New Legend Rule

[Stoneco1d869]

So how does everyone feel about the rule change for legendaries? I for one loved my  {Phantasmal Image} for his utility in EDH.

I think this now forces everyone to keep kill spells to clear out the pesky Commanders. Not to mention  {Animar, Soul of Elements} now is that much stronger!

[Gorzo]

I hate it with the fury of a thousand burning suns.

[Dudecore]

My playgroup already decided to play with the old Legendary rule. The new one is bologna.

I think it makes {Kaalia of the Vast} and {Zur the Enchanter} too powerful. No only can they equip/enchant themselves to avoid interaction, they cannot be killed at all basically.

[Stoneco1d869]

My playgroup already decided to play with the old Legendary rule. The new one is bologna.

I think it makes {Kaalia of the Vast} and {Zur the Enchanter} too powerful. No only can they equip/enchant themselves to avoid interaction, they cannot be killed at all basically.

I agree. It makes the heavy hitting commanders that much more powerful.

[ChrisRodriguez]

The new rule is bad for edh. With this rule there are so many commanders that get so much better and much more difficult to deal with. I don't understand why wizards is ruining the game this way.

[Juggleboy360]

Yeah, I think it might be bad for commander as well, though I'll have to see how it plays out. I guess I'll just be running more board wipes and tuck effects now.

[Juggalonoke]

To be honest when I play commander at my lgs me and a few people would sometimes agree upon this rule anyway just to have some fun an test out say a new card in a deck or a new commander someone else is running. While it dose make the stronger generals that much harder to deal with, it dose make for some very very fun games XD
But at the same time I prefer to play very lack ruled edh games to an extent.

[Dudecore]

To be honest when I play commander at my lgs me and a few people would sometimes agree upon this rule anyway just to have some fun an test out say a new card in a deck or a new commander someone else is running. While it dose make the stronger generals that much harder to deal with, it dose make for some very very fun games XD
But at the same time I prefer to play very lack ruled edh games to an extent.

I've heard of some groups playing this way. I've heard of them using different banned lists, I've even heard of specific banned cards with specific commanders.

Since its me and my playgroup, we have tons and tons of meta play. We basically hate out everything we don't like, and people learn not to play it anymore. The old Legendary rule will still be in effect, regardless of what Wizards says. That is the beauty of the format.

I suggest other playgroups do whatever it is they'd like with their hard earned cards and free time.

[Juggalonoke]

To be honest when I play commander at my lgs me and a few people would sometimes agree upon this rule anyway just to have some fun an test out say a new card in a deck or a new commander someone else is running. While it dose make the stronger generals that much harder to deal with, it dose make for some very very fun games XD
But at the same time I prefer to play very lack ruled edh games to an extent.

I've heard of some groups playing this way. I've heard of them using different banned lists, I've even heard of specific banned cards with specific commanders.

Since its me and my playgroup, we have tons and tons of meta play. We basically hate out everything we don't like, and people learn not to play it anymore. The old Legendary rule will still be in effect, regardless of what Wizards says. That is the beauty of the format.

I suggest other playgroups do whatever it is they'd like with their hard earned cards and free time.

Very true I feel the same way play to how you prefer playing. I feel like (as many have said before) that this is going to have way more of an impact on standard play in my opinion...

[Double-O-Scotch]

I think this is going to have a BIGGER impact on their customer base. Half my friends have sold their collections and quit entirely...
Lonely sad face...

[imthelolrus]

I actually like the new legend rule but I've seen the rules change since I've been playing and am hopeful they are trying to improve the game. Obviously some generals get stronger (looking at you Uril) and it hurts blue... Idk the clone effect never seemed right to me. It will open up more interactions (what wizards wants) and will have some less desirable outcomes.

[Ageniv]

I hate it.  This is (in my opinion) the dumbest thing wotc has done in regards to mtg rule changes.  I love(d) being able to kill things with a {clone}. Mono-blue mages everywhere are now trying to work out how to kill legendaries. It is a conundrum that needs a solution. (My solution being play the old way). I am in no way insulting wotc but I strongly disagree with this rule change.

[Keyeto]

Not being able to use {Clone} as a kill spell seems to be a major issue for most people. Personally, I love it. Don't get me wrong, cloning as removal was fun and all, but it honestly was a bit....wrong. Blue isn't really supposed to have removal. It has counter spells, bounce spells, tuck spells, tapping spells, the list goes on. Destroying things isn't really in its nature. It has more than enough ways to control the game and deal with threats. I am strongly against every color being able to do everything. This is what we have different colors for. If every color can do everything, what's the point of colors?

The day the color of my deck is purely for aesthetics, and not functionality, is the day I quit magic.

[Dudecore]

Not being able to use {Clone} as a kill spell seems to be a major issue for most people. Personally, I love it. Don't get me wrong, cloning as removal was fun and all, but it honestly was a bit....wrong. Blue isn't really supposed to have removal. It has counter spells, bounce spells, tuck spells, tapping spells, the list goes on. Destroying things isn't really in its nature. It has more than enough ways to control the game and deal with threats. I am strongly against every color being able to do everything. This is what we have different colors for. If every color can do everything, what's the point of colors?

The day the color of my deck is purely for aesthetics, and not functionality, is the day I quit magic.

I agree with this on a certain level. Once someone's commander becomes impossible to interact with (save for a board sweep that could hurt everyone) clones are a final resort. I liked that being a final option in the meta game. Where targeted kill (black), burn (red), exile (white), bounce (blue) and chumping/permanent destruction (green) did not work - all colors had a roundabout way to deal with things. white (sweeps), black (discard/sacrifice/sweep), red (mass damage), blue ({upheaval} *banned*, mass bounce) and green ( At a loss).

It has always been a way for blue in particular to deal with problems that was strictly limited to that one interaction: blue dealt with legendary creatures. They no longer have a drawback. I'm a believer that all cards require a drawback - including spells. If creature combat is the future, then blue either needs good creatures or a better way of dealing with them. If red/white/black/green all deal with creatures by destruction - then why can't blue?

[Keyeto]

Not being able to use {Clone} as a kill spell seems to be a major issue for most people. Personally, I love it. Don't get me wrong, cloning as removal was fun and all, but it honestly was a bit....wrong. Blue isn't really supposed to have removal. It has counter spells, bounce spells, tuck spells, tapping spells, the list goes on. Destroying things isn't really in its nature. It has more than enough ways to control the game and deal with threats. I am strongly against every color being able to do everything. This is what we have different colors for. If every color can do everything, what's the point of colors?

The day the color of my deck is purely for aesthetics, and not functionality, is the day I quit magic.

I agree with this on a certain level. Once someone's commander becomes impossible to interact with (save for a board sweep that could hurt everyone) clones are a final resort. I liked that being a final option in the meta game. Where targeted kill (black), burn (red), exile (white), bounce (blue) and chumping/permanent destruction (green) did not work - all colors had a roundabout way to deal with things. white (sweeps), black (discard/sacrifice/sweep), red (mass damage), blue ({upheaval} *banned*, mass bounce) and green ( At a loss).

It has always been a way for blue in particular to deal with problems that was strictly limited to that one interaction: blue dealt with legendary creatures. They no longer have a drawback. I'm a believer that all cards require a drawback - including spells. If creature combat is the future, then blue either needs good creatures or a better way of dealing with them. If red/white/black/green all deal with creatures by destruction - then why can't blue?

Maybe I'm just too biased since I never play a mono colored deck in EDH. From what I've played against, mono blue has never needed a removal spell like {Clone}. Sorcery speed removal for only a legendary? I'd take a {Counterspell} instead, personally.

As I said, I did enjoy the tricks. It was nice to be able to use a last second removal when needed, but everyone seems to think this rule change makes Clone useless. Now you can keep your opponent's threatening creature (which won't always be better, I know). I just think people are more upset about Clone no longer being a kill spell than the rule itself. I'm sure this will open up plenty of fun interactions. I'd prefer it the way it was before, but hey, we'll all have to adapt.

Also, EDH isn't run by WotC. EDH very well may keep the old rule, as I'm sure many playgroups (likely including mine) will.