What did Wizards mean by this? They could have just as easily gone around the whole Planeswalker rule by giving the tokens no planeswalker subtype. I mean they're obviously not the real Jace, so how would it be bad to just make tokens that can't be subject to the Planeswalker uniqueness rule? They're practically throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
There's got to be a reason they did it the way they did. Is it a sign of things to come? Plot themes with time travel being incorporated perhaps? Maybe in Dominaria we'll get another apocalypse from time travel shenanigans. Are there plans to include fan favorite versions of planeswalkers back into current sets intermingled with our current timeline's planeswalker? I mean with a new design on the type box there's going to be an even higher demand for planeswalker reprints. Oh yeah, we do have a card type literally designed to include cool alt art versions of older cards after all. Just sayin.
They changed it because it worked ALMOST the same as the legendary rule but was just different enough to need a second rule to explain it. Basically, it confused newbies and retards, and this very mildly improves a couple of cards that wizards put a lot of marketing $$ into so they view that as a win win. In all it really doesn't matter and i wouldn't look too hard at it.
Luke Robinson
I want to know how you managed to conclude that time travel is coming when reprints are primarily in supplementary products.
The reason was probably just because wizards caters to new players getting suckered into their game; if they can do that while explaining 99 rules instead of 100, they will change something that's been the same for a decade just to achieve that.
Brayden Williams
The real question is "Is this as dumb with doubling season in play as I think it is?" Jace coming into play with six counters means infinite Jaces, right?
Sebastian Fisher
Yes, though good luck having DS stick on the field. Also OP is the reason why WotC is dumbing down the game
David Cook
That is correct. The fact that he creates TWO tokens allows one to further duplicate and the other to create an illusion. Assuming you aren't dealing with ghostly prisons or blazing archons, it should be a fairly effective play.
Liam Mitchell
Planeswalker isn't a subtype. Imagine making a saproling that isn't a creature.
Cooper Sanchez
"Jace" is a "Planeswalker subtype"
Brayden Butler
The change was because they decided they wanted planeswalkers sticking around with one another, not because of that card. They wanted to not have two rules that did almost the same thing, but not quite (legend rule and and uniqueness rule), so ditched it. They just picked the worst time to do it, because now everyone thinks it's because of one card that - as you said - could easily work without that change. It's doubtful there's going to be more timefuckery, especially considering Dominaria is a single set. They'd want at least one more to show what happens after the timefuckery, after all. Not only that, but the LAST TIME we were on Dominaria, the entire block was apocalyptic timefuckery caused by apocalypses and timefuckery, an apocalypse caused by timefuckery is just doing the same damn thing over again. Maybe if they'd called the set Tolaria instead. Or Jamuraa.
Lincoln Hill
>I want to know how you managed to conclude that time travel is coming when reprints are primarily in supplementary products.
Have you been living under a rock?
Eli Wright
Sam Stod said it was something he'd hes Ard they's been wanting to do for a while and the Jace came before the rule change and playtest versions said the tokens simply weren't Jace instesd of not legendary.
John Thompson
I hate it because it makes superfriends EDG better and superfriends is a faggot playstyle that requires zero skill or nuance to pilot and just requires you to throw money into a deck. Fuck planeswalkers.
Michael Anderson
*EDH
Lincoln Smith
Did you have a stroke
Bentley Evans
Because "Those tokens don't have the planeswalker subtype" is mechanically sound but flavorwise completely shit.
Thomas Russell
Woah, wait, I've been behind the times on Magic. Does this mean Mirror Gallery just became a superfriends card?
Eli Hill
You would have to make a modern or legacy deck that is happy to run a 5 cost do nothing artifact, but yes. Its uselessin edh superfriends, most doubling seasons superfriends and high lander superfriends.
Matthew Price
Actually with doubling season it is four. Though really this dosen't matter that much, as even a net gain of one with 6 counters means infinite fully charged.
Infinite illusery bears is cool... but not the best thing ever out of a combo requiring a 5 drop.
Jaxson Thompson
No, dumbass. They just wanted to suck off their protagonist.
Wizards changing the core rules in order to dole out special snowflake shit to their superfriends team isn't something that should cause you to start cooking up conspiracy theories about their secret plans. It's just a thing they're gonna do every now and then.
Justin Stewart
"except they aren't Jaces" is actually very flavorful, considering they're supposed to be illusions. They literally aren't Jace.
Jack Martin
Are you implying that masterpieces have anything to do with the storyline?
Are you implying that Wizards did not JUST state that they are pulling back on masterpiece-like inclusions? Did you see how many there are in Ixalan?
If you read into their reasoning, you can tell that time-travel/dimensional rifts/planar phenomena is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
Asher Brown
>Hey guys here's these new masterpiece cards, we're gonna put them in every set and match them to the set's flavour >Haha just kidding, we don't actually have any real plan anymore so just do whatever we feel
Evan Carter
It means Thalia's Lancers can now fetch planeswalkers, and caused Captain Sisay to spike in price.
Kevin Butler
>Maybe in Dominaria we'll get another apocalypse from time travel shenanigans.
That is the only plausible idea in your statement, and that is only because Dominaria is nothing but a running saga of time-travel shenanigans.
Anthony Morris
>"We're going to put masterpieces in every set from now on! Artifact set, we'll make all of them artifacts, easy theme right there!" >hey why did they only put artifacts in there? "Alright, Egypt Set next. Okay, can't pull an easy mono-theme into that...let's do a collection of things then? Generally powerful stuff? Ancient Egypt-y frames? This is harder than we thought >wtf wizards there's no theme you suck >"Alright, maybe doing masterpieces every set wasn't the best idea. Let's stop." >wtf wizards you said you'd be doing them every set why'd you stop Ixalan is perfect for them
Michael Harris
I thought it was because the invocations are fucking ugly.
Jordan Walker
It's because invocations were unpopular. That's a combination of people not liking that they had no theme and people disliking their appearance, and probably a bunch of other reasons.
Christopher Martin
Yeah it's more like >"We're gonna do expeditions!" >Hey these are cool. >"You like them? Great we'll do them in every set!" >Oh wow the Egyptian frame is terrible, ugly, and hard to read. >"They HATE having so many masterpieces! We shouldn't do them anymore."
Parker Thomas
you don't have to beat around the bush, they're obviously put into sets Wizards isn't sure will sell well as a safety. They were debuted in BfZ for fuck's sake
Levi Thompson
I wish they were just normal borders with a special set symbol, but I bet they don't do that because people would put them in their decks thinking they are standard legal, so they have to make them look all goofy.
That said, I'm glad they stopped so that we can get real reprints from real supplementary sets instead of them wasting them on "masterpieces" while simultaneously lowering the value of every other card in the set. (Yes, I know scarab god is over $30- still.)
David Stewart
They wouldn't have had time to pull them from Ixalan by the time Amonkhet's invocations were revealed, though. Rivals, maybe, as a last minute deal, but not Ixalan.
Luis Morris
Wizards was pretty sure that BFZ would sell well. They were taken by surprise by the response there.
Michael Thompson
>Print shit cards and force a bootleg Avengers down everyone's throats >Don't even have the decency to reprint fetchlands >Get a negative response >Wonder why The mind truly boggles.
Easton Foster
Yeah, they would. You're mixing up design time with print time. Especially since invocations aren't even part of the set itself, it'd be easy to pull them.
It's also quite likely that they were encountering further difficulties in choosing Ixalan masterpiece cards, and the initial hate that invocations got was enough to get them to cut it.
Jacob Rivera
They thought that Zendikar hype and Eldrazi hype were equal. To be fair, I care far more about the Eldrazi than I ever did about the world of Zendikar or land-matters as a theme. That's not to say that the block wasn't still disappointing as fuck, because killing the titans before they ate even a single world was bullshit.
Logan Kelly
>someone actually likes the lazy "ooh lovecraft is so popular right now let's do cthonic horror" clichés from a fluff perspective
I mean they're awful and broken from a gameplay perspective too but at least there you might have the excuse of getting carried by them.
Luis Evans
Well, it's at least better than a bunch of lame machines assimilating everything which has been done to death as well or a villain whose only purpose is showing up and saying keikaku.
Aaron Smith
They wouldn't throw out a bunch of finalized art pieces after figuring out what to put in there and coming up with a frame for them, all because of the initial reaction of the very first shown Amonkhet cards. And it would've been far too late in the process to turn said art into other cards, as well. I'm quite willing to believe them in this case when they say they just dropped them beforehand (which they have). They're not going to waste already-spent money when it wouldn't hurt them.
Aaron Powell
>finalized art pieces And, again, you're assuming that they'd be that far along the masterpiece process by the time that Amonkhet was released. If you look at the signature dates on card art, and compare that to when the sets release, you'll see that the window on that front isn't quite as wide as you think.
Cooper Cruz
>while simultaneously lowering the value of every other card in the set That was one of the truly great things about masterpieces, though. They lowered the cost of Standard without fucking anything else up except for card frames
Lincoln Carter
>cthonic Think very hard about whether or not that's the word you meant. I'm fairly certain it isn't.
Regardless, the Eldrazi actually did give a fairly Magic-specific spin on cosmic horrors due to the whole Blind Eternities thing. The fact that the Eldrazi broods were all simply extensions of a single entity, and that the Legendary representation of that entity was still only equivalent to its metaphorical hand being pushed through a rubber sheet, was a nice touch. Yeah, Ulamog fell a bit into the "cosmic horror means big and dumb and tentacles and you just need to hit it REALLY hard" trap, but Kozilek actually fucked with the nature of physics for the little time that we actually saw it.
Honestly, I would have preferred if BFZ block had been entirely Ulamog, SOI block had been Kozilek, and Emrakul was just lying low without even a whisper, an unresolved threat that actually gave the Gatewatch a reason to continue to exist.
Hudson Wilson
>BFZ block had been entirely Ulamog, SOI block had been Kozilek, and Emrakul was just lying low without even a whisper That would have been tight.
Nicholas Johnson
I fucking hate how they keep making the legendary shit less legendary. The whole point of the rule to begin with was that there is literally only one of that thing in the entire multiverse, no one can summon another while there's one in play. Then they made it one per player because timmies were upset or something, and the entire point of the rule was lost. Now they're doing the same fucking thing to planeswalkers, planeswalkers used to be unique because once again there's only one Jace in the entire multiverse and all his various versions with different abilities are still supposed to be one person that you can only have one of. And once again the fuckshits had to ruin it. Now you can have a fucking army of Jaces, and your opponent can have his, and every little shit Timmy is happy and no one remembers why that fucking rule existed in the first place.
God how I hate what this game has become.
Thomas Murphy
When did they change the rule the first time? Some time after Kamigawa, I'm guessing, because of Mirror Gallery
Matthew Martinez
They didn't say they'd just full on stop doing masterpieces. What do you even mean masterpieces have nothing to do with the storyline? They're literally all a part of the story, they're just not standard legal. I could easily see a Dominaria set with masterpiece JtMS and masterpiece LotV if they do some sort of time travel shenanigans. They did ridiculous apocalypses there all the time in the past and a multiversal timeline collapse sounds right up their alley.
Cameron Wright
>They could have just as easily gone around the whole Planeswalker rule by giving the tokens no planeswalker subtype.
Then they become immune to almost everything. They could not be interacted with targeted planeswalker removal nor could they be attacked directly with creatures then. They would technically have no base type at all meaning the only way to answer those tokens would be to play something that specifcally targetted permanents only. Most board wipes wouldn't work because if it was done the way you described that still doesn't make them any other permanent type, for all intents and purposes they would be a typeless permanent. I don't think you really thought this through.
Leo Sanchez
Wow you're retarded. Why don't you go look up the difference between a subtype and a supertype before posting again.
Grayson Brooks
What people don't like is even more retarded chase rarities and Masterpieces causing the rest of the set's value to plummet.
What should happen is this: -Mythic Rarity for regular cards just fucking goes away. -Masterpieces appear in their place, and not at the level of Mythic foils.
Logan Allen
It doesn't make a fucking difference dude. Even if you removed "Jace" subtype you'd still have two planeswalker tokens that would immediately cause one token to die as a state based action due to having the same technical name and under the old planeswalker rule. The tokens under OP's suggestion would create:
Under the rules as is you can't have blank subtypes for a planeswalker. That is going to cause a massive rules headache because you can argue that they would still cause one to die as a state based action since JCC "blank planeswalker subtype" is the same as another JCC "blank planeswalker subtype" and thus would cause one of the tokens to die as a state based action under the old rulings.
Austin Young
It means Jace is a faggy tranny butt pirate
William Hernandez
Why does he look like he is a part of a gay cabaret stageshow?
Christopher Ortiz
Between Ravnica and Theros, with M14. Before then playing a Jace if your opponent had one, killed his. Same with any Legendary.
Funny how Brothers Yamazaki tackled that problem years before.
Jace’s ultimate becomes “Create two tokens that are copies of Jace. Except they have “If two or more Jace are in play, the planeswalker uniqueness rule doesn’t apply to them.”
Zachary Wright
I know they said you can't use planeswalkers as commanders unless stated otherwise. I know they said the don't have any plans to make any changes to that either.
But I'm still willing to bet that the next Commander product will directly involve legendary planeswalkers in some form, without the errata.
Lucas Phillips
Firstly, planeswalkers sharing a card name doesnt kill them. That is very specifically the legend rule, and under the old rulings, JCC would not have been legendary Secondly, the rules in this game don't compare null values. you can't name colorless as a color for example, and two colorless creatures do not share a color. Hence, two subtypeless planeswalkers do not share a subtype.
Nathaniel Sullivan
Because mechanics trump flavor. The only reason for the legend rule to exist is to add a drawback to cards or at least limit them in some way, even if they're not always so strong. Fuck idiots who care about MtG's awful flavor, it's just there so you can't have a Thalia army to lock opponents out of the game.
Liam Nelson
There is no rule anywhere saying planeswalkers can't not have a subtype. Neither is there anything saying similar planeswalkers with just the same name get destroyed from the planeswalker uniqueness rule, there was only ever the following:
>306.4.If a player controls two or more planeswalkers that share a PLANESWALKER TYPE, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards.
Lucas Sanchez
You're missing the point. They made this rule change not to make jace function, which they inevitably knew how to get around. They did it specifically to make same type planeswalkers not die when they resolve, which is a deckbuilding consideration for constructed.
