New Legend Rule

[peter]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.

I'd like to see the full-on verbiage if it's available.
Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

knucklehead000@yahoo.com (Peter) wrote in message news:<9591b0f0.0408300932.5e4d300@posting.google.com>...
> Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
> Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.
>
> I'd like to see the full-on verbiage if it's available.
> Peter

They revised the article, taking out MaRo's mangling of the rule, and
replacing it with the actual Comp Rule excerpt:

420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the supertype
legendary, all are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called
the "legend rule." If only one of those permanents is legendary, this
rule doesn't apply.

--
Justin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

knucklehead000@yahoo.com (Peter) writes:
> Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
> Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.
> I'd like to see the full-on verbiage if it's available.

Well, I don't know what you think is inaccurate... His article states:

,----[ http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr139 ]
| 420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the
| supertype legendary, all are put into their owners' graveyards. This
| is called the "legend rule." If only one of those permanents is
| legendary, this rule doesn't apply.
`----

Anyone here who knows more than that probably can't say anything
anyway until the Prerelease. Usually, speculating about the details of
new mechanics is an exercise in futility until the set's FAQ is
released.

I'm more curious about what's happening to the Legend creature
type... I would guess that all existing creatures would get new Oracle
text to get rid of the subtype and add Legendary, but I'm wondering if
cards like Unnatural Selection suddenly got a bit less powerful.

But like I said, it's all speculation until a magicthegathering.com
author says it or the Prerelease FAQ comes out.

--
Peter C.
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I
didn't know."
-- Mark Twain, "Life on the Mississippi"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Peter Cooper Jr wrote...
>I'm more curious about what's happening to the Legend creature
>type... I would guess that all existing creatures would get new Oracle
>text to get rid of the subtype and add Legendary, but I'm wondering if
>cards like Unnatural Selection suddenly got a bit less powerful.

I hope a reversal of the old rule (a non-creature Legendary permanent
reiceve the creature type Legend if turned into a creature)... maybe, from
ChK, having the creature type Legend will give the "Legendary"
status/supertype...
AA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Peter wrote:

> Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
> Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.
>
> I'd like to see the full-on verbiage if it's available.
> Peter
>

420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the subtype
Legend or the supertype legendary, all except the one that has been a
Legend or legendary permanent with that name the longest are put into
their owners' graveyards. This is called "the Legend rule." In the
event of a tie, each Legend or legendary permanent with the same name
is put into its owner's graveyard. (If two permanents have the same
name but only one is a Legend or is legendary, this rule doesn't
apply.)
--

David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Hello, David!
You wrote on Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:05:26 +0200:

DdK> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Peter wrote:

>> Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
>> Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.

DdK> 420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the
DdK> subtype
DdK> Legend or the supertype legendary, all except the one that has
DdK> been a
DdK> Legend or legendary permanent with that name the longest are
DdK> put into
DdK> their owners' graveyards. This is called "the Legend rule." In
DdK> the
DdK> event of a tie, each Legend or legendary permanent with the
DdK> same name
DdK> is put into its owner's graveyard. (If two permanents have the
DdK> same
DdK> name but only one is a Legend or is legendary, this rule
DdK> doesn't
DdK> apply.)
DdK> --

No, the newer one for the upcoming Champions of Kamigawa - hinted at in
MaRo's today's article on mtg.com. It seems that "all except the
one..." part will be substituted with just "all".

Regards,
Arkady.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, David de Kloet wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Peter wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
>> Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.
>>
>> I'd like to see the full-on verbiage if it's available.
>> Peter
>>
>
> 420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the subtype
> Legend or the supertype legendary, all except the one that has been a
> Legend or legendary permanent with that name the longest are put into
> their owners' graveyards. This is called "the Legend rule." In the
> event of a tie, each Legend or legendary permanent with the same name
> is put into its owner's graveyard. (If two permanents have the same
> name but only one is a Legend or is legendary, this rule doesn't
> apply.)

Sorry, I hadn't read MaRo's article, but it seems that this is the new
Legend Rule:

420.5e If two or more permanents with the same name have the supertype
legendary, all are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called
the "legend rule." If only one of those permanents is legendary, this
rule doesn't apply.

Why is this inaccurate?

--
David

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+mtg@cooper.homedns.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: New Legend Rule

(snip)

> I'm more curious about what's happening to the Legend creature
> type... I would guess that all existing creatures would get new Oracle
> text to get rid of the subtype and add Legendary, but I'm wondering if
> cards like Unnatural Selection suddenly got a bit less powerful.

I'm hoping this doesn't happen (but I'm betting it will). I've got a
real snappy legend bidding deck for casual games that I love to
play, but if they drop the subtype "Legend", then I can't fetch up
my baddies with Patriarch's Bidding. Oh well...maybe I'll turn it
into Dragon, or Angel bidding!

- Dave

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

knucklehead000@yahoo.com (Peter) wrote in message news:<9591b0f0.0408300932.5e4d300@posting.google.com>...
> Does anyone have some advance copy for the new Legends rule? Mark
> Rosewater mentions it, and he conveys the idea, but inaccurately.
>
> I'd like to see the full-on verbiage if it's available.


Looks like they updated the article. Cool.
Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

> I'm more curious about what's happening to the Legend creature
> type... I would guess that all existing creatures would get new Oracle
> text to get rid of the subtype and add Legendary, but I'm wondering if
> cards like Unnatural Selection suddenly got a bit less powerful.

A possible idea, but what happens to creatures that have no type other
than Legend right now? I don't think they want non-artifact creatures with
no creature type walking around. I would guess that Legend will remain a
creature type but it will just be like any other creature type... only the
supertype will affect legendariness.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

"Chris Wiegert" <cwiegert@telus.net> wrote in message news:<dQuZc.58344$jZ5.36116@clgrps13>...
> > I'm more curious about what's happening to the Legend creature
> > type... I would guess that all existing creatures would get new Oracle
> > text to get rid of the subtype and add Legendary, but I'm wondering if
> > cards like Unnatural Selection suddenly got a bit less powerful.
>
> A possible idea, but what happens to creatures that have no type other
> than Legend right now? I don't think they want non-artifact creatures with
> no creature type walking around. I would guess that Legend will remain a
> creature type but it will just be like any other creature type... only the
> supertype will affect legendariness.

Possibly. But there are plenty of subtype-less Artifact Creatures, so
a subtype-less Legendary Creature wouldn't be too crazy.

Peter