not a rules question, but rather a rules discussion
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on March 3, 2021, 11:49 a.m. by MLS91
Some friends and myself were talking about some hypothetical rules for the format of specifically commander and came across a fairly logical/ reasonable rule that we thought warranted further discussion so here it is.
If you get a copy of a legendary creature (be it your commander of a theft'd legendary creature) the oldest of the cards (involving time stamps)is sacrificed (yes i acknowledge that people don't like the idea of not having a choice).
I think this makes sense both in real world applications (the eldest of us generally are closer to "death" then those that are younger), and in some cases can check some commanders. I don't know the full extent of this application yes Mirror Gallery effects would still circumnavigate this. what are the communities thoughts?
Omniscience_is_life says... #3
In my opinion, making new rules is such confusing business that they need to be very impactful/necessary to be worth it. This also just sounds like the old legendary creature rule, and that one was deemed unworthy some time ago.
I personally think the rules stand well as they are
March 3, 2021 12:05 p.m.
I've seen something like this most frequently in a Sharuum the Hegemon combo with Phyrexian Metamorph .
The Combo Show
I don't think this proposed rule change would affect this particular combo, but there are a lot of weird lines out there. If it doesn't affect your games, it could work as a house rule, but watch out for outside situations where it could change the outcome of a game.
March 3, 2021 12:18 p.m.
Hardhitta7 says... #5
They engage in battle to see if youth or wisdom prevails! (By that I mean I like being able to choose)
March 3, 2021 5:04 p.m.
Grubbernaut says... #6
It would generally not matter, so why change it? Unless it's just for flavor, then feel free to house rule it.
March 3, 2021 6:18 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #7
My understanding of The Old Ways was that we, the Wizards, were summoning creatures from other planes. From that perspective, if you were to summon Joven a turn or two after I did, you would effectively be stealing him...similar to a Control Magic effect. I always liked this because it stayed in-line with the theme or story of what the game was. Sometime, maybe around Ravnica, they changed the legend rule so that everyone could have their legends and planeswalkers without fear (which I thought was sort of a bad move), bumping the theme/concept to the curb. I’d prefer we went back to the old way and extend it to also only allow one of each named planeswalker to be in play at a time. But, having said that, I secretly dislike planeswalkers in general... so I probably shouldn’t be trusted with any decision making power that might make their use less enjoyable. On a broader scale, the “everyone gets their own mini-universe for a battlefield” change made it seem (to me) like the wizards were just that much further away from each other. That much less interactive. I’m probably making too big a deal of it, but it just seemed like a shame that they made that decision.
March 3, 2021 6:28 p.m.
I agree with FormOverFunction. I preferred the original legend rules. The spirit and flavor of the game was impacted when they changed the rules regarding legends and planeswalkers. I liked the idea that "Elspeth fights with me, not with you!" idea behind the unique rule. Unless someone stole, borrowed or turned her, of course.
Also, the battlefield had always been a shared place previously and not a mini-universe (TM) for each player. I also agree with Omniscience_is_life. Before changing rules, we should decide whether it has enough value to appreciably change the game for the better versus the impact of the rule change.
Like someone said, you could always House Rule it with your playgroups.
March 4, 2021 12:38 a.m.
The issue with the old legend rule to many times the person that resolved first had to big of an advantage. This of course was not edh related why wizards changed the rule
March 4, 2021 1:09 a.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #10
The problem that rules changes always face imo is the fact that cards are designed with the current rules in mind, and new rules can easily warp the effects of cards designed for a different environment. As an example, I'd personally hate this change because of what it does to Blade of Selves on legends. Now, that's a personal pet card issue, but these are the kind of things you have to consider when you look at changing rules.
March 4, 2021 3:38 a.m. Edited.
FormOverFunction says... #11
I agree with Tyrant-Thanatos that a change like this shouldn’t be put out without a review of its impacts. I think, with myriad specifically, there wouldn’t be much of a change since either way you’d be capping out at only one copy of the legend out there at a time. I think that blade should be errata-ed (if that’s a word) to allow for what I assume the point of it is; maybe make it a “self” non-legendary creature with matching attributes. I say this for two reasons: (1) because that’s an awesome card, and (2) any goblin or ghost who wields it is legendary in his/her own mind... being an individual... so would the sword get them vaporized as well..? I think Blade of Selves could use some fixing.
March 4, 2021 11:08 a.m.
Your original post fails to answer the most important question: Why?
You are proposing two different rule changes - a modification to which creatures die to the legend rule and making the legend rule a “sacrifice” rather than the state-based action it currently is.
In support of this position, you offer it as a “check” on some commanders, but you do not offer any evidence as to which commanders and why they are so dangerous as to need a check (especially in a world where Thrasios runs fairly unchecked).
I’d be curious to see your actual reasoning, since currently it looks like a rules change just for the sake of changing the rules.
March 4, 2021 11:48 p.m.
every edh player i knew at the time loved the changes to the legendary rules. First it fixes the issue if multiple people are playing the same commander. But also unlocked a ton of deck potentials. Keep in mind old rule didnt care about exact card name. It only checked the legend. Example: Their could be only one Chandra on the board even if there diffrent versions.
since edh is a legendary dependent format i feel the new legendary rules actually helped edh and see no reason to reverse or edit them.
could you imagine a clone deck keeping everyone's commanders boxed?
March 5, 2021 8:21 a.m.
RambIe - You are confusing the Legend Rule with the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule. The Legend Rule always cared about the card name; it was the PLaneswalker Uniqueness Rule that prevented you from having two planeswalkers with the same subtype.
March 5, 2021 8:37 a.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #15
Keep in mind old rule didnt care about exact card name. It only checked the legend. Example: Their could be only one Chandra on the board even if there diffrent versions.
This was the Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule, which operated on planeswalker types, and was not related to Legendary cards. That rule was done away with when Planeswalkers were rolled into the Legendary supertype.
The rules regarding Legendary permanents have changed a few times in the past though. Originally, only one Legendary permanent of a given name could be on the battlefield at once, and any new ones would be put into the graveyard. This was not player-specific, so if I controlled a Paradox Engine , you couldn't play yours. Later, this rule was changed so that ALL of the Legendary permanents of the same name were lost. So in the aforementioned situation, your Paradox Engine would effectively function as removal for mine. Then we got the rule we have now, where if a single player controls more than one Legendary permanent with the same name, they send all but one of their choice to the graveyard.
March 5, 2021 8:39 a.m. Edited.
@Caerwyn ya my bad, i did combine the rules together in my post
@Tyrant-Thanatos thanks for the history of legendary's, just want to add
originally legendary was a card type there was no sub types. there was not multiple versions, they were limited to 1 per deck and as you stated if a legendary of the same name was already on the battlefield the new one would be buried. this rule was fine because at the time legendary cards kinda sucked they were difficult to cast and had high upkeep demands
(Note: i don't remember exactly when or why they removed the 1 per deck limit)
later on after they started to print decent legendary cards and they became more popular the original legendary rule became an unfair advantage which is why they updated the rule that both cards would be destroyed.
the next change were they separated the battlefield and limited it to one per player was made because clones & legendary cards were being used as removal an unintended function that didn't match the vision they had for legends
the reason i'm adding all the why's to the changes
is so that i can go back to the points i failed to make in my first post.
edh is a legendary dependent format reverting back to any of the older versions of legendary rules would be crippling.
"could you imagine a clone deck keeping everyone's commanders boxed?"
since legendary rule changes could potently cripple the format & there is nothing happening to warrant a change. it should just be left alone.
March 5, 2021 4:22 p.m.
Mcat1999 A creature that goes to the graveyard as a result of the legend rule does die - “die” in Magic, is the process of going from the battlefield to the graveyard. (Obviously it will not die if Rest in Peace is on the field, but that’s a separate issue).
What you are thinking of us that a creature that dies to the legend rule is not “sacrificed”.
March 5, 2021 4:37 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #18
this rule was fine because at the time legendary cards kinda sucked they were difficult to cast and had high upkeep demands
For the most part yeah. I'll never understand what possessed them at the time to make cards with an inherent downside even worse. It's easy to look back at old cards and think "well times were different" but like nah, cards like Jedit Ojanen were honestly always bad, even for their time.
What you are thinking of us that a creature that dies to the legend rule is not “sacrificed”.
Nor is it destroyed, which is sometimes confused as well.
And for the record,
"could you imagine a clone deck keeping everyone's commanders boxed?"
This was the case for a while. EDH predates M14, the set that changed the rule from the "all are lost" to the current system. I don't know exactly when EDH was conceived, or the precise moment it was posted online, but I know it's at least as old as 2007, so for at least 5 years Clone s acted exactly in that capacity, as hard removal for commanders.
March 6, 2021 12:09 a.m.
In the original rule for legendary, whomever had the first Nicol Bolas in play got to keep it. The original rule kept anyone else from keeping one if they cast it after that first one was in play. With it in play, if anyone else attempted to play a new copy of Nicol Bolas then their copy went to the graveyard and the first Nicol Bolas continued to remain in play.
March 6, 2021 1:32 a.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #20
eventually only one variation of each type of each Planeswalker was allowed under any player's control at a time
iirc this was the case as early as Llorwyn, when Planeswalkers were first introduced, however there were not yet multiple versions of the same planeswalker so it didn't yet matter.
This was changed recently, within the past two years I believe?
This rule was done away with entirely and all Planeswalkers to date were retroactively errata'd to be Legendary, thus following the normal Legendary rules.
fadelightningmm says... #2
From a biological perspective clones tend to have a much shorter lifespan than the donor. I think painting in broad brushes is a dangerous trend to get into, and to my knowledge with copying legendary permanent you control you get to choose which version you keep
March 3, 2021 12:03 p.m.