Mirror BoxMirror Box | Art By Néstor Ossandón Leal

The other week I wrote about the recent influx of legendary creatures in Magic: The Gathering thanks to half of each year's Standard legal sets now being Universes Beyond. To make a long article short: More Universes Beyond means more named characters which means way more legendary creatures each year.

And more legends makes for weird game play.

Now my reasoned take on that problem was, "Boy, wouldn't it be nice if we dialed down the amount of legends we're printing." A slightly more extreme take posited by MTG Goldfish creator Saffron Olive the other day was, "What if we just got rid of the legend rule entirely?"

Now I can agree that the legend rule is already a little contentious. It's been through a lot of changes and it can lead to some confusing mechanical moments, especially for new players. But to outright remove it from the game would be a massive change.

But it's not as far fetched of an idea as it might sound. So let's think about the ramifications that such a change would have to the game: Should we get rid of the legend rule?

The History of the Legend Rule

Just to clarify, let's quickly define the legend rule. This is a section of Magic: The Gathering's official rules text that deals with two or more copies of a legendary permanent occupying the same battlefield. Effectively, if two cards controlled by the same player have the legendary supertype and share the same name, state-based actions will force that player to get rid of one.

The legendary permanent you get rid of will "die" but the legend rule also ignores the indestructible keyword. It's kind of like sacrificing a creature, except the game won't actually recognize it as a sacrifice for any cards like Mayhem DevilMayhem Devil or Mirkwood BatsMirkwood Bats.

I'll admit, it's not the cleanest of rules. It can be a little confusing for those learning the game for the first time.

And this is just the latest iteration of the rule as well. As hinted at by Saffron's tweet, the legend rule has gone through a few changes over its history. There was once a time where having a legendary creature enter play on your side of the board would force an opponent playing the same legend to sacrifice theirs, turning some of the best creatures in your deck into 2-for-1 kill spells in a mirror match.

Why Do We Even Have a Legend Rule?

The legend rule is an example of where the mechanics of Magic: The Gathering as a game rub up against the flavor presented in its cards, stories, and artworks. From a flavor standpoint, the ruling largely exists to answer a weird question that can pop up in games where players can have four copies of a single card in their deck.

Or they may just be playing against an opponent fielding the same creature:

"Wait a minute. If Greasefang, Okiba Boss is on my side of the battlefield. And Greasefang, Okiba Boss is on your side of the battlefield. Then who's driving Parhelion II?"

It's not uncommon that interactions in this favorite game of ours can lead to bizarre images. Emrakul, the Aeons TornEmrakul, the Aeons Torn wearing a pair of Swiftfoot BootsSwiftfoot Boots or a Crashing DrawbridgeCrashing Drawbridge being DefenestrateDefenestrated. But the idea of Urza actually fighting himself seemed a little too far fetched for Magic's designers.

Grizzly BearsGrizzly Bears could be any old Bears. But Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer is Urza. There's only one of him.

Oddly, however, Urzas from different times or planes can freely coexist. Urza, Lord ProtectorUrza, Lord Protector and Urza, Prince of KroogUrza, Prince of Kroog can occupy the same battlefield and Magic's rule set won't bat an eye. Magic's story does play around with the manipulation of time, which makes this seem a little more agreeable. Regardless, the legend rule existing simply for flavor reasons isn't a massively strong argument.

The Legend Rule as a Balancing Mechanic

Whilst it may not have started with it in mind, in more modern design I'd argue that the legend rule is far more important as a balancing mechanic. By having permanents that can only exist singularly (save for special circumstances), design can print slightly more powerful effects that could become oppressive in multiples.

As The Trinket Mage points out in response to Saffron's original sentiment, Thalia, Guardian of ThrabenThalia, Guardian of Thraben is a perfect example. She already exists in a lot of white weenie lists throughout most of Magic's many formats, including countless cubes where white aggro is a playable archetype.

She can massively disrupt the control decks that seek to nullify her strategies by upping the costs of their removal. With multiple on board, any deck that wants to cast noncreature spells effectively just stops working.

Not to mention some horrid existence I dare not imagine in which you have to watch your opponent track four separate copies of Nadu, Winged WisdomNadu, Winged Wisdom and which have triggered for which creatures on their board.

Who Isn't Legendary, Nowadays?

There's a sentiment I've seen online to these comments, including from Saffron himself, that reasons this legendary design rule doesn't seem to exist anymore in modern magic. That, especially with the dawn of Universes Beyond in which we see the upcoming Spider-Man set boast around 70% of its creatures holding the legendary tag, legendary no longer holds the same meaning.

The basic premise of the argument is that as more regular creature slots are taken up by legends, it risks becoming more of a generic drawback with no added bonus. If everything's legendary, then nothing is. So why can't I have two Norman OsbornNorman Osborns on the field?

Magic's lead designer Mark Rosewater is famously not a fan of the legend rule's drawback. It seems if given the chance, he'd happily drop it to the wayside if the rest of the design team were on board. But I do think it's rather telling that this position is well know from Rosewater and yet the ruling still currently remains.

I'd assume that either enough of R&D are sufficiently against the idea or there's yet to be a decent replacement for the mechanic put forward. There may be a lot of cards that wouldn't make too much of a splash if the rulings were taken out today, but consider the Thalias of the world and how many of them could do irrevocable damage to the formats they're played in if that change were made right now.

Think of the Vivi OrnitierVivi Ornitier that's currently haunting Standard, its absurd power delivered by three different legendary permanents: Vivi itself, Proft's Eidetic MemoryProft's Eidetic Memory, and Agatha's Soul CauldronAgatha's Soul Cauldron. Now think of those decks with multiple Vivis or Profts on board. Try to mess with its graveyard if they have multiple copies of Cauldron out.

Singleton Shmingleton

If you predominantly play Magic: The Gathering in the Commander format, you might not have even had to experience the legend rule for yourself. But in formats where players can hold four copies of each card, legendary is still a massive drawback.

When you have a play set of a legendary permanent in your deck, you're effectively trading off the power of those cards with the risk that you may have a dead card in hand at some point in the game. If a legend is already on board, then playing another won't actually further your board state, save for some enters or death triggers you might gain.

Whenever powerful new cards are revealed from upcoming sets, any that carry that legend tag are usually docked a few points in the eyes of competitive players. There are of course exceptions. Vivi OrnitierVivi Ornitier is the obvious one, but other build-around cards from the same Final Fantasy set like Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIERSephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER or Terra, Magical AdeptTerra, Magical Adept are also currently seeing competitive play.

The central argument to removing the legend rule from the current iteration of the game is that sets like Final Fantasy and Spider-Man are pushing legendary creature numbers so high that we may not have a choice of whether or not to field them in our decks.

If your only option for a certain card in a deck is legendary, for example due to Standard rotation, then you'll just have to play it. And at that point the legend rule becomes a generic downside to a huge portion of the available card pool.

If that's all it's doing, and if the majority of players are playing the singleton format of Commander anyway, then why keep it?

What's Wrong With Restrictions?

The problem with this argument isn't just that it ignores the balancing issues that are sure to come with the change - not just that any back steps design would then have to make to fix those balance issues would likely just be a worse version of legendary - but also that it ignores one of the biggest losses we'd face if the legend rule were to go.

In modern Magic a lot of cards seem to want players to always be able to have their cake and eat it too. They'll offer a big payoff and then perform half of the cost for you. Sephiroth doesn't just perform a Blood ArtistBlood Artist effect, he also provides you a sacrifice outlet and draws you a card.

Cori-Steel CutterCori-Steel Cutter doesn't just make tokens, it also auto equips itself and gives trample and haste as well.

Card games are at their most compelling when players have to think of their own solutions to problems. The legend rule is a restriction. It's one that enriches the fabric of the game and provides interesting puzzles for the player to solve.

It's also a design tool for those making the game. Designers can introduce interesting card types like 2018 Dominaria's legendary sorceries that required players to have a legendary creature or planeswalker on board for them to be cast. A cool and flavorful design that makes for interesting build-arounds that I'd like to see more of.

A Rule Already Broken

Another position common in comments of this argument is that the legend rule is already easy to break. With legendary creatures becoming more and more prevalent a lot of cards have been printed that allow the player to get around it.

The "legend rule" is referenced on these cards directly, or perhaps they create copies that themselves aren't legendary. If you can get around it, why have it in the first place, right?

But I suppose we should just get rid of summoning sickness seeing as some creatures have or can give haste? Why have sorceries if some cards let you cast them as though they were instants?

Just because a rule can be broken, even if it becomes easier and easier to break, that doesn't mean the game would be better off without it.

So What's To Be Done Then?

So if I don't think the legend rule should go, then how do we address the problems raised by those in favor of removing it? What can we do about the problems we're bumping into? Well, as I said at the very top of the article: If the legend rule is breaking under the weight of too many legends, stop printing so many legends!

I don't believe that elements of the game we all know and love should simply be tossed aside, all to alleviate holes that modern design teams have dug themselves into. If you can't build a Universes Beyond set without making the majority of creatures legendary then that seems like a problem with our approach to Universes Beyond. Not with the legend rule itself.

But I'm intrigued to know how you all stand on the issue, whether or not you think the legend rule is necessary in modern Magic. Or whether you even care if it stays or goes? Let me know in the comments below.

Read More: