http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/EDH

I know how it works, I just don't play it.

"EDH is ruined" is an opinion. Links won't tell me why you think EDH is ruined, which is what I was asking.

If you can't state how it negatively impacts the format, then it must not be so bad.

EDH is generally a multi-player format. Say everyone is playing Kaalia: you drop her turn four and pass. Your opponents will probably also play her on that turn without having to worry about the old Legendary rule. Turn five, some truly monstrous creatures can hit the field!
Most dragons have a converted mana cost of six and also have "when this creature attacks", angels tend to have a higher cost and have "when this creature enters the field", and demons, well, most have either one.

Basically, it is one less removal, and it benefits players playing the same General.
Not to mention, it throws the idea of the unique creature out the window.

What you just described sounds extremely beneficial to everyone involved. I don't think it's fun for anyone when neither player can utilize the cards in their deck because, coincidentally, they happen to share one important card. If the legendary card wasn't designed to destroy permanents, then it shouldn't be doing that; it should be doing whatever it does the other 99.9% of the time.

It also doesn't especially benefit players using the same general, it simply doesn't unfairly disadvantage them any longer.

That's why I don't see how it ruins the format, when the improvement in consistency has a positive effect on the gameplay.

Let me put it another way:

Depending on how an EDH deck is built, you do not want an opponent's General out doing its General stuff (combo'ing out and whatnot).
One less way to remove it is annoying, but two players managing the field early game is total BS.

Why should it matter if two players have two powerful legendaries with different names, or two powerful legendaries with the same name? What's BS is making it impossible for a deck to function because of something random and arbitrary like "someone else that's playing happens to have a card with the same name as mine in their deck".

And the "one less way to remove it" only works in one very specific, limited circumstance, and in that situation, it also means they have one less way to remove yours. That means you actually get to play with your cards, not just keep destroying them because some really arbitrary condition happened to be filled. Sounds like a win to me.

I had to hold off on replying because I do not play Magic that often. So I talked to a few of my buddies that are big into the game.
Not a single one of them was in favor of the new Legendary rule, but it mostly came down to it ruining the "flavor" of the game in that unique creature sense.

How can this person exist in two places at once?

Because they are from two different time periods.

Well, why not just go back and smother Nico Bolas when he was a baby?

It apparently raises too many questions. One of them stated it is because EDH became so popular over the last year that Wizards wanted to cash in on it and decided to change the rule specifically for players like yourself, Azrael.

Over all though, while one of them stated they had played a game that turned out to be a total massacre due to two people playing the same General, EDH will not become as different as the game mode Legacy.
This one guy went on an elaborate rant about the possibility of Emrakul being played from Show and Tell to take four turns in a row and then STILL having Emrakul when it was all over. He mentioned a couple other sinister scenarios, but my limited knowledge of the game got the better of me. :derp:

So take it as you will. Some new things can be done; some old things cannot be done. The story has taken a strange turn to meet demand and some people are not happy with the change. However, the game is always changing. So only time will tell what is to come from all this.

All my decks are Legacy legal, and when I heard of this rule, I couldn't help but think of a multitude of ways that this can be used to improve my decks. For starters, I can use Mirror Gallery without the monumental risk of blowing up all my most important cards from someone using a single artifact destruction. I have a deck that uses it already, and a number of my cards are specifically there to protect Mirror Gallery because of the unjustified risk that was associated with it. Many of my decks benefit automatically from the rule improvement, since they are dependent on one or more legendaries and no longer have to suffer the severe overkill drawbacks associated with the theft and cloning of legendaries. It certainly expands on player freedom and allows for more strategically viable options when playing and deck building.


The main issue with this is that it's a needlessly complicated scenario. If you get Emrakul out, you're going to win most of the time. The problem is that Emrakul, like most of the other Eldrazi cards, is brokenly powerful. Quite a few people in Legacy will simply quit if you play Emrakul, and that's the fault of the card, not the legendary rule. While there are certainly more avenues open to a player with this rule improvement, getting multiple Emrakuls out in succession isn't a meaningful possibility when you generally win with the first one.

Also, a lot of people who play Emrakul decks do so using "take additional turn" cards, like Time Stretch, just to augment their turn advantage. The addition of the legendary rule isn't really going to make Emrakul decks any more powerful than they already are; it doesn't help them get Emrakul out, which is the most critical part of their strategy.

I'd say it's fairly undeniable this impacts Legacy quite a bit, and only taking game balance into account, it's a positive change. How it affects the lore is of little concern to me; it could be argued that you shouldn't even be able to play a second legendary card if the first is out already (which is how it used to be originally). Taking it further, it could be said only one copy of a legendary card should be allowed in your deck, because there can't be multiples of them. When there's a serious conflict between lore and gameplay, the lore needs to adapt to the gameplay, not vice versa.

The reason I questioned the impact on EDH is because of the difference in the ruleset; there can only be one of each card in your deck, which automatically prevents the possibility of having duplicate legendaries in hand. This on its own resolves most of the impact that the rule change could possibly have. Additionally, according to the rules page which was linked, the house rules commonly used either restrict people from using the same general, or don't subject generals to the legendary rule in the first place.

I can imagine bounce, clone, control decks eat that up, and you end up facing a field of a dozen of your best creatures wishing you could remove your own artifact.

That is still up for debate.

Do not underestimate any scenario. If you can think it, it can happen regardless of the complexity.

It is not like it only applies to a non-canon fan made game type. This is effecting the core of the game. It is like if you were playing StarCraft in a Terran versus Terran campaign mission and both player and computer was commanding a Raynor unit.

I've seen a lot of reasoning and examples supporting it, and none against it. I'm fairly certain Wizards of the Coast focus tested the hell out of the mechanic before implementing it.


I thought I explained pretty well why it's needlessly complicated. I didn't suggest it was impossible, but that it was stupid and pointless, and gave a detailed explanation why


As far as mechanics go, it's like playing Terran versus Terran in multiplayer, and the map you're playing on gets updated from having one shared geyser to two separate geysers. Makes sense, you know?

The lore can and will be updated to take it into account, and that's my point. The lore needs to adapt to fit solid, balanced gameplay, not the other way around.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 21 2013, 11:08 pm by Azrael.

You said most of the time. I think it pretty much sealed the deal for good.


You can have more than one resource in StarCraft. It is not the same for Hero units. Are you truly going to stand behind the idea of different points in time?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 21 2013, 11:16 pm by RIVE.

There are much more efficient ways to bring Emrakul out again after he dies, rather than bringing out another one, and those situations aren't even covered by the legend rule; you'd need to be actually killing your own Emrakul for it to make a difference. There's also much better ways to extend your turn advantage, if that's the goal of bringing it out. The number of scenarios you could create where bringing out multiple Emrakuls in succession while triggering the legend rule is more advantageous than the similar alternatives is so limited that it's not even worth considering. I can't imagine how many games you'd have to play to ever see that situation come up, if you'd ever see it at all. Making a deck designed to do that is grossly inefficient and needlessly complicated, and it will almost certainly never benefit you to do so. It's like making a whole deck designed to generate one black mana instead of just putting a swamp in your deck.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 21 2013, 11:20 pm by Azrael.

Never thought that day would happen... Last month, I got myself the Sorin and Tibalt dual deck.

So far, I like playing with the Sorin one quite a lot even though I usually end up with way too much mana for my own good. (I don't quite understand how to play the Tibalt one yet.)
Played around 5 - 8 games, lost only one. In one game against one of my friend, I managed to recover from 1 hp, and won the game with 20+.



I haven't bought any boosters pack yet. My Sorin deck seems to do quite good against most of my friends so far.

I decided to throw a quick Black/Blue deck together. It probably sucks, but I had one of the best matches against another Black/Blue player. Still, it was a great 45 minutes.

Deck description plz?

Also, I used to play regularly as well, but it got too expensive so I stopped after Innistrad.
I used to have a mean red/green ramp deck (Primeval + Inferno Titan and etc.) and red/green aggro (Strangleroot Geist + Huntmaster of the Fells) deck

I am all about Blue+Black+Red in T2 right now, it's extremely fun and reliable with Born of the Gods.

Lands
4x Island
4x Izzet Guildgate
4x Temple of Deceit
3x Temple of Malice
3x Blood Crypt
3x Steam Vents

Built to sustain the three colors with consistency and the very favorable Scry from the Temple lands. With the overall low mana curve of the deck, having to play a large majority of them tapped isn't a problem.

Permanents
4x Pain Seer
4x Izzet Staticaster
4x Ral Zarek
3x Chandra's Phoenix
3x Gorgon's Head
3x Springleaf Drum
2x Mogis, God of Slaughter

Very low mana curve, offers a variety of options and reliability, supported by sustainment. Pain Seer gives you draw with the only two slaps to the face being Ral Zarek and Mogis. Using the Scry the deck offers allows you to avoid it somewhat often. Ral Zarek, Magma Jet, Chandra's Phoenix, and Mogis should keep up the equilibrium of life throughout the game.

Gorgon's Head goes extremely well with Chandra's Phoenix and Izzet Staticaster, because since damage dealt by creatures in general is considered combat damage, deathtouch allows Staticaster to clear with her ability. Chandra's pseudo-regenerate is reliable enough to make her a great way of dealing with opposing flying creatures and just using her to block dangers, deathtouch increased that viability.

Sorcery/Instant
4x Magma Jet
3x Hero's Downfall
3x Dissolve
2x Syncopate
2x Divination
2x Essence Scatter

This is where your control comes from, keep the scary shit off the board and keep the game in your favor. Divination is to ensure you keep giving you cards to offer more situational control and make the most out of your Scry cards.

Sideboard
3x Pithing Needle
3x Izzet Charm
3x Doom Blade
3x Dreadbore
3x Annul

This sideboard is meant to be a source of adjusting to some of the more popular decks and it does pretty well at offering you cards to counter the staples in most of them.

Woah, people buy magic cards??? I just play online for free.

Dang, Ravnica has sweet cards.. a lot more powerful than Innistrad.
I missed out

It's funny that despite having played MTG for 5 years pretty actively and 5 years not so often I don't know any of those cards. It's also the reason I quit.

Who doesn't?