Unique: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>Hunterofsalvation (Created page with "{{Infobox keyword | first= Unreleased mechanics | type = Static | reminder = If a player controls two or more unique permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of...") |
>@legacy41257084 (expanded article and added more sources) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Unique''' is a theoretical [[static ability]] | '''Unique''' is a theoretical [[static ability]] that has been discussed by [[Mark Rosewater]], but never printed. If the [["Legend rule"|"legend rule"]] were eliminated, unique would be added as [[errata]] onto a select few [[legendary]] cards to prevent them from becoming overpowered. | ||
== Description == | == Description == | ||
According to Rosewater, the | Unique would give cards the same drawback currently associated with the legendary supertype. If a player controlled two or more [[permanent]]s of the same name with the unique keyword, that player would be forced to choose one of them and put the rest into their owners' graveyards. | ||
== Rationale == | |||
Mark Rosewater advocates for eliminating the "legend rule," which he sees as detrimental to the game. According to Rosewater, players of [[Standard]], [[Modern]], and other non-singleton [[constructed]] [[format]]s are less excited by legendary cards because of their inherent drawback.<ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/111771519478/in-your-recent-podcast-you-mentioned-how-being|title=In your recent podcast, you mentioned how being legendary is just a drawback.|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=February 22, 2015}}</ref> These players generally avoid playing four copies of a legendary card in their [[deck]]s for fear of drawing redundant copies.<ref>{{NewRef|latest-developments/preserving-coolness-legends-2006-11-24|Preserving the Coolness of Legends|[[Aaron Forsythe]]|November 24, 2006}}</ref> This creates a conflict of interest with [[Commander (format)|Commander]] players and [[Vorthos]]es, who generally want powerful or splashy creatures to be legendary. <ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/144416723198/i-very-much-prefer-that-legendary-do-something|title=I very much prefer that Legendary do something rather than nothing.|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=May 15, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/123984369018/i-dont-understand-what-the-problem-is-with|title=I don't understand what the problem is with Legendary being a drawback.|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=July 13, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/111771519478/in-your-recent-podcast-you-mentioned-how-being|title=In your recent podcast, you mentioned how being legendary is just a drawback.|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=February 22, 2015}}</ref> | |||
Eliminating the "legend rule" has the potential downside of making some legendary cards overpowered. Rosewater suggests adding the unique keyword as [[errata]] to these cards, so that in practice the "legend rule" would still apply to them. According to Rosewater, only a small number of legendary cards are powerful enough to warrant the keyword. <ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/141522969178/mark-ive-got-a-question-to-add-on-to-the|title=If legendary didn't exist as a type would the effect of legendary be something that could exist as a keyword?|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=March 22, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/144417162868/if-the-legend-rule-was-lifted-would-you-still|title=If the legend rule was lifted, would you still make cards with number limitations while in the battlefield?|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=May 15, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/149400832168/doesnt-legendary-help-with-balancing-as-well|title=Doesn't Legendary help with balancing as well?|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=August 24, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/150601169533/hi-mark-would-unique-have-any-mechanical-tie-to|title=Would "unique" have any mechanical tie to legendary permanents, or would they be completely separate?|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=September 18, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/151848842918/if-the-unique-change-happens-wouldnt-most-or|title=If the unique change happens, wouldn't most, or very few, of the creatures need to be changed so there is a default?|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=October 15, 2016}}</ref> | |||
==Likelihood of seeing print== | |||
The majority of [[R&D]] disagrees with Mark Rosewater's stance on the "legend rule," so unique is unlikely to be introduced into the game any time soon.<ref>{{TumblrRef|author=[[Mark Rosewater]]|URL=http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/155586229633/i-am-an-enormous-fan-of-retiring-the-legend-rule|title=I am an enormous fan of retiring the legend rule for creatures, and I know you are too.|tumblr-title=Blogatog|date=January 8, 2017}}.</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 17:40, 26 February 2017
| Unique | |
|---|---|
| Keyword Ability | |
| Type | Static |
| Introduced | Unreleased mechanics |
| Last used | Unreleased mechanics |
| Reminder Text | Unique (If a player controls two or more unique permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards.) |
| Scryfall Search | |
| keyword:"Unique" | |
Unique is a theoretical static ability that has been discussed by Mark Rosewater, but never printed. If the "legend rule" were eliminated, unique would be added as errata onto a select few legendary cards to prevent them from becoming overpowered.
Description
Unique would give cards the same drawback currently associated with the legendary supertype. If a player controlled two or more permanents of the same name with the unique keyword, that player would be forced to choose one of them and put the rest into their owners' graveyards.
Rationale
Mark Rosewater advocates for eliminating the "legend rule," which he sees as detrimental to the game. According to Rosewater, players of Standard, Modern, and other non-singleton constructed formats are less excited by legendary cards because of their inherent drawback.[1] These players generally avoid playing four copies of a legendary card in their decks for fear of drawing redundant copies.[2] This creates a conflict of interest with Commander players and Vorthoses, who generally want powerful or splashy creatures to be legendary. [3][4][5]
Eliminating the "legend rule" has the potential downside of making some legendary cards overpowered. Rosewater suggests adding the unique keyword as errata to these cards, so that in practice the "legend rule" would still apply to them. According to Rosewater, only a small number of legendary cards are powerful enough to warrant the keyword. [6][7][8][9][10]
Likelihood of seeing print
The majority of R&D disagrees with Mark Rosewater's stance on the "legend rule," so unique is unlikely to be introduced into the game any time soon.[11]
References
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (February 22, 2015). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Template:NewRef
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (May 15, 2016). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (July 13, 2015). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (February 22, 2015). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (March 22, 2016). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (May 15, 2016). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (August 24, 2016). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (September 18, 2016). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (October 15, 2016). "". Tumblr.
- ↑ Error on call to {{WebRef}}: Parameters url and title must be specifiedMark Rosewater (January 8, 2017). "". Tumblr..