Discussion: Abandoning the Legendary supertype

[Barook]

There's currently a lot of discussion on Maro's blog. Appearently, Maro hates the current legendary rule because in his opinion, being a story-relevant character comes with an automatic drawback. Instead, the legendary supertype should be abandoned and replaced with a keyword ("Unique" or whatever) to mark creatures fit for Commander and other mechanical interactions like Karakas while you can happily jam 4 copies on the battlefield with little thought.

Luckily, he's currently in the minority with his opinion in R&D, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment: What would happen to the format if the legendary rule was no more?

- D&T would get a massive powerboost. 4x Karakas becomes a no-brainer and multiple Thalias on the battlefield wreck noncreature decks even harder
- multiple Gaea's Cradle become stable mana providers instead of a one-shot ritual effect in Elves
- the original Dark Depths survives the combo when the copied one gets sacrificed
- Jitte isn't terribad in multiples anymore
- fringe cases where you could cheat into play multiple Emrakuls/Griselbrands
And probably some other stuff I'm missing.

What's your opinion - would it be a change for the better or worse?

[Dice_Box]

I think that having that Supertype lets them push some cards that they otherwise would choose not to. Brand, Emmy, Thalia, Jitte or even my own Marit Lage are slightly more balanced because of this "Drawback" they have. It also lets them push never cards like the Vampire that is coming. While that card will not have much of an impact on Legacy, the card will slot into a deck like Grixis control in Modern with ease. I do not think that the ripples that such a choice would have are healthy overall and I feel that if they with to remove the Supertype, just stop printing it. Do not remove it and unbalance some things that are right now balanced because of it.

Edit:
Just realised they can't stop printing it because of EDH. Looks like they are stuck with it one way or the other.

[Barook]

Just realised they can't stop printing it because of EDH. Looks like they are stuck with it one way or the other.
How so? Wouldn't the marker ability still work?

[GundamGuy]

Edit:
Just realised they can't stop printing it because of EDH. Looks like they are stuck with it one way or the other.

I'm sure they could find a way to work around this. They already printed Planeswalkers that can be generals, If they really wanted to stop with Legendary then I think the would find a work around.

I personally really disagree with the idea that there there should be no drawbacks (imagine printing upkeep today... not going to happen), and think the shift in design towards this has really hurt magic.

[Bobmans]

They haven't even landed the Wastes and colorless color concept on the actual game and have shitloads of problems right now with their judge bans and leaks. I do not think they should worry on anything else right now.

[iatee]

Multiple Thalias in play would definitely be great for D+T, but I don't think many decks want multiple Jittes in play / in their hand. If you have one online vs a creature deck, you've probably won, if you have one in play then you just want to ensure that you have a threat to attach it to and you don't get tempo'd out by removal. Playing another Jitte just compounds those problems - you'd probably rather just have something to attach the first one to.

Elves is usually winning on the turn where they're using multiple Cradles. There are edge cases where it would matter, like if they naturally drew 3 of them early in the game, but I don't think it would affect the deck in the same way that Thalia -> Thalia would affect D+T.

But I wonder if there are some powerful interactions that would exist that don't right now - legendary cards that are currently not played at all that nevertheless have strong effects in multiples.

[barcode]

This seems like a bad idea.

Karakas has an important role to keep certain busted creatures in check.

[rufus]

Not that they're liable to be competitive, but the doubling replacement effects like Krak's Thumb and Alhamarret's Archive can get out of hand quickly in multiples. (Edit: I forgot Thrumming Stone.) Eladamri gets a little better. Vendillion Clique and Venser, Shaper Savant + Karakas stuff gets a bit more out of hand too.

[Dice_Box]

How so? Wouldn't the marker ability still work?

I mean that they are not able to abandon the Legendry type totally. Well until Gundam pointed out they can.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

They haven't even landed the Wastes and colorless color concept on the actual game and have shitloads of problems right now with their judge bans and leaks. I do not think they should worry on anything else right now.

This.
Seriously, and inb4 anyone else, Maro should stop fucking with the basic game design and go find some other job. He might idk try a pizza delivery or anything as remote from gaming industry as possible.
His lack of brain cells is obvious and I guess that if it would depend on either him or his children (or whoever designed Emrakul), we'd retroactively lose upkeep, mana costs and everything else that hinders slamming 18/36 trample haste, malign, double flying, man-ass inhalator6 into play... erm, on battlefield.

On topic: Having up to four Thalias would be devastating for certain decks, and although Glowriders exist, they are nowehre near T's efficiency (1W, first strike).
I guess having 2+ Jittes wouldn't hurt the controller, as more counters = more fun. Also having more jittes would be necessary for jitte matchup contests. Just like today: the guy with more jittes wins, except that today the upper limit of jittes os one.

From storyboard point of view, it is an extremely stupid idea to remove the leg rule, imao, as the "there can be only one" aspect is what makes the unique characters unique. But seeing the WotCs Jace-narcomania, I'm glad that we don't have thousands of them already.

Maybe Maro could move to some sub-WotC dvivision where he and his sycophants (fo spelling) might design an adult(ery) game all about Jace, Liliana and their college friendship.

/rant

No, it's not a good idea. I see no positives.

[TsumiBand]

"Really just everything should be unremarkable creatures that do stuff, unless they're Green or Blue then you should be able to just windmill slam them and win. But see Green creatures you get big doods and Blue creatures you get lots of cards in hand so you can cast more doods so really it's two entirely different ways to win. Look how diverse Magic is you guys you guys."


I know that's hyperbole, nobody said that, but oh my god sometimes that's all I hear from the people in charge of this game. It used to not even bother me to an extent, but like.... just some stuff that rolls down the pike is so bloody thoopid.

Getting rid of Legendary would preclude a ton of things from existing in their current form -- like it would be one of those Back to the Future paradoxes where Marty goes to 1955, gives his dad +3/+3 and he comes back to 1985 and doesn't understand the game state. There are so many Legendary things that just could not exist in their current form if they could be in play x4. Jitte? Thalia? Grand Arbiter Augustin as a four-of seems real cool. What about dropping multiple Katakis on a motherfucker, that seems strong. Edric would make GU Fish so fucking real if you could just draw into all of them and play them too.

Like even unremarkable Legendaries would have to have been reconsidered immensely. Rofellos would have been super banned and every copy ground into talcum powder. Sygg River Guide in multiples would make the best face deck plays of all time; you turn-early a couple Syggs and just Bolt face a lot and draw like 2-3 cards EOT all day forever. Or like, who'd really want to sit across from like 3 Geist of Saint Traft. I know it's not the brokennest thing of all time, but like.... who wants that. Who actually wants that to be a thing. What a shitty shitty board state that creates. Fucking just no is all.

I like the change where the Legend Rule only checks each player's side of the battlefield -- I still feel like we should be calling it the "Champion Edition" rule, because OBVS -- but really there's no need to dick around with unique permanents any further, whether it's Planeswalkers or Legendary permanents of any other kind. The ability to print cards that are uniquely powerful AND aggressively costed due to their inability to show up in multiples not only makes games more interesting but also means that deckbuilding isn't just a matter of derping your 10 favorite cards in a deck 4x times and playing whatever land and not weighing the consequences of running too many of a card that really shouldn't be played alongside itself.

[sjmcc13]

On topic: Having up to four Thalias would be devastating for certain decks, and although Glowriders exist, they are nowehre near T's efficiency (1W, first strike).
I guess having 2+ Jittes wouldn't hurt the controller, as more counters = more fun. Also having more jittes would be necessary for jitte matchup contests. Just like today: the guy with more jittes wins, except that today the upper limit of jittes os one.

From storyboard point of view, it is an extremely stupid idea to remove the leg rule, imao, as the "there can be only one" aspect is what makes the unique characters unique. But seeing the WotCs Jace-narcomania, I'm glad that we don't have thousands of them already.

Maybe Maro could move to some sub-WotC dvivision where he and his sycophants (fo spelling) might design an adult(ery) game all about Jace, Liliana and their college friendship.

/rant

No, it's not a good idea. I see no positives.

Ya, Having trouble finding anything to disagree with here...

[GundamGuy]

There's currently a lot of discussion on Maro's blog.

Have we not yet figured out that Maro made his blog with the sole purpose to troll the magic community?

Also: Waiting on that first yes vote.... might be waiting awhile.

[tescrin]

The worst part is not only the perpetual dumbing-down of the game by removing drawbacks, possible targets (opponent controls being common), sacrifice, and similar, but that he thinks he's doing good each time because the game has been growing.

He literally brags about how many "innovations" he's had that are garbage that *didn't* kill the game. I would imagine he gets his way in the next couple years despite vehement opposition.

[Dice_Box]

Also: Waiting on that first yes vote.... might be waiting awhile.
It's one of those rare times we can all come together and sing out of tune.

[thefringthing]

What's better? Being able to have multiples of anything you like on the battlefield, or having some cards have a kind of uninteresting drawback for so that the flavour makes sense? I don't think there's a clear winner. If they went with Maro's plan maybe they'd have to ban some things in Legacy, which again, could be good or could be bad.

[Barook]

The worst part is not only the perpetual dumbing-down of the game by removing drawbacks, possible targets (opponent controls being common), sacrifice, and similar, but that he thinks he's doing good each time because the game has been growing.

He literally brags about how many "innovations" he's had that are garbage that *didn't* kill the game. I would imagine he gets his way in the next couple years despite vehement opposition.
Which makes me wonder how often Maro has forced shitty ideas on the game despite nobody liking it.

I just don't see what is gained by removing Legendary and making them normal cards. The current trend of "all upsides, no downsides" alongside overcosting everything gets annoying and boring very fast.

Interestingly enough, they have already chosen to make unique locations non-legendary for mechanical reasons, namely the Mirrodin artifact lands and Zendikar trigger lands (e.g. Vakalut).

[jrsthethird]

Can I play White Weenie with 4x Isamaru, 4x Kytheon, 4x Thalia and curve out with Day of Destiny?

[Finn]

Legendary cards are designed specifically with both the flavor and power level of the single copy rule. There is a thing as too much sacrificed in your quest to dumb the game down to the least common denominator.

I see this as a long-term problem associated with Hasbro buying wotc. There are profit requirements calculated quarterly that don't exist in a much smaller company. This sort of thinking does not leave any room for the profits down the road for having a game that is excellent, and sure as hell do not have any of us in mind. All they can manage with such a short time frame is bringing up profits with decisions that have an immediate impact. This shitty thinking may not ruin the game in one or two strokes, but the continued hollowing out of what makes Magic special will eventually lead to the same shit we get for movies, music, television, and to some extent video games. Suits who answer to money and not art make creative decisions for everything. It turns entertainment into bland sameness which can only exist in a world where your target continually changes which in turn only exists because advertisers seek the attention of teenagers above all else, and they have aged out before they realize that they have been consuming soulless regurgitated unoriginal resequenced shite because market research says that new players prefer the kicker family of abilities over spells that cause them to learn how the stack works.

Whoa...I got all worked up. At any rate, I have always feared this happening to Magic.

[tescrin]

What's better? Being able to have multiples of anything you like on the battlefield, or having some cards have a kind of uninteresting drawback for so that the flavour makes sense?

I don't think it's an uninteresting drawback. Forcing you to run less than 4 in most decks despite being a good card is nifty. The fact that Karakas makes it that much more complicated in the case of Tasigur or other difficult to cast dudes is also pretty nifty; if relegated to Legacy.

[Raystar]

You guys are worried by 4 Thalia's? Can you imagine what 4 Tabernacles would do to any creature based deck?

[iatee]

I think Karakas is literally the only case where a deck runs 3 when it would otherwise run 4 because of the legend rule. And if the rule disappeared, Karakas would also become a marginally better card.

I honestly don't think this would affect much beyond Thalia in legacy. Nobody plays Geist anyway and one Geist kills your opponent, you don't need two on board at once. Nobody's playing 4 Cliques.

I am not a huge flavor person and I don't think much would be lost - the rule is kinda weird and leads to people being occasionally punished for making the right decision to play 4 copies of their best cards. 2 Geists doesn't feel more out of flavor than my-Jace fights your-Jace.

But still...multiple Thalias would lead to a lot of oppressive non-games.

[iatee]

Heh okay yeah multiple Tabernacles would be pretty gross and that would definitely be a thing. 4-Tabernacle Pox probably becomes a T2 deck nobody can actually afford and Lands probably becomes a little too good.

[Raystar]

Heh okay yeah multiple Tabernacles would be pretty gross and that would definitely be a thing. 4-Tabernacle Pox probably becomes a T2 deck nobody can actually afford and Lands probably becomes a little too good.

I would build a GWb Lands version with 4 Tabernacles in main and 4 Thalias in side...

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Hmmm, multiple Sanctums or Cradles in play, simultaneously, sounds extremely stupid. No thanks.

Gotta echo the ire directed towards MaRo's musings. The hatred for cards with drawbacks is annoying and leads to a lot of untapped design space. Instead of new Negators or Ernhams that invite interesting deckbuilding solutions to get around the drawbacks we'll just get more and more CITP-value creatures like our savior Siege Rhino (PBUH) and broken Blue crap.

[Finn]

4 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
4 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
4 Cabal Coffers
52 stuff

Sure would get people to stop complaining about Terminus.

[Raystar]

4 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
4 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
4 Cabal Coffers
52 stuff

Sure would get people to stop complaining about Terminus.

Oh yeah...that would be insane...

[Raystar]

4 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
4 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
4 Cabal Coffers
52 stuff

Sure would get people to stop complaining about Terminus.

Add 4 Eye of Ugin and a couple of eldrazi to close the deal...

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Legendary cards are designed specifically with both the flavor and power level of the single copy rule. There is a thing as too much sacrificed in your quest to dumb the game down to the least common denominator.

I see this as a long-term problem associated with Hasbro buying wotc. There are profit requirements calculated quarterly that don't exist in a much smaller company. This sort of thinking does not leave any room for the profits down the road for having a game that is excellent, and sure as hell do not have any of us in mind. All they can manage with such a short time frame is bringing up profits with decisions that have an immediate impact. This shitty thinking may not ruin the game in one or two strokes, but the continued hollowing out of what makes Magic special will eventually lead to the same shit we get for movies, music, television, and to some extent video games. Suits who answer to money and not art make creative decisions for everything. It turns entertainment into bland sameness which can only exist in a world where your target continually changes which in turn only exists because advertisers seek the attention of teenagers above all else, and they have aged out before they realize that they have been consuming soulless regurgitated unoriginal resequenced shite because market research says that new players prefer the kicker family of abilities over spells that cause them to learn how the stack works.

Whoa...I got all worked up. At any rate, I have always feared this happening to Magic.

This was one of the most brilliant rants on recent MtG design that I ever read.



I am not a huge flavor person and I don't think much would be lost - the rule is kinda weird and leads to people being occasionally punished for making the right decision to play 4 copies of their best cards.
So you dislike that ppl need to think about deck design in a Deck: the Designing card game? Hmm, hmm...

[iatee]

No, you missed the point entirely. It has little to no relevance in deck designing. If your deck is dependent on Thalia it is correct to play 4, because you need to maximize your chance of drawing at least one. If you're playing a modern Geist list you play 4. Sometimes you get punished for drawing multiples of your best creature because that creature is called 'Geist' or 'Thalia' and not 'Goyf' or 'Young Pyro', even though the first two aren't more powerful cards.

[Barook]

You guys are worried by 4 Thalia's? Can you imagine what 4 Tabernacles would do to any creature based deck?
Can you imagine what a high demand 4xTabernable would do to any wallet?


Legendary cards are designed specifically with both the flavor and power level of the single copy rule. There is a thing as too much sacrificed in your quest to dumb the game down to the least common denominator.

I see this as a long-term problem associated with Hasbro buying wotc. There are profit requirements calculated quarterly that don't exist in a much smaller company. This sort of thinking does not leave any room for the profits down the road for having a game that is excellent, and sure as hell do not have any of us in mind. All they can manage with such a short time frame is bringing up profits with decisions that have an immediate impact. This shitty thinking may not ruin the game in one or two strokes, but the continued hollowing out of what makes Magic special will eventually lead to the same shit we get for movies, music, television, and to some extent video games. Suits who answer to money and not art make creative decisions for everything. It turns entertainment into bland sameness which can only exist in a world where your target continually changes which in turn only exists because advertisers seek the attention of teenagers above all else, and they have aged out before they realize that they have been consuming soulless regurgitated unoriginal resequenced shite because market research says that new players prefer the kicker family of abilities over spells that cause them to learn how the stack works.

Whoa...I got all worked up. At any rate, I have always feared this happening to Magic.
Quarter reports where they must deliver aside, Hasbro lets Wizards pretty much do what they want, for better or worse.

IMHO, Maro's New World Order is one of the worst things to ever happen to the game gameplay-wise. They now dumb down the game more and more to the lowest common denominator. Just as Hollywood shits out new sequels and reboots all over again, or the videogame industry going "We want the Call of Duty audience". "Hollowing out the game" is probably the best term for it. We already live in a world of shitty sequels where we get recycled blocks of bland shit that can't hold a candle to the original, simply because it sells by name/nostalgia alone and doesn't have much risk involved. The art direction is goddamn awful because they made new, stingy contract conditions where many of the our beloved artists jumped ship, leaving us with worse, cheaper artists and their terrible CGI art.
It hurts to see interesting new design space like the new colorless "color" or experience counters getting thrown under the bus for "Yet-another-kicker-mechanic" or "+1/+1 Counter Mechanic 2: Electric Boogaloo". Questionable design decisions are made where e.g. Wrath effects get moved up to 5+ mana or Mana dorks to 2+ mana because they're suddenly too strong after 20 years into the game. It feels like Maro is trying to fix mistakes that were never mistakes to begin with - just like his madman's rant about the Legendary rule.

As for growing the game with sheer masses, we've already passed the zenith, as it seems. Wizards took revenue hits twice in a row in the last two quarter reports. And BFZ doesn't look too hot, either, considering all the hate it gets for being weak AND contributing to the pretty much most expensive Standard ever - which sounds like ideal conditions for another drove of players quitting.

Let's just hope we'll never get to the point where the game gets too bland in the quest for more profit. But given how Wizards' peers at Hearthstone's insane revenue, I wouldn't bet on it.

[jrsthethird]

4 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
4 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
4 Cabal Coffers
52 stuff

Sure would get people to stop complaining about Terminus.

64 cards.dec

[Bed Decks Palyer]

No, you missed the point entirely. It has little to no relevance in deck designing. If your deck is dependent on Thalia it is correct to play 4, because you need to maximize your chance of drawing at least one. If you're playing a modern Geist list you play 4. Sometimes you get punished for drawing multiples of your best creature because that creature is called 'Geist' or 'Thalia' and not 'Goyf' or 'Young Pyro', even though the first two aren't more powerful cards.

But deck design goes further than "I need to draw Thalia". It also includes the risk-reward evaluation, e.g. is it worth the danger to play the XY number of Card Whatever, if that means that I'll be stuck with it and unable to use it. It's similar to any otehr evaluation, just that Leg rule adds another facet to the game (other than "my Bolts can't counter shit, thus I won't play 40 of them in UWr Control"), a facet that Maro would like to remove. I don't see any appeal in this proposed change and I don't see how it wold improve the game in any way. You might differ and tell me that the mere fact that a guy won't be stuck with a useless Thalia/Teeg/etc. is an improvement, but imho it isn't. Shall we start a flamewar over gusto? Surely not.

Lets remove all the barriers, then. After all, they're ust arbitrary things that make ppl unhappy coz they cannot play their shit. Lets remove manacost. Lets remove upkeeps.

Thing with Thalia is that she's got her drawback intentionally, for YHWH's sake. It's a damned 2/1 first striker for 1W with an opressive ability. There's a reason why Glowrider's cmc is set to three. Comparing her to vanilla beatnik (although one as broken as Goyf) makes little sense, as Goyf's got no other role than to tap. If you'd allow four-of tables of Thalias (orGrand Arbiters or Tabernacles, or w/e leg shit is there available) you're definitley in a world of trouble that should be fixed somehow. So the bans would come, or a general overhaul of game rules or w/e else. Why do this? So that one dickhead from WotC that cannot properly design a 200-cards set of children's cardgame might come to a happy ending?

This is stupid.

WotC should do something about the ever more crappy design, about the RL chokehold, about the unispiring art, about literally anything else than tinkering with the basic design.

If Maro's main trouble is that he cannot play 25 Jaces, he and his casual group might simply start the game with a Mirror Gallery token in play and be done with the thing. We're not interested in his jackshit.
edit: or maybe he can go the Alpha League road...

[maharis]

IMHO, Maro's New World Order is one of the worst things to ever happen to the game gameplay-wise. They now dumb down the game more and more to the lowest common denominator. Just as Hollywood shits out new sequels and reboots all over again, or the videogame industry going "We want the Call of Duty audience". "Hollowing out the game" is probably the best term for it. We already live in a world of shitty sequels where we get recycled blocks of bland shit that can't hold a candle to the original, simply because it sells by name/nostalgia alone and doesn't have much risk involved. The art direction is goddamn awful because they made new, stingy contract conditions where many of the our beloved artists jumped ship, leaving us with worse, cheaper artists and their terrible CGI art.
It hurts to see interesting new design space like the new colorless "color" or experience counters getting thrown under the bus for "Yet-another-kicker-mechanic" or "+1/+1 Counter Mechanic 2: Electric Boogaloo". Questionable design decisions are made where e.g. Wrath effects get moved up to 5+ mana or Mana dorks to 2+ mana because they're suddenly too strong after 20 years into the game. It feels like Maro is trying to fix mistakes that were never mistakes to begin with - just like his madman's rant about the Legendary rule.

The annoying part is they break their dumb rules all the time and make the game worse. Consider:

-They got rid of 1cmc mana dorks because they said it pushed 3 cmc green cards too much. But green midrange still dominated the Standard season and they still ended up with a format warped around Gideon, Hangarback, and JVP.

-They decry complexity and especially monkeying with the exile zone, but came up with the processor mechanic which goes against both of those tenets.

But god forbid we get a Smokestack or Smallpox type effect.

I really think Maro is losing it and should be transferred to marketing or comms or something and someone else needs to take over design for a while. I respect that he has devoted his life to this game, and I understand that he's not making decisions unilaterally, but it's his interpretation of the directives from on high that set the direction of the design department and they just are giving us nothing. And I don't just mean in Legacy.

With regard to the Legend rule, there is 20 years of momentum behind the concept of legends being unique, which lets you print a 2 cmc sphere effect on a stick, or something like Brimaz that is the only monocolor 3 mana 3/4 without a drawback. Having one on each side is fine because it's flavorful for wizards battling in the aether to create a "mirror match." But does it really feel as bad to have a second one in your hand as it does to be mana screwed/flooded or not draw the answer you need? Why not give up the resource system or the 4 of rule if the goal is for no one to ever feel bad?

I don't think this change will be made, but this is what I'm getting from the lead designer? Unreal.

[iatee]

But deck design goes further than "I need to draw Thalia". It also includes the risk-reward evaluation, e.g. is it worth the danger to play the XY number of Card Whatever, if that means that I'll be stuck with it and unable to use it. It's similar to any otehr evaluation, just that Leg rule adds another facet to the game (other than "my Bolts can't counter shit, thus I won't play 40 of them in UWr Control"), a facet that Maro would like to remove. I don't see any appeal in this proposed change and I don't see how it wold improve the game in any way. You might differ and tell me that the mere fact that a guy won't be stuck with a useless Thalia/Teeg/etc. is an improvement, but imho it isn't. Shall we start a flamewar over gusto? Surely not.

I agree about Thalia and I don't think multiple copies of Thalia in play makes magic more fun for anybody. Even D+T players need to earn their wins.

But the 'risk-reward' evaluation in deck building is such a minor facet here because:
- It's almost always right to play 4 when they card is really good. Once in a while you play 3, like Zurgo in Standard or something. This 'risk-reward' decision is pretty easy, and for mainstream decks is discovered by consensus pretty quickly.
- They don't generally design legends to be cheap powerful creatures, they design them to be splashy expensive creatures, so they're not often 4 ofs in older formats regardless.

Maro cares about Magic design. He cares a LOT. He is a creepy dude who spends his time writing dialogues where the color Green argues with the color Red. However, that doesn't mean he's always wrong. The idea of 'legends' is not some deep elegant part of the rules, it was designed by people who were throwing shit at a wall. It was designed by the same people who designed 'Seafarer's Quay', one of the worst lands of all time and also 'Karakas', a card that completely neutralizes every large creature in the set they designed, for almost no cost. And they tossed them both in the Uncommon slot.

The rule has been a wart on the game and gone through all kinds of iterations and the current one seemed better than anything else, so sure, why not. But it is not an elegantly designed rule. It adds variance to the game without adding interesting game play in return for the variance. From a design perspective it's pretty obvious why you wouldn't want that in your game.

Maro cares about this for the same reason he tells everyone and their brother that instant spells should have flash, not because he wants to appease stockholders or whatever. Hell, the people who created legends were probably one of the best things that ever happened to the game financially, as the largest and most dedicated casual format completely revolves around the concept. Casual players have a use for new janky rares from every set, and every legendary card has someone building a deck around it right now.

Wizards tried to do something interesting with legends in non-casual formats in Kamigawa and it went down as one of the biggest failures to date. This was not some conspiracy to make people hate legendary cards, it was probably just due to the fact that...they do not work well with the base rules of the game. They just don't. At this point it is way too late to change that. But I think any talk of Maro doing this for anything other than his kinda creepy dedication to the purity of magic gameplay is crazy. The dude wants people to enjoy playing magic, losing games cause you don't get to play your cards doesn't make people enjoy playing magic and the only thing the legend rule really adds to constructed magic is 'sometimes you can't play your cards'.

[Dice_Box]

You guys are worried by 4 Thalia's? Can you imagine what 4 Tabernacles would do to any creature based deck?

Oh gods Thespian's Stage... I love you so much already...

[iatee]

With regard to the Legend rule, there is 20 years of momentum behind the concept of legends being unique, which lets you print a 2 cmc sphere effect on a stick, or something like Brimaz that is the only monocolor 3 mana 3/4 without a drawback. Having one on each side is fine because it's flavorful for wizards battling in the aether to create a "mirror match." But does it really feel as bad to have a second one in your hand as it does to be mana screwed/flooded or not draw the answer you need? Why not give up the resource system or the 4 of rule if the goal is for no one to ever feel bad?

Brimaz was barely played even in standard so I think having more than one 1ww 3/4 on each side probably wouldn't break much.

It doesn't feel as bad to have a second one in your hand as it does to be mana screwed/flooded, but it still feels bad, and the goal is to minimize the amount of additional feel bads they're throwing at us, especially when we're not getting anything interesting back in return. The goal is to create a deep and interactive game where even when you lose you felt like you got something out of it cause you played an interesting game, and not a game where sometimes you win and still leave the table annoyed that you kept drawing the same card again and again.

[thecrav]

In before thread lock due to complaining about WotC

I think the legendary rule as previously implemented works best for the flavor they're trying to go for. Sure, anyone can summon a knight or a soldier but there is only one Thalia, Grisselbrand, etc in the universe. Having two in play, whether that's between multiple players or for a single player, makes absolutely no sense.

Also, they might be able to "get rid of" the rule by not implementing it any more but they'd have to do some serious acrobatics with errata and rules to make old legendary cards work as they were intended, or at least work in ways that aren't completely busted (like the 4x Thalia or 4x Tabernacle examples)

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

But the 'risk-reward' evaluation in deck building is such a minor facet here because:
- It's almost always right to play 4 when they card is really good. Once in a while you play 3, like Zurgo in Standard or something. This 'risk-reward' decision is pretty easy, and for mainstream decks is discovered by consensus pretty quickly.

This seems like more of a complaint about the state of Magic in the era of mass communication via the internet. Most decisions become trivial when millions of minds are put to the problem on Reddit/Salvation/Source/TMD/wherever.

In practice it might not amount to much, but in principle the Legend rule does make for interesting decisions; more powerful effects come with a chance of dead draws.


the only thing the legend rule really adds to constructed magic is 'sometimes you can't play your cards'.

It's a tremendously useful tool for development. Some card are simply busted in multiples, and instead of clunky "If X is in play, you can't play cards named X" on 20+ text boxes, they can elegantly solve this via use of the Legendary Supertype (or Planeswalker Subtypes) with an easy-to-grok rule. This opens up tons of design space that couldn't otherwise be explored. I don't suspect something like Liliana of the Veil (or other "good" Planeswalkers) could see print without some form of the Legendary Rule; they'd be too busted in multiples. Instead, we'd just get Living Guildpacts, Tibalts, and Chandras.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Retroactively dropping Legendary rule is probably not the best idea, Thalia and Cradle being played in multiples sounds actually miserable, especially when those cards where made and balanced around that concept

W/e if they just decided to use unique instead of legendary going foward and just acting like legendary doesn't exist.

[iatee]

This seems like more of a complaint about the state of Magic in the era of mass communication via the internet. Most decisions become trivial when millions of minds are put to the problem on Reddit/Salvation/Source/TMD/wherever.

In practice it might not amount to much, but in principle the Legend rule does make for interesting decisions; more powerful effects come with a chance of dead draws.



It's a tremendously useful tool for development. Some card are simply busted in multiples, and instead of clunky "If X is in play, you can't play cards named X" on 20+ text boxes, they can elegantly solve this via use of the Legendary Supertype (or Planeswalker Subtypes) with an easy-to-grok rule. This opens up tons of design space that couldn't otherwise be explored. I don't suspect something like Liliana of the Veil (or other "good" Planeswalkers) could see print without some form of the Legendary Rule; they'd be too busted in multiples. Instead, we'd just get Living Guildpacts, Tibalts, and Chandras.

'More powerful effects come with a chance of dead draws' is the promise, but it's not the reality. In reality the vast majority of 'the most powerful creatures' (for competitive constructed magic) are not legendary. And the creatures that are legendary and are constructed playable are rarely that different in terms of power level from their non-legendary counterparts. If there really was some direct trade-off, and the top 10 played creatures in legacy/modern were legendary, and every new chase creature they print was legendary, that would at least follow some logic. But beyond splashy big stuff legends like Griselbrand - e.g. most future Reanimator targets will be legendary - there's never been any strong link between constructed playability and legendary-ness.

With planeswalkers it's different - they generally are designed to be strong cards and the powerful ones are very powerful, and when they're on board they're game defining and have to be dealt with quickly or they'll win. That's all built in. A good % of them are constructed playable in some format or another. So yeah, the design space is there - and they used it on a completely different type of permanent designed precisely with this role in mind, and it worked...okay.

Anyway, I'm not voting for getting rid of the legend rule any more than anyone else, but I would prefer they keep 'legendary' for big dumb EDH cards.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

...but I would prefer they keep 'legendary' for big dumb EDH cards.
I see that your main concern is an EDH format. That's fine. However, most of us are concerned mainly with Legacy, and considering the effect that the no-leg-rule change would have on the format (Thalia,Tabernacle, Cradle, Jitte come to mind), we'd rather not see this change implemented.

I'm sorry if I'll come across sounding harsh, but I think you should try some more casual setting, one where you might introduce some home rules (like the no-legs). While there is a reason why the legends are designed as they are, and while it is nice to have a special set of permanents with specific set of rules, I do understand that it might not appeal to everybody. Feel free to experiment with the cards. I'm kinda sceptic about the results, as the times when you won't be disappointed might get outweighed by the moments of true frustration when you'll be fighting through 4 Tabernacles, 4 Thalias, 4 augustins or 4 w/e.

4 Thalia
4 Jitte

Dat format.

Edit:
Something similar works in a World War 2 (web browser only ccg). While there is a world of difference between the two games (the rules are much simpler and cleaner than those of MtG, the game is centered solely on the combat, there's no gy but the used cards rotate, etc.), the main thing I'd want to write about is that for a deck of exactly 30 cards you are limited with a two-of-only rule and the Epic and Legendary cards ae limited to a single card per deck. Granted, ww2 is a different beast than Magic, and it suffers of host of unnecessary problems, especially just because of extremely powerful unique cards (and the fact that there's no way to get back in play once you'll start to lose), but w/e the difference, the point is: there can be a set of arbitrary rules considering the Legendary cards not only specifically mentioning the in-game zones, but also limiting the deck design. (Similarly to how the legs were restricted to one-of back in MtG's prehistory.)

I even tinkered with an idea of a casual deck (I still hold high hopes for our soon-to-be-alive-again casual group of old) build with this set of self-imposed restrictions:
- deck uses exactly 100 cards
- deck uses only the pre-8th frame, no Portal allowed
- the number of basic lands is not limited, of course
- cards other than the basic lands are limited as follows:

common cards: 4 copies max
uncommon cards: 3 copies max
rare cards: 2 copies max
legendary cards (no matter the rarity): 1 copy max


But then I realized that it's not worth the trouble, namely considering the pain of building an appropriate mamabase. However, speaking of casual formats and settings, the possibilities are endless. Kitchen table Magic was always the best place for fun and experiments.

[Crimhead]

Can you imagine what 4 Tabernacles would do to any creature based deck?Never mind creature decks - what would this do to my poor mortgage and marriage?

Or worse, what happens to poor Lands if this gem gets banned?

[Dice_Box]

Even if you think smaller and look at cards like Urborg. I mean the drawback to that is that it becomes a coloured Lotus Petal late in the game. That's why normally it's a two of.

[Lemnear]

4TabernacleVs4Cradle.format

[(nameless one)]

Having Legendary as a draw back is fine as long as the said permanents have borderline broken abilities.

I think they should stop printing legendary permanents that suck.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Having Legendary as a draw back is fine as long as the said permanents have borderline broken abilities.

I think they should stop printing legendary permanents that suck.
The question is: where should they move now when the (not only creatures) power creep works for at least a decade, and there are things like Griselbrand and such.
I'm afraid that SnT would be broken Grisly or not (considering we got an unlimited time and space, some card would definitely show up), but what makes me surprised is that they design card after cardthat they must have known that it's a mistake, check all the Necro 2.0 and Fixed Ancestrals of past few years.
Then again it's kinda awesome that things like Grisly show up from time to time and make an impact in Eternal formats. It's like if Wizards actually print cards for the old formats. So the best way (in my eyes only, mabye) might be to print strong enough cards but not broken on first sight. Balancing a card like idk SDT might be a trouble, but a flying lifelink Yawgmoth's Bargain is obviously a bit too much. Otoh, it' not like Reanimator is ruining the metagame...
In a perfect world, there should be some ratio between card's rarity (even taking the secondary market that mitigates the rarity, we should still consider the Limited environment) so that the overly powerful stuff doesn't ruin the drafts and so that it keeps its epic status, then of course there are lots of other tools how to balance the cards thus leaving us with a game that's also balanced. This sounds easy but not for a game that was a prototype of its own genre, one that was designed with a different goals by different teams twenty years ago and that's not only everchanging and bushy, but also full of retarded stuff from Shahrazad through CfB throguh P9 through Y Will through dozen of blue draw engines to Omniscience/Emmy/wutnot.
In my world, there'd be far less Deathlaces and Delvers, and much more Enforcers and Scroll Racks. But yeah, it's easy to be clever...

[Julian23]

I'm a dedicated Spike, but I still really love the flavor of Magic and often times think back of how excited I was for lore characters from the Weatherlight saga appearing in one of our games. When my friend played Commander Greven il-Vec, I was always terrified despite it probably not being the deciding factor in our games.

My understanding is that everything Maro and WotC in general have been doing after Lorwyn, is try to trade the complex and competitive aspect off for more (what they think) is immersion, excitement of newer players and flavor. There's an article where they actually state that following Future Sight/Lorwyn they are trying to make the game simpler to allow easier access.

With all of that in mind, I would be really sad to see Legends go. Stuff like Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary was super exciting to me as a new player because he was exactly that guy I knew from the story (and who had several other cards named after him) and there could be only one of him. If anything, if you wanted to push for a more flavor-heavy ruleset, I could see restricting Legends to a 1of in every deck.

Note that nothing on this has touched on the competitive aspect of such a change yet. From that perspective, getting rid of the Legends rule would potentially be really bad for Legacy. If one went the other way and restricted Legends, it would probably bring too much variance to games, especially in newer formats with less card selection. Also, in the spirit of what MaRo said, wouldn't that also mean that the Planeswalker Rule should be changed?

[Barook]

I'm a dedicated Spike, but I still really love the flavor of Magic and often times think back of how excited I was for lore characters from the Weatherlight saga appearing in one of our games. When my friend played Commander Greven il-Vec, I was always terrified despite it probably not being the deciding factor in our games.

My understanding is that everything Maro and WotC in general have been doing after Lorwyn, is try to trade the complex and competitive aspect off for more (what they think) is immersion, excitement of newer players and flavor. There's an article where they actually state that following Future Sight/Lorwyn they are trying to make the game simpler to allow easier access.

With all of that in mind, I would be really sad to see Legends go. Stuff like Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary was super exciting to me as a new player because he was exactly that guy I knew from the story (and who had several other cards named after him) and there could be only one of him. If anything, if you wanted to push for a more flavor-heavy ruleset, I could see restricting Legends to a 1of in every deck.

Note that nothing on this has touched on the competitive aspect of such a change yet. From that perspective, both getting rid of the Legends rule would potentially be really bad for Legacy. If one went the other way and restricted Legends, it would probably bring too much variance to games, especially in newer formats with less card selection. Also, in the spitit of what MaRo said, wouldn't that also mean that the Planeswalker Rule should be changed?
There certainly gives a feel of satisfaction when story-relevant characters hit the board, kicking ass and taking names. Akroma was a prime example for this.

As the for the PW rule, we don't know. It would make sense in the given context, but Maro hasn't answered any questions regarding it yet.

[GundamGuy]

As the for the PW rule, we don't know. It would make sense in the given context, but Maro hasn't answered any questions regarding it yet.

Getting rid of the PW Uniquness Rule would be as busted or more so then changing Legendary...

Good luck beating 2 Liliana of the Veils, or 2 JTMS...

I seriously hope this was just Maro talking shit again, and that this doesn't come to pass, because getting rid of the "Sometimes you don't want to draw this card" or "sometimes this card is good and sometimes it's not" aspect of the game removes a ton of design room.

IMO it's why Magic Sets have already started to feel so samey over the past few years...

[iatee]

I see that your main concern is an EDH format. That's fine. However, most of us are concerned mainly with Legacy, and considering the effect that the no-leg-rule change would have on the format (Thalia,Tabernacle, Cradle, Jitte come to mind), we'd rather not see this change implemented.

I'm sorry if I'll come across sounding harsh, but I think you should try some more casual setting, one where you might introduce some home rules (like the no-legs). While there is a reason why the legends are designed as they are, and while it is nice to have a special set of permanents with specific set of rules, I do understand that it might not appeal to everybody. Feel free to experiment with the cards. I'm kinda sceptic about the results, as the times when you won't be disappointed might get outweighed by the moments of true frustration when you'll be fighting through 4 Tabernacles, 4 Thalias, 4 augustins or 4 w/e.

4 Thalia
4 Jitte

Dat format.


You don't come across sounding harsh, you come across sounding like someone with poor reading comprehension. My concern is not casual magic, I don't play casual magic. Legendary cards are primarily designed for casual magic. They are there for flavor, beyond that, the ability they share is 'this card is a non-bo with itself'. That is not something a spike generally enjoys having to put in their deck.

And nobody is going to play 4 Augustins for the same reason that nobody plays 1 Augustin, and nobody is going to play 4 Jittes for the same reason that (almost) nobody plays 2 Jittes. There are a handful of cards where this does matter in legacy, but we can count those on one hand. Thalia, Tabernacle, Dark Depths, Cradle, Karakas. A handful of weird busted lands and Thalia.

Additionally, in legacy every new fair midrange creature that has the word 'legendary' in it is automatically worse (if you're not playing D+T or Venser miracles) because of the existence of Karakas. e.g Tasigur, new Jace, etc. - they randomly turn into dead cards. I can't Karakas your JTMS but I can Karakas your creature Jace. I am a Karakas player, I win games like this every now and again, I also think it's dumb and too randomly powerful vs fair decks playing fair creatures.

Anyway, this change is not going to happen and Maro said as much himself: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/136236179013/is-the-legendary-thing-something-you-feel-strongly

[TsumiBand]

I'm still having trouble understanding Legendary as a drawback.

The only thing I can think of is that you cannot play them in multiples, which necessarily means that some Magic version in a parallel universe which has unique permanents that aren't subject to some kind of 1-of rule are either incredibly oppressive or entirely reconsidered in their power.

Why is it a drawback to not windmill slam every creature in your hand onto the battlefield? Why is having more 'options' always better? Rosewater has argued (or, I think it was Mark Rosewater; maybe I'm misappropriating this argument) that Sorcery speed effects actually create more choices for the player than just making the Good Spells always Instants. This, I agree with, if only because time has shown that the right time to play Instants is typically in response to your opponent, or at the end of their turn. So while there are all kinds of phases you could play the spell, really it's kind of a false choice, right -- a lot of the time, your Instants are best saved for EOT. Forcing you to weigh your decisions during your main phase is better than making the obvious EOT play the best one.

With this in mind, I don't understand how Legendary is a drawback when it clearly places a similar restriction on when and how to play the cards in your hand. Why is it "always right" to be able to play copies of everything? Like, even if this weren't legendaries we were talking about, mass removal still exists. It used to be wrong to control 3 creatures, for fuck's sake -- you were gonna get WoG'd, like 3 whole creatures was considered overextending. How is Legendary a drawback when it is supposedly a way to print an OP guy that should only exist as a singleton and already draws out your opponent's better removal? The fuck

[Star|Scream]

I'm still having trouble understanding Legendary as a drawback.

The only thing I can think of is that you cannot play them in multiples, which necessarily means that some Magic version in a parallel universe which has unique permanents that aren't subject to some kind of 1-of rule are either incredibly oppressive or entirely reconsidered in their power.

Why is it a drawback to not windmill slam every creature in your hand onto the battlefield? Why is having more 'options' always better? Rosewater has argued (or, I think it was Mark Rosewater; maybe I'm misappropriating this argument) that Sorcery speed effects actually create more choices for the player than just making the Good Spells always Instants. This, I agree with, if only because time has shown that the right time to play Instants is typically in response to your opponent, or at the end of their turn. So while there are all kinds of phases you could play the spell, really it's kind of a false choice, right -- a lot of the time, your Instants are best saved for EOT. Forcing you to weigh your decisions during your main phase is better than making the obvious EOT play the best one.

With this in mind, I don't understand how Legendary is a drawback when it clearly places a similar restriction on when and how to play the cards in your hand. Why is it "always right" to be able to play copies of everything? Like, even if this weren't legendaries we were talking about, mass removal still exists. It used to be wrong to control 3 creatures, for fuck's sake -- you were gonna get WoG'd, like 3 whole creatures was considered overextending. How is Legendary a drawback when it is supposedly a way to print an OP guy that should only exist as a singleton and already draws out your opponent's better removal? The fuck

The ability to play more than one copy of a permanent actually creates more options and decisions, not fewer.

[GundamGuy]

The ability to play more than one copy of a permanent actually creates more options and decisions, not fewer.

I don't know about more, but it creates different options and decisions... I think the decisions that you have to make when it comes to Legends is good design space.

They already nerfed the legend rule a lot by 1) Letting both sides have the same legend at the same time (this was a drawback to playing a legend) 2) Making it so you get to keep one of the two copies instead of them both exploding from ripping a hole in the universe.

[phonics]

4TabernacleVs4Cradle.format

Personally I would vote for 12tabernacle.deck

[tescrin]

That is not something a spike generally enjoys having to put in their deck.
Oops! Unwound your entire 2-pages of troll-argumentation by revealing that the rule works as intended.

Games are about interesting choices. Do I play 4 and suffer the consequences is an interesting choice.

Let me point out, you remember the points of video games that "you hate to do" because they're memorable, difficult, etc.. You don't remember crowbaring the first headcrab in Half Life or shooting them in the hallway with your pistol, because it's boring and uninteresting once you know the game at all. You remember the first garg fight because it's brutal to run through it's flamethrowers to do the power-plant thing or to throw 20 grenades/c4 at it.

Similar with each change that dumbs down the game. Remembering getting owned because you forgot they could sacrifice Fanatic to deal a 2nd damage while his 1 is on the stack and you lose your Factory, costing you the game because you're short mana until they win.. that's something memorable. Why? Because it sucked.

People really forget that we remember sucky things fondly. It's more enjoyable to be cold and wet on your vacation because it's interesting. It's enjoyable *in the moment* if you have 70 degree weather, no hangups, etc.. but if you get stuck in traffic, your tire bursts after that, you have to camp on the side of the road in some valley instead.. you have a story for life.


I don't think people understand themselves because they just want everything to be as easy as possible.

[iatee]

Games are about interesting choices. Do I play 4 and suffer the consequences is an interesting choice.


It is not an interesting choice, or even a choice the vast majority of the time as the optimal number is easy to discover and is generally 4 if the card is powerful. As someone mentioned before, 'Do I play around a board wipe' is an interesting choice, one that requires reading your opponent, one that you make pretty regularly in a creature deck. The legend rule takes away that choice from you. You are net negative interesting choices here.

[rufus]

The thing is, they really don't have to do much - just stop printing cards with the legendary supertype, make a new commander supertype for EDH support and move on. The number of legendary cards per set waxes and wanes anyway.

[joven]

MaRo should read this:

I think it would be bad flavorwise. And I think flavor was the reason the legendary rule existed/exists the way it did/does. If the creature is a special character in the story it is a firm implication that there can be only one at a time on the battlefield. If there could be more it wouldn't be a _special_ character! It is an inherent attribute of a special character.
MaRo already "fixed" the legendary rule in a questionable way. Completely abandoning it would be stupid. It also would mean a functional change for a lot of existing cards that were designed and balanced with the legendary rule in mind.
I think the game needs a notion of "you can have only one of this". Abandoning it would mean loosing a part of the game.
Worse enough that it doesn't work right between planeswalkers and creatures (e.g. Jace, Vryn's Prodigy) and creatures with somehow different names that are actually the same (e.g. Surrak).
I think it is already bad that WotC avoided to use the legendary keyword on obviously legendary/unique lands in the last few years (e.g. Valakut). If it has a special name and title it is unique.

Conserning Legacy I wouldn't be suprised if it would lead to the need of banning several cards or establishing a Restricted List to compensate.

I don't quite get what MaRo's problem is with characters being legendary. It was never a problem for the cards to get played or to be strong enough. On the contrary if he abandons the legendary rule, cards of story characters would need to be designed weaker and with less abilities because the inherent drawback would be gone. That is just a matter of game balancing. It would make those cards a lot less interesting!

Thing is if some 5-year old "target audience" doesn't understand the legendary rule and wants to have two of their favorite legendary creature in play, then they can just do it by house rule. MaRo would be stupid make a massive change to the game just for that.

[iatee]

The thing is, they really don't have to do much - just stop printing cards with the legendary supertype, make a new commander supertype for EDH support and move on. The number of legendary cards per set waxes and wanes anyway.

Yep exactly - it's a pretty easy problem to fix. You can either fade them out slowly or just keep legendary cards splashy 5+ drops that would never get played in multiples in constructed formats anyway. Casual EDH players don't get excited about spike cards like Geist or Thalia, constructed format players aren't playing magic for the 8 mana legendary dragons. People would barely notice it happening.

[iatee]

Haha I mean I guess the 3 people who still play Tiny Leaders would probably notice it.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

And nobody is going to play 4 Augustins for the same reason that nobody plays 1 Augustin, and nobody is going to play 4 Jittes for the same reason that (almost) nobody plays 2 Jittes.

So you're saying me that fewer Jittes are the same as more Jittes? Jitte is legendary, so now there's no reason to have more than one. But if you'd have a possibility to have two Jittes in play at the same time, you'd surely want that. More is better. If you want to prove me wrong, I got a Cock to show you that your OneJitte.dec will lose to mine FourJittes.dec every time.

Forget about Augustin. It's not like he's the most important legend.

I seriously don't understand what's your concern with legendary rule. There are 20k MtG cards with any kind of drawbacks and leg rule is one of them. And it's not like the legendary rule is the one and only thing that spoils otherwise perfect game.


Also, your sarcasm sensors seem to be broken.

[MGB]

Legendary cards are designed specifically with both the flavor and power level of the single copy rule. There is a thing as too much sacrificed in your quest to dumb the game down to the least common denominator.

I see this as a long-term problem associated with Hasbro buying wotc. There are profit requirements calculated quarterly that don't exist in a much smaller company. This sort of thinking does not leave any room for the profits down the road for having a game that is excellent, and sure as hell do not have any of us in mind. All they can manage with such a short time frame is bringing up profits with decisions that have an immediate impact. This shitty thinking may not ruin the game in one or two strokes, but the continued hollowing out of what makes Magic special will eventually lead to the same shit we get for movies, music, television, and to some extent video games. Suits who answer to money and not art make creative decisions for everything. It turns entertainment into bland sameness which can only exist in a world where your target continually changes which in turn only exists because advertisers seek the attention of teenagers above all else, and they have aged out before they realize that they have been consuming soulless regurgitated unoriginal resequenced shite because market research says that new players prefer the kicker family of abilities over spells that cause them to learn how the stack works.

Whoa...I got all worked up. At any rate, I have always feared this happening to Magic.

Thread won.

All bad design decisions in recent Magic history can basically be traced back to the profit impetus of their corporate overlords.

[Aggro_zombies]

Thread won.

All bad design decisions in recent Magic history can basically be traced back to the profit impetus of their corporate overlords.
Seems like we're done here, then.