That's just to avoid players thinking too much between games, simple as that.
This said, I have to strongly disagree on your assessment of what seems to go for "ye good days of olde" when there was land destruction galore, and similar things. Those were NOT fun times. And especially not HEALTHY times for the game. We put up with them, but that was pretty much the opposite extreme of what we're lamenting today. And you can't fight one extreme (the alleged "dumbing down") with the other (the proliferation of frustrating game states. And by the way, there's really nothing smart in casting Dark Ritual into Sinkhole turn 1).
I'd like for a more widespread intellectual honesty about the early days of Magic: kudos to Garfield for the idea, but the practical elements of that game, especially after the first few expansions came out, and in light of a more serious, competitive panorama, were just badly designed. They fixed it in the following years (otherwise, arguably, the game would have ceased to exist long ago, let alone going strong into its 20th year.) I'm grateful for that, I would never want to come back. I'm first generation, and yet I'm glad we lost the P9 pretty fast, because, let's face it once and for all: they weren't just powerful, they were WRONG. As in, "We've made a huge mistake". Playing with them is like when you insert a cheat code to get infinite ammo in a shooter. You maybe have fun, but you can't say you're intellectually stimulated. Indeed, Black Lotus is possibly the dumbest design ever.
I'm really impatient about the modern masters information. I doubt that I'm going to be able to draft it in paper because of the availability, so I want to know info about the mtgo version. At least I have a date now: June 14th.
CF: my answer to Levi in SOTP for my opinion on the "why" of the legendary rule change. I do think this would have been a great conversation to have on a podcast though, it is too bad that didn't happen.
I think we need to remember when WOTC does things like this, part of the reason is to troll the players. I don't mean in a malicious sense. But they have stated in the past that they enjoy shaking up the status quo in ways that may make some people outraged and others joyful. Another part is that they have stated they feel the need for changes on a philosophical level. If the game never changes in any fundamental way it stagnates. These are the reasons I would attribute to the changes.
I don't think this change is all that important really other than bonusing the owners of St Traft (woe is me for not having the $$$ for him) and perhaps making some junk rares slightly less junky.
While I agree that the flavor of this sucks (as did mana burn going away) it isn't all that amazingly bad or good. As for nuance, I imagine they feel the game has plenty to spare that they can nudge things in the direction they want without spoiling things. Even if the effect is Bull >> China shop.
Maybe "dumb's down" isn't the best way to describe what I was saying. It's probably more of "removing everything 'bad' is super annoying, and pandering to the lowest common denominator doesn't make the game better." What's the point of this move, really? Increasing design space and player acquisition/retention, right? I thought I covered both of those in my first post.
I'm not saying that they're killing the game. This isn't a change that is going to make me throw my digital cards in the digital trash can to never come back again. But they're removing additional nuance and complexity in the game that doesn't need to have removed. And it has a pretty large effect on the only format I play now (Commander in case you were curious). So I felt like saying something.
I've been playing this game since revised. This is the first time I've ever complained about anything that Wizards has done I think. Not that it matters, it's a done deal. But I don't mind pointing out how I feel.
By changing the way Clone effects work they just made hexproof a LOT better.
One advantage to running Jitte was that you could deal with the other guy's Jitte if he had one.
The announcement, to me at least, sounded like they were saying, "The problem's too hard for us to figure out! We gave up and changed the rules."
You forgot on your list of sources the 3 tumblr blogs: Maro's, Dougs (for creative), and the rules one (I think by Tabak). At least on Maro's and Doug's there was a lot of recent responses to the legendary questions; so having read both the change didn't surprise me.
Mirrodin limited was so fun! (I'm serious by the way, I loved Mirrodin limited. Especially Mesmeric Orb (yes in limited))
In reply to the first poster: I really don't get how this change "dumbs down" the game. I've yet to see someone articulate how it actually dumbs the game down. Really it is just people complaining for the sake of complaining. It goes at the end of a very long list of changes WotC has made that would just kill the game (most recently double-faced cards and infect). The response that was highlighted in the article really sums it up the best: despite years of trying R&D has yet to accomplish killing the game.
Pacifism effects on legendary creatures take a hit, as do Vesuva and Thespian's Stage as ersatz clone strip mines. Some creatures are now a lot harder to kill, hexproof and shrouded legends especially.
It may just be me, but I miss the days of turn one slith firewalker off of a chrome mox into a turn two stone rain.
From a purely selfish standpoint I'm not a fan of the legendary rule change. From a flavor perspective, legends are supposed to be iconic, and it makes sense that only one of them is on the battlefield at any time. From a game play perspective, being able to deal with legendary (and usually high powered) permanents by casting your own was an elegant form of removal. And it prevented things like having multiple copies of nutty stuff like Gaea's Cradle on the board at any one time.
What concerns me more, however, is that it appears that the main 2 reasons for making the change are 1) lack of design space, and 2) dumbing down the game.
There were more than a couple quotes similar to Forsythe's above (we want Thrun to be cooler, we can't print Faith's Fetters variants anymore, etc.) Are you freaking kidding me?!!?? With all the vast brainpower at R&D you can't think up creative ways around this problem implementing the rules we already have? I know that coming up with 5 or 6 new sets a year is taxing, but people, come on. I'm sure there's a way around this without significantly changing the rules.
As for 2), I understand that WotC is mainly concerned with new player acquisition, and slightly less concerned with player retention. But it seems like they've worked hard at getting rid of everything that new players find "icky." No more land destruction, less counterspells. Turning MTGO into DotP II. Printing a crap ton of new legends for Commander. But at some point you just gotta stop catering to the lowest common denominator. When I started playing, targeted land destruction was a real thing, and I know there are a lot of other players out there who experienced the same thing. And yet we didn't run away screaming. Basically removing every draw back from the game makes it less interesting to play. End rant.
Once again; very nice article.
I like the structure and I like your writing style. I even like that I sometimes disagree with you, but it is always your own opinion in the opinion section
Im looking forward to next weeks article!
Rules update: They're changing the legend rule. For those of you that don't know about it, basically the "legendary rule" only affects cards on your side of the board. On top of that, the legends don't cancel each other out, and you get to keep the copy of the legend you want in play. This basically means that you can't use Clone effects to kill opposing Commanders. Here are a couple quick examples I pulled from MTGSalvation:
Legends:
- You control Teysa, Orzhov Scion. Your opponent enchants it with Pacifism. You cast another Teysa, Orzhov Scion. You choose the new one to remain on the battlefield. The one enchanted by Pacifism is put into its owner's graveyard (and then so is the Pacifism).
- Your opponent controls Ruric Thar, the Unbowed. You cast Progenitor Mimic, copying it. Both creatures may stay on the battlefield as long as they're controlled by different players. After Progenitor Mimic's ability creates a token copy of Ruric Thar, you must choose one to stay on the battlefield. The other will be put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action.
Planeswalker's:
- You control Jace Beleren. On your turn, you activate one of his abilities. You then cast Jace, Architect of Thought. You now control two Planeswalkers with the Planeswalker type Jace. You choose Jace, Architect of Thought to remain on the battlefield. Jace Beleren is put into your graveyard. You can activate one of the loyalty abilities of Jace, Architect of Thought.
- Your opponent controls Chandra Nalaar. You cast Chandra, the Firebrand. Both permanents may stay on the battlefield as long as they're controlled by different players.
I really suggest you check out this thread to see ways that this can effect game play and decks: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=512774
This rule change is indeed a Major one. I'm Ok for the change in the Legendary cards or SB section. But real trouble will be in the Planeswalkers as this will make them even more powerful. And after lots of annoying Jace wars, Wizards may even ban Jace,tms in Legacy (or in Classic or Vintage) to balance this. Liliana of the Veil may share the same fate in the Modern too.
You mean, the strongest 4-drops after Juzam.
Oh yes. Even later on, in the Mirage block, Nettletooth Djinn was getting the same treatment. (If you're unfamiliar with him, he's 3G for a 4/4 who Juzams you every turn.)
In that era, the strongest aggro 4-drops were Erhnam Djinn and Juggernaut. They pretty much dominated the tournament scene.
Some decks were even using Wirecat for redundancy!
Tournament decks!!!
Was a 4 mana 4/4 in black (Derelor) so overpowered that they had to tax every black spell you cast after him?
While I understand that impression I imagine the other scenario. They were getting rich unexpectedly (though nowhere near their apex of fortune making) and they were totally and utterly stoned every day they went to work until sometime well after Fallen Empires went to print.
It doesn't help that they mostly seem to have terrible Douglas Shuler or Jeff A. Menges art.
About Fortified Area (I was already playing in 1994, but I don't think I ever saw an actual copy of it, possibly because everybody kept destroying all of them right out of the boosters to avoid being caught in possession of one). It actually uses an opposite approach to reach the same discomforting result, in that its text is clear and straightforward and it has good art. But let's see, I have to pay 3 mana, of which 2 white, to give +1/+0 to my Walls, i.e. to cards I'm just using as blockers? This confirms my idea that nobody working on Legends ever actually played the game. And the art, yes, it's good-looking, but is that an island, or rocky promontory, covered in wall fortifications? How does that involve the walls that aren't there? And why my enemies should want to land right there, when there's clearly a lot of better landing places on the background? (That one was actually the least likely to be chosen at all, fortifications or not.) And what if they came from the inland, instead? Is the fortified area helping preventing them to use that spot to take off?
I'm contemplating doing an entire article on the long-winded microfont cards of olden times
:) no worries
I stand corrected, my apologies, I read things aloud whenever I sit down to manage, and it just made no sense to me.
Good lord, some of these old cards are the stuff nightmares are made of. You lose sanity points by reading them (not to mention, eyesight. They're like overly long novels with a bad ending twist.)
If you want the technical explanation, "this card will not help you" is the main (independent) clause of the sentence, "unless you actually have formed a truce with your opponent" is the introductory (dependent) clause, and the middle part should be a subordinate clause, meaning it needs to start with a conjunction. As the sentence stands now, it has two independent clauses (a big no-no).
...I'm also an English teacher, I should say.