Why Do Some Players Wish to Change the Legend Rule?
General forum
Posted on Sept. 19, 2019, 7:44 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Some players, and also Mark Rosewater, wish to change the legend rule so that it is not a drawback, but I believe that those players are missing the entire point of legendary permanents; the legend rule restricts a player to one copy of a particular permanent at any time so that that permanent may be more powerful for its mana cost. Without that restriction, some cards would be too powerful for their costs.
What does everyone else say about this subject? I know that this may be a controversial subject, but why do you believe that some players wish to change or eliminate the legend rule?
LordBlackblade says... #3
Change it in what way? I’m afraid I haven’t heard anything about this. All it really does is restrict the number in play, as you said. So if they change it, what would be the point of legendary permanents?
September 19, 2019 8:03 p.m.
I have literally heard no one, including rosewater, say that. Also like the whole point is that it's a minor drawback for more powerful creatures. And I mean MINOR considering most of these creatures would be way too powerful without it and there's a lot of ways to get around it.
September 19, 2019 8:30 p.m.
Chandra69X says... #5
dbpunk: and don't forget the legendary non-creatures.
September 19, 2019 10:15 p.m.
Chandra69X true. But also it doesn't really seem like too much of a drawback to only have one at a time still.
September 19, 2019 10:30 p.m.
Chandra69X says... #7
dbpunk: depends on the legendary permanent. planeswalkers in particular would get out of hand. nobody wants the tron player to have multiple Karn Liberated out.
September 20, 2019 12:03 a.m.
Personally, i think seeing as how the legendary ruling was changed because some kids got butthurt when the other player brought out the same card and their's died... it should be changed back to one on the battlefield, not one per player. Having 3 Avacyn, Angel of Hope s on the battlefield in a 3 player ffa is horse crap. Further more a less restricting rule would lose more players overall ruining the game for most of its following.
September 20, 2019 12:30 a.m. Edited.
I mean, I don't think so cause honestly that made the game wayyyy worse and most legendaries aren't on Avacyn, Angel of Hope 's level.
September 20, 2019 12:36 a.m.
Take Liliana of the Veil then. Killing off 4 of those alone against an 8 rack deck would be almost impossible. When a rule is changed, all formats are treated equal. If you change it for modern players legacy is also affected. The game would be in chaos.
September 20, 2019 12:48 a.m. Edited.
I'm not saying change the current rule, I'm saying let's not head back to the old rule. Like extremely restrictive rules are just as bad as extremely loose ones in game play. And I think that a lot of games would be ruined and a lot less fun if two players couldn't have their commander because other players who had them in their deck casted them first.
September 20, 2019 1:03 a.m.
Currently, the rule as is fills the need of the card type and gives it enough wiggle room to make the game fun for players. If we make it less restrictive, the game would become a mess and certain decks would suddenly dominate. If we made it more restrictive, however, it would just be less fun and much more confusing. The whole "only one on the battlefield" thing makes it so that legendary cards, which are generally good cards, suddenly become waayyyyyyy worse. Which would make them a lot less great to play around.
Also a note: since commander and it's God knows how many variants exist relies almost entirely on legendaries existing, if they changed the rule back or into something more restrictive, it would seriously mess up the whole format. Which would result in basically a good chunk of the playerbase leaving the game.
September 20, 2019 1:08 a.m.
Chandra69X says... #13
Asyriel: please cite a source that the rule was changed because kids were "butthurt". if the rule went back to "one on the battlefield" like you wanted, that was actually the worst of all the old rulings. back then, if player 1 controlled a legend, all copies of that legend in player 2's hand are essentially dead cards. if player 2 resolved the same legend, it would immediately be sent to the graveyard (does not die). this was a huge advantage for whoever lucked into their legend first.
as for your statement of "when the other player brought out the same card and their's died", that was the second version of the rule, where BOTH legends were sent to the graveyard (they don't "die"). so i can't really imagine anyone getting "butthurt" about their opponent using what essentially equates to an expensive removal spell, since most legendary creatures are 3+ mana.
have you ever "actually" seen a 3 person free for all where everyone actually gets out an Avacyn, Angel of Hope simultaneously? i seriously doubt it. the simple answer is to run removal that doesn't destroy. if the players don't have that, thats their own fault, not the legendary rules fault.
September 20, 2019 2:49 a.m.
Chandra69X says... #14
dbpunk & LordBlackblade: for reference, here is what i found regarding rosewaters opinion of the legend rule.
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Legendary
September 20, 2019 2:51 a.m.
DemonDragonJ: Your description is both very vague and you haven't provided any sources regarding your claims. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with discussion for discussion's sake however if you're going to make a claim like this then please ensure you can at least provide some sort of backup.
As dbpunk pointed out, there is an issue with rolling the rule back to its original form in that it cna heavily impact commander games with multiple players running the same commander (which in turn made Phantasmal Image super OP). I know back in the day we used to house rule that duplicate commanders would be treated as "Player X's Damia, Sage of Stone " as far as the legend rule was concerned. But I don't that's a good solution long term.
I think the current rule is healthy where it is - back in the worldwake days, Cawblade would run 4 copies of
Jace Beleren
, partially as a way to kill an enemy
Jace, the Mind Sculptor
. And I don't think that's a healthy way to deck-build when looking at a larger scale.
September 20, 2019 3:08 a.m.
Chandra69X says... #16
enpc: the "original" legendary rule wouldn't make phantasmal image op. with the original ruling, if a Phantasmal Image came into play copying a legend, the image would be the one sent to the graveyard. i think you meant the 2nd version of the rule, which sent both to the grave.
September 20, 2019 5:02 a.m.
jconeil1988 says... #18
I can look past two of the same legends being on opposite sides of the field. the only thing I don't like is the Planeswalker Legend rule. How is there, flavor wise, two different walkers on the field of the same name. They are the same people.
September 21, 2019 2:17 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #19
enpc, on Mark Rosewater's Tumblr account, some users have been asking about removing the "rules baggage" from the legendary supertype, but I do not understand to what "rules baggage" they are referring.
September 21, 2019 12:10 p.m.
Liliana69X says... #20
jconeil1988: playability is more important than flavor.
September 21, 2019 8:56 p.m.
jconeil1988 says... #21
TypicalTimmy thats actually a really good way to think of it.
Chandra69X says... #2
i personally prefer the current legendary rule over the old one, but i guess its possible it could better. could you provide a reference to rosewaters comment so we can see exactly what he said? i'm curious as to how he would change the rule to "not be a drawback", considering that the entire point of the rule in the first place is to be a drawback.
i mean it would be kinda nice to be able to throw in 4 copies of a legendary without worrying about drawing dead cards, but like you said the restriction allows them to be more powerful for their cost. being able to put multiple Throne of the God-Pharaoh into play in my goblins deck would be a game breaker.
September 19, 2019 8:02 p.m.