Legendary Creature Rules Text
Posted on Jan. 12, 2020, 12:35 a.m. by ZendikariWol
Some legendary creature cards ( Daxos of Meletis and God-Eternal Bontu ) use only the card's name in its rules text (saying "Daxos of Meletis" each time it refers to the card, and never simply "Daxos").
Some legendary creature cards ( Brimaz, King of Oreskos and Alirios from THB) use the creature's card name once and uses its canon name the rest of the time.
Where is the consistency here?! Is there a rule I'm not seeing? If you need a frame of reference, take a look at New Format: Unlikely Alliances. It includes every legendary creature (except those from Dominaria and Kamigawa but whatever). But if there's a templating rule that I'm not seeing, then, well, I'm not seeing it.
It's a method used to save design space.
Are you actually upset over this? Seems kind of petty.
Wizard's, I'm sure, is fairly confident that players can read and understand the cards. If someone wants to argue that a permanent doesn't refer to itself because it's not 100% of the giant text, maybe this isn't the game for them.
January 12, 2020 12:39 a.m.
I'm not concerned about it at all, as a player. But as someone who designs Magic cards, I would really like to know the when and how of this. It would just be really helpful.
January 12, 2020 12:43 a.m.
As far as I know it is just to save space in the text box. The templating would make more sense if they kept it consistent, but WotC has not yet decided to address this particular templating issue. Which is mind boggling considering their recent templating changes seeming more trivial than this to me.
January 12, 2020 1:26 a.m.
January 12, 2020 1:49 a.m.
In every example you used, the cards that use the full name (Daxos, Bontu) contain no commas, and their name is (relatively) short. All of your other examples contain commas, and large names. It’s simply for space. That’s it. No other reason. Daxos seems bloated, but if his name was Daxos, Oracle of Meletis or whatever- that’s a vastly different name size and it wouldn’t fit.
January 12, 2020 3:31 a.m.
Solid hypothesis, Daveslab2022. I'll see if there's an exception and get back to ya.
January 12, 2020 4:15 a.m.
Update: Akroma, Angel of Fury doesn't conform to the postulated rule. Nor does Ashling the Pilgrim , and neither does Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh Flip. At three exceptions in such close proximity, I start to wonder... maybe it's because there are other versions of all of these creatures in existence, or at least in planning, by the time these card were released?? It requires further testing. We'll see.
January 12, 2020 4:31 a.m.
ZendikariWol There has obviously been more than one rule used over the lifetime of the game.
January 12, 2020 8:47 a.m.
Whenever a card references itself by name (full or shortened) it's literally translated as 'This Card'.
Sakashima the Impostor is the best relevant example I can think of. If Sakashima copies a creature that refers to itself by name then your clone still gets the effect even though it's technically named 'Sakashima, the Impostor' still.
January 12, 2020 11:18 a.m. Edited.
201.4. Text that refers to the object it's on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.
201.4b. If an ability of an object refers to that object by name, and an object with a different name gains that ability, each instance of the first name in the gained ability that refers to the first object by name should be treated as the second name. I.e. Clone copying Palinchron or my above post.
201.4c. Text printed on some legendary cards refers to that card by a shortened version of its name. Instances of a card's shortened name used in this manner are treated as though they used the card's full name.
January 12, 2020 11:39 a.m. Edited.
Clone is a bad example... let's stick with Sakashima copying Palinchron for my above post lol.
January 12, 2020 11:49 a.m.
Thank you very much, Last_Laugh. Of all the places to go for the rules, you'd think I would consider going to the actual rules, but no. Good call.
January 12, 2020 1:14 p.m.
It's hard to find specific rules sometimes. I had to look up rulings on Sakashima and figured that was my best bet.