Why would they change the Uniqueness rule?

Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum

Posted on Sept. 7, 2017, 8:32 a.m. by Funkydiscogod

So, they merged the "Uniqueness" rule with the Legend Rule, and retyped all current Planeswalkers to Legendary.

I'm not so concerned about their official reasons for doing so. Obviously, their new planeswalker, Jace the Colossal Castaway, is going to be the first to make use of the change. But, the real question: does this change really open up any new card design space for them?

I think they can't even print nonlegendary planeswalker if they wanted to. After ten years of printing planeswalkers without the Legendary supertype, if they printed a nonlegendary one, it'd just be confusing.

Am I missing something? I know some existing cards got better, but did the future of the game actually benefit from the change? What could they do now that they couldn't do before?

Pieguy396 says... #2

I think it's less of a design space issue (aside from the new Jace's ultimate) and more of a complexity issue. The Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule working differently than the Legend Rule added an unnecessary level of complexity to the game that made it harder for new players to understand.

September 7, 2017 8:34 a.m.

chaosumbreon87 says... #3

I'm willing to give points where points are due. This makes the old tamiyo loop less consistent now that it needs another piece to fully pull off.

September 7, 2017 10:14 a.m.

KingMathoro says... #4

I think the future is gonna change. At least in formats like Commander where a lot of planeswalkers can see play. The fact that Atraxa Superfriends can now have multiple Jaces and Lilis out at the same time is absolutely terrifying. And don't even get me started on how happy Captain Sisay is..

September 7, 2017 10:26 a.m.

PookandPie says... #5

It largely won't change anything in Commander, mostly due to the fact that Super Friends decks are terrible and Captain Sisay's best version is still Paradox Engine loops through legendary cards (I haven't even found a Planeswalker I'd like to add to my own Sisay deck, honestly).

It was largely removed simply due to being additional complexity for flavor reasons, but Wizards apparently determined that flavor mattered less than game mechanics since there are just so damn many of that card type right now, lol.

September 7, 2017 10:46 a.m.

Superfriends is bad? Have you ever played against a doubling season one? I took mine apart because it was too GOOD.. and that was before this change that makes it better.

I dont see how doubling season out casting jace: tms, ugin, karn and tamiyo 2.0 and ulting them immediately on cast is bad, kinda hard to win against that, i guess your local atraxa player is either poor or just a bad player cuz atraxa superfriends wasnt bad before and its slightly better now

Honestly the rule is a positive change, now instead of having to sacrifice my Jace, the Mind Sculptor when i cast one of the 10 other jace cards, i get both.

This is a blessing in edh and a planeswalker buff for 60-card constructed and it is necessary, very few walkers outside of big jace in legacy and karn, ugin and liliana of the veil in competitive modern see any play at all outside of casual circles or superfriends. this means that planeswalkers are more viable and may see more competitive play

But the change was 100% necessary. If they printed ONE legendary walker after 100 non-legends and DIDNT change the rules, it would have broken the game.

At least this change is a buff, most changes like bannings or the "split-card" change in amonkhet that nerfed the shit out of things Isochron Scepter being able to imprint Fire/Ice or Turn / Burn, most changes nerf cards, so a buff is more than welcome

September 7, 2017 12:56 p.m.

Lowenstein says... #7

Idk, I'm still confused though as to why it makes sense that you can have one Jace walker and a different Jace walker under your control. Or two Lily's.

September 7, 2017 12:58 p.m.

Same reason you can have both wort cards or taigam cards out like its always been..

September 7, 2017 1 p.m.

Lowenstein says... #9

Idk, story wise, if Jace becomes loyal to you, then he is loyal to you, and there is only one Jace. Unless, you say that you can have another Jace since he is the past or future version of the one you already have. In my opinion, one Jace is always the same Jace, but it seems like the only way this makes sense is if you include some time-warping thing

September 7, 2017 1:03 p.m.

Lowenstein says... #10

That may not have made any sense, but whatever :P

September 7, 2017 1:04 p.m.

SteelSentry says... #11

goblinguiderevealpls If there was a feasable way to prevent people from doing that, I would try.

Then again, I enjoy Kangaroo Court style games, so I'm probably not the person ask to design a game.

September 7, 2017 1:24 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #12

Flavour-wise I don't like it. Doppelgangers because of "reduced complexity?" The player/Walker is now summoning illusions/representations of walkers instead of the actual 'Walker.

Functionally I think it strengthened the card type, and I think it's allowed for less planning on deck building. Before you may want to limit the number of slots dedicated to 'walkers to limit the number of times you end up with dead cards in hand. Now there's less concern of that.

Overall I don't like it, although I will adapt to the potential. We'll see what happens.

September 7, 2017 7:05 p.m.

bennybubbles says... #13

Yes it's a fairly large flavour miss but Magic is first and foremost a game, and as one of the biggest Vorthos nuts around I am perfectly fine to say that if it comes down to it, gameplay trumps flavour. Every. Single. Time

September 8, 2017 6:56 a.m.

DemonDragonJ says... #14

Lowenstein, the difference is that there was no mechanical way to differentiate between two legendary creatures that portray the same being, while there is with planeswalkers, and, given how powerful some planeswalkers can be, this change is very dangerous, in my mind.

September 8, 2017 9:29 a.m.

very true.

Its always great when you can play a deck with both flavor and synergy though :)

September 8, 2017 9:30 a.m.

Lowenstein says... #16

I see what y'all are saying. But ya know how like Liliana of the Veil says Planeswalker - Liliana and Jace, the Mind Sculptor says Planeswalker - Jace? I think that's the way of differentiating.

September 8, 2017 10:12 a.m.

jamescm says... #17

I don't think that it's practical to do something like that for all legendary cards because according to Gatherer, there are 833 cards with legendary. It would be a hassle to go through every single one and come up with a special subtype for each one, not to mention a violation of the New World Order due to the massive ammount of new subtypes.

September 11, 2017 10:50 a.m.

Please login to comment