How's the new Legend Rule? Still gay or has /tg/ finally realized it makes games more fun?
Everything about magic is garbage.
Its business model, its term bloat, its constantly changing rules, its broken card pool, its flawed resource gain for play. Pretty much everything about it is bullshit by most modern gaming standards but people still cling to it because they are familiar with it even though it is a shit game.
The same way people only really associate board games with garbage like Life, Monopoly, and the like. Those games are shit, just shit we are familiar with and they taint the overall opinion that games have on others.
If you play MtG, you are contributing to cancer.
>>43772958
You seem upset
It really only affects EDH, since legend rule interactions in constructed and limited rarely come up.
It's annoying in EDH though since combined with the changes to how tucking affects generals it's become really annoying to deal with really dicks generals like Rafiq or Azami. I get the idea was to make sure that guy playing Omnath and 99 forests wouldn't get immediately hosed, but it's given already good generals even more survivability.
>>43772975
MtG is pretty much unchanged since it got started just with more and more terms added and rules exceptions. It drastically needs a revamp, but holy shit nobody is doing anything to fix this piece of garbage.
>>43773003
But it has made Rafiq and Azami WEAKER, because now they can't lock down generals as easily(though they still do it easier than other decks). It terms of making them harder to deal with, it doesn't matter because not every deck ran tuck spells.
>>43773022
You never played before sixth, did you?
>>43773003
>It really only affects EDH, since legend rule interactions in constructed and limited rarely come up.
Confirmed for a massive standard scrub.
>>43772885
It was always a good change. Makes Thrun harder to kill, but he's not really a powerhouse anywhere except Modern.
>>43773210
*except certain matchups in Modern, fuck multitasking.
>>43772885
Flavor-wise it sucks. Gameplay-wise it makes sense and is probably the best alternative.
>>43772958
>>43772885
>tfw clone is no longer my favorite commander kill spell in EDH
It wasdoublyfun in my Riku of two reflections EDH deck, since the copy trigger would still go on the stack, and so if I could pay for a copy it would end up with ME having their commander and them notThey could just play their commander again to get rid of my clone, but then that just upped their commander tax, which was perfectly fine by me.
>>43772885
Tell me, what's stupid about it?
>>43773454
>Flavor-wise it sucks
...why?
flavorwise it's always seemed apparent that you get a magical copy of the legend in question, it's not like the weatherlight saga crashed because gerrard got whisked away to die in some random no-name planeswalker's duel
once that is established it seems trivial to say that multiple summoners can sustain multiple copies
>>43772885
am I missing something here? why is a 2/2 for 1 a legendary creature?
>>43773610
Because 2/2 for 1 with no drawbacks iswas? not really keeping up with modern magicreally good (especially in limited, which is also why it is rare).
Also it has a name. It is not "A hound that belongs to Konda", it is "Isamaru, THE Hound of Konda"
>>43773610
Because power creep. Isamaru really pushed the envelope back in the day. Now it's nothing special.
>>43773610
>Questioning this in the same block that had One with Nothing
>>43773610
because it was printed in Kamigawa
>>43773022
Except magic was a clusterfuck early on
>>43773698
You mean the same set that had cards like Pithing Needle, Jitte, and the dragons?
>>43773610
so you dont just put 4 in your deck and turn 4 mana into 8 persistent damage
>>43773022
>more rules exceptions over time
Topkek
>>43773768
Except you'd still run 4 because when one dies you just cast a replacement you nonce. Legend rule doesn't affect deck construction.
>>43773832
Are you serious? of course it matters during deck construction! If you draw an extra one too early, it's a dead card which aggro decks can't afford. The biggest difference betwen WW decks back in the day was whether they run 2/3/4 Isamaru's.
>>43773610
Flavor
What was the rule before and what changed?
>>43775499
Imma gonna havva second this
>>43775499
>>43775665
Previously, there could only be one of any legend anywhere on the field at any time. Meaning you and your opponent couldn't have, say, Thassa on the field. If your opponent had a Thassa and then you played Thassa they both got sacced as a state based action. This also applied if you cloned your opponents Thassa.
Now you and your opponent can both have the same legendary out, but no player can have more than one of that legendary.
Personally, I see no problem with the rule change because the only time I ever see it come up is when people start slinging clones around. It does cause some silly situations when there's 4 of some powerful legendary out though.
>>43775499
>>43775665
The legend rule has changed a few times.
Presently, each player may only have one legendary permanent of a given name on their side, and in the event they have more than one, they choose one and sacrifice the rest.
Previously, there could be only one legendary permanent with a a given name on the battlefield under ANY player's control, and if there were two or more, they were ALL sacrificed. This meant that copying/playing your own version of someone else's legend was a good way to kill it no matter how well protected it was (shroud/hexproof/protection from whatever doesn't stop a a clone).
My group used to joke whenever we drew/played someone else's commander that we got "the best <general name> kill card"
Before that I believe the oldest one always stuck around... But that was before I got into the game so that might be incorrect.
>>43775854
The old legendary rule was also different in HOW things were sacced.
Before: If there is more than one legend with the same name out, all of them are sacced.
Now: If there is more than one legend with the same name out, the controller chooses one then sacs the rest.
This change makes legend scumming much stronger. Unless you WANT all of them to die instead of keeping one.
>>43775871
When it changed i was actually mildly miffed, the kamigawa dragons all played better if you could legendary sac them.
>>43772885
It reduced some strategic diversity that might be desire in some formats. Pretty fun in most cases though.
>>43775926
>Now: If there is more than one legend with the same name out, the controller chooses one then sacs the rest.
Wait, if I were to hypothetically cast two copies of this Omnath, both would deal 3 damage to target creature or player for a total of 6 damage upon the chosen one being sacrificed?
>>43776189
Yep, if you play him in a RUG shell with Rite and kick Rite at him some anon said it was like 60 damage or some shit.
>>43775854
>>43775871
>>43775926
I just want to point out that technically the legend rule does not cause any sacrificing. The legendary permanents are just put into the graveyard. Any effects that care about sacrificing are not affected by the legend rule.
I love it.
>>43772885
What new legend rule? Did I miss something?
>>43776425
That is definitely a good distinction to make. They are still effected by 'dies' stuff though correct? Such as Blood Artist.
>>43776595
they do in fact die
>>43776595
Yes, going from the battlefield directly to the graveyard in any way counts as dying.
>>43776585
this
>>43775871
The earliest iteration of the legend rule (that I can remember) was (at least) around during masques block, and it stated that if there was a legendary permanent (maybe just creature) anywhere on the battlefield, another one could just not be cast. So the rebel mirrors just turned into "who can get Lin Sivvi on the battlefield first". This got changed, I believe, before Kamigawa to the abuseable rule that forced sacs when two of the same legends entered the battlefield with the same name. See: Koko combos.
