Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
And The Geek Shall

WotC makes changes to the Planeswalker supertype & rules

26 posts in this topic

For those who may not have seen the news yet, Wizards have announced that they are changing all Planeswalkers -past, present, future- to have the legendary supertype and removing the "unique name rule".

In short, it means that you can have, for example, have a Liliana of the Dark Realms on the board at the same time as having Lilana, The Last Hope (but you can't have two last hopes on board at the same time).

It also means that legend tutors like Captain Sisay can fetch you Planeswakers and cards like Reki, the History of Kamigawa can get card draw from walkers.

But, for Commander players, Planeswalkers -outside the ones with the Oracle text & flip walkers- can't be your commanders since they are still non-creature spells.

Here's the article about it: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/ixalan-mechanics

What do people think of these changes?

Manticore and Lasraik like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark_LifeBeginsAt20 said:

Thalia's Lancers just got a whole lot more interesting for cube too - and I like the changes for my format to be honest. It'll be nice to have koth and chandra, flamecaller out on the board at once ;) 

Thalia's Lancers is one of my favorite cards ever printed.  It's probably just the memory of winning FNM every week for almost 3 months straight with it, but I just absolutely love it. Black White Legendary was the first deck I played where I felt like I might not be awful at this game :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manticore said:

i think its fine but i dont know why so many people are freaking out about it

 

Well, the biggest issue is that many people think of planeswalkers as "I win" cards.  They tend to single-handedly win games, and the only thing keeping them from dominating most game is that they are clunky and awkward to build around with planeswalker uniqueness rule.  This is...going to change things, to say the least.

 

I'm planning on making a video about it next week, but the summary of my feelings on the rule change is that these were the most powerful (and pricey) cards in the game to begin with and now they've become significantly more powerful. I don't think it's going to "ruin the game" but it will certainly have pretty big impact on Modern, and there are a lot of scary unknowns about the future of that format...assuming they aren't abandoning it in the future, which makes this rule change a little less impactful.

Lasraik and And The Geek Shall like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a battlefield perspective I have always preferred the rule of if a legend saw it self it would go crazy and die. Having multiple copies of a legend on the board is not really keeping with the idea that it is a legend.

 

From the PW perspective look at it this way...

Gideon is still the same Gideon he was when he came out from battling Eldrazi.. but now is like sup Gid.. oh hi Gid..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheCandyMan said:

From a battlefield perspective I have always preferred the rule of if a legend saw it self it would go crazy and die. Having multiple copies of a legend on the board is not really keeping with the idea that it is a legend.

 

From the PW perspective look at it this way...

Gideon is still the same Gideon he was when he came out from battling Eldrazi.. but now is like sup Gid.. oh hi Gid..

 

 

Yeah, from a flavor perspective it's a little weird, and to be honest I don't know all of the lore/mechanical aspects of Planeswalkers, but am I wrong in thinking that part of planeswalking is the ability to time travel, to a certain degree? I mean, the reason you can summon things from Amonkhet before/after it was destroyed is because there are weird things happening with space-time, otherwise once Amonkhet was destroyed in Hour of Devastation you would no longer be able to summon things.

 

So, pulling planeswalkers out of various points in time and having them work alongside each other might not be too far-fetched. I know the whole "You can't see yourself when you time travel because you'll explode" thing is a common trope with time travel, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, it's just the accepted standard.

 

This is all hypothetical lore stuff though, which isn't my strong point. :P

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lasraik said:

What was the purpose of this change?  Is it something that people have been clamoring for?  

If I had to guess it was complaints with the gatewatch being in each set to allow people to play both of the different plainswalkers in their deck rather then having a "dead card" while the other pw was useful. Just a guess but that would be my complaint which would justify this change.

Lasraik and rainman like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCandyMan said:

If I had to guess it was complaints with the gatewatch being in each set to allow people to play both of the different plainswalkers in their deck rather then having a "dead card" while the other pw was useful. Just a guess but that would be my complaint which would justify this change.

Could be this, or maybe Wizards just wanted to tidy up the fact that they had two very similar but slightly different rules in the legend rule and the planeswalker uniqueness rule. I can sort of imagine it might be confusing for newer players.

From a flavour perspective it makes no sense that you can now have multiple different types of, for example, Liliana in play at the same time, but it also makes no sense that you can have both of the different Thalias in play at the same time and it would be much much more complicated to change things so that couldn't happen.

As for the legend rule itself, I still strongly believe it should be changed so you simply cannot play a second copy of a legendary permanent if you have one in play already, rather than getting the chance to double up on the effect. Having to sac 1 copy when you play a second is not restrictive enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rainman said:

Could be this, or maybe Wizards just wanted to tidy up the fact that they had two very similar but slightly different rules in the legend rule and the planeswalker uniqueness rule. I can sort of imagine it might be confusing for newer players.

From a flavour perspective it makes no sense that you can now have multiple different types of, for example, Liliana in play at the same time, but it also makes no sense that you can have both of the different Thalias in play at the same time and it would be much much more complicated to change things so that couldn't happen.

As for the legend rule itself, I still strongly believe it should be changed so you simply cannot play a second copy of a legendary permanent if you have one in play already, rather than getting the chance to double up on the effect. Having to sac 1 copy when you play a second is not restrictive enough

You mean just having one legendary on the battlefield at one time period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lasraik said:

You mean just having one legendary on the battlefield at one time period?

Kind of. The way the rule works now means that the legendary supertype that is meant to act as a deckbuilding constraint on the use of certain powerful effects is not a big enough limitation. Take Gaea's Cradle for example- it's pretty busted that you can tap it for, say, 10 mana when you're playing Elves but that is meant to be balanced out by the fact you can only have one copy in play. The fact that you can tap it for 10 mana, play a couple more creatures, play another one, sac the old one and then tap the new one for 12 mana is ridiculous. Same for planeswalkers like LotV, minus it to make your opponent sac a creature, then play another, do it again. 

Cards like that are designed with the "only one in play" limitation in mind, so the rules should enforce that. If you have a legendary permanent in play, you cannot play a second copy- that's my proposition. Or maybe an addendum to the current rule that says abilities of legendary permanents cannot be activated if that permanent has triggered the legend rule this turn. Multiple copies become dead cards and the Legendary supertype becomes more of a consideration in choosing numbers when building a deck. 

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 0:29 AM, And The Geek Shall said:

Some one on Twitter pointed this out but the value of Empress Galina now goes up too since she can steal Walkers now.

I love it when a rule change like this happens and these weird obscure cards suddenly spike in price and demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 8:25 AM, TheCandyMan said:

From a battlefield perspective I have always preferred the rule of if a legend saw it self it would go crazy and die. Having multiple copies of a legend on the board is not really keeping with the idea that it is a legend.

 

From the PW perspective look at it this way...

Gideon is still the same Gideon he was when he came out from battling Eldrazi.. but now is like sup Gid.. oh hi Gid..

I agree it's a flavor fail, and I think Mark Rosewater does too, but his philosophy was to put gameplay ahead of flavor if it clashed.  I guess I don't see how this improves gameplay other than condensing two rules into one.

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0