Should We "Restrict" The One Ring?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- There's been alot of discussions around the solution to the One Ring both in price and playability and the most unique solution suggested has been restricting it...let's discuss!
#mtg #magicthegathering #combo #crazy #wow
_________________________________________________________________________
Other Links:
The One Ring (Lord of the Rings Wiki): lotr.fandom.com/wiki/One_Ring
Saffron Olive's One Ring Price Tweet: x.com/SaffronOlive/status/180...
Cedric Phillips' Restriction Suggestion Tweet: x.com/CedricAPhillips/status/...
Saffron Olive's Restriction Tweet: x.com/SaffronOlive/status/180...
Mara Rosewater's Meme Tweet On Restriction: x.com/maraisbored/status/1809...
_________________________________________________________________________
Come Hang Out On Twitch: / thatmillguy
Find Me On Twitter For More Updates: / millthat
Follow me on Tiktok: / thatmillguy
Mill Discord Invite Link: / discord - Hry
If WOTC wants to push design space, that also requires a more aggressive ban philosophy. Otherwise, the health of the game will suffer
Well said. If they want to sell packs with OP cards they need to ban/restrict some of those when they make for unpleasant play patterns
They don’t care about the health of the game. Not Modern. They only care about selling packs, and they have to make new to modern sets with massive power creep to do that
The biggest issue with The One Ring, the burden counters go on the ring, not the player. If the counters were on the player, running 4 of wouldn't matter.
This is the best “errata” decision
This is a really good idea
Running 4 still matters because you want to cast it every game. This is a very good solution to nerf the card, but this would only increase its price because then there would no longer be fear of the card being banned.
been saying this for months
I love the idea of restricting for flavor, but I could totally get behind this for keeping it in the game. It'd limit it's play to decks that can afford to put in life gain or have some build around and that'd be great.
I disagree with those sayings it's a slippery slope or a can of worms. I think restricting would be flavorful and fine for a mistake. Think about the companion errata. That didn't turn into more irl erratas it was fine and specific to this format warping mistake.
Ban the ring. You can only ban or unban in Modern, you can't restrict
@@cerilious I mean, companions rested on the edge case of reminder text not really being part of the card technically
Errata it to have the reminder text of something like a deck can only have one the one ring in a deck?
By that logic all legendary permanents should be restricted to one ofs, breaks flavor and immersion the have multiple Thalia, Guardian of Thraben in the same way having multiple The One Rings does.
@djsedam123 Why?
One of the problems with the Ring is being able to chain it with legendary rules when you draw another copy. I think this could probably be fixed with an errata where the burden counter is not placed on the ring but on the player instead. So the drawback can become more relevant since sometimes it doesn't feel to matter since you can just draw another copy and start again.
But restriction might be a good option too as well.
Burden counter being on the player feels more flavorful as well, as you can't reset it by just using another the one ring, instead of exiling it
I think we are focusing too hard on these beneficial ways to twist the card even more and forgetting that this card cast one single time in a game is enough to put you 3+ cards ahead and buy you a turn for four colorless mana.
You do not need to cast it more than once for it to be busted. If you cast this card and your opponent does not cast this card, you are in a significantly stronger position and will probably win that game.
If this card was called "Kraxis' Cufflet of Invincibility", we would not be having these conversations. We don't need to make any cute exceptions for this card just because it is The One Ring. It should not be legal in modern.
It being a Legendary Artifact actually makes it stronger. Got too many counters on one of your rings? Tap it, draw cards, play another One Ring, get rid of the first one due to "legend rule"
Wotc should just find a way to reprint the fucker
That's 90% of the problems with the card
A 2$ staple, and possible auto include, is still an ass piece to deal with in every modern event. It's not fun seeing any one card this much, it doesn't matter the price
new card: artifact, 4 cost, the other one ring.
@@juter1122 is it really an auto include though? I don't really see the more aggressive decks running it
It's great in control, sure
But is no more auto include than the fetchlands
@@robertomacetti7069 in sideboards it can be alright for aggro decks
@@dmaster1213 Should be called "The Four Rings"
If you can print Slime Against Humanity and Nazgul with special text modifying the "4 copies per card rule" then you can print "1 copy per deck of One Ring" on One Ring. Prefereably via Errata. I wouldn't like this for Vintage though which is a bit of a problem perhaps. It is played in Vintage but it's not too powerful there so an errata restriction would actually hurt vintage. The One Ring doesn't go in Lurrus decks so you need very specific shells to run it there.
They also have it on the 7 dwarves which is specific like the Nazgul.
@@Martin-qb2mw no one cares about vintage
Nobody cares about Vintage.
@@felipearaujodominici3057 factually incorrect statement. You don't care about Vintage, which is fine. But, do understand that vintage players don't care about you.
@@Martin-qb2mw"nobody" is hyperbole. But vintage is possibly even more niche than cube, ergo, nobody cares lol
Magic should do more limits and bans and they should start with this card, for flavor alone.
Why for flavour?
At thay point restrict every legendary permentant since the "there is only one" still applies
@@oscarshedwick4862why? Why would we restrict every legendary instead of just one? Are you saying it's a slippery slope and once we restrict the one ring we can't stop ourselves from restricting everything?
I'm confused about how we go from restricting one to restricting all legendaries?
@@papapawpaw8877if you're going go to argue flavor reasons then it has to be applied to all one of items and people.
Hence the restriction of legendary things to one copy per deck.
If you just want to restrict the one ring then just ban it
@@oscarshedwick4862 I mean yeah I suppose you could say that. However it is universe beyond and named THE ONE ring. So maybe an argument could be done for flavor. However I think restricting or banning it's fine. Whatever makes for more interesting gameplay and less formulaic decks.
@@oscarshedwick4862 it's in the name of the card
Should they put TOR on the restricted list, or erratic a deck building restriction onto the card so you can only have 1 in your deck?
Errata the legendary rule to be 1 copy per deck. Might help with all those commander cards they power creeping into each set as well.
Not a modern player, but Ive been brewing an azorius control list that runs the new proliferate whale and murktide. Using counter spells to stop the opponent from being allowed to replace their one rings while you essentially burn them out off their own one ring
Don't forget Surgical Extraction
@@fatpad00 not a bad idea! The idea for the deck is still rough, but I think I could get something workable for sure. I do think surgical is going a little too far in the main board, but its a good sideboard card!
You... Don't know how fast modern is do you?
We already have the technology for the Mara proposal, change the oracle of all legendary creature cards to have unrestricted unerfed Companion and done 👍
I like the flavor of having only 1 one ring. I wonder if just a flat errata would be better, something like a deck may only have one one ring. It also makes the card more special and continue to be able to play, I think the one ring cycling is a problem that was not likely anticipated when designed
I've been adamant that one ring should have had the restrictions of only being capable of being a one of card in a deck printed on it directly. It's called the ONE ring after all, not the four of ring. It would fix everything about the card, except the potential financial ramifications.
What about an errata? What if burden counters we're placed on the player and not the ring? seems more flavorful.
Yes! This
So you want Alchemy in paper magic.
@@WitherFangbetter than banning the card since that will the the option eventually
@@WitherFang It wouldn't necessarily be the first time it's happened. Lord of Atlantis has changed since it's original printing.
I feel like having restrictions would be a good idea. Having a variable amount of cards like what Yu-Gi-Oh and other card games have isn't that bad of an idea, and sometimes less copies of a card hurt consistency enough that things fall off.
I think the best solution to many problems with overpowered legendaries is to simply change the rules for all Legendary cards - If its legendary its restricted across the board.
Another fix would be errata to do the damage from the burden counters whenever you activate it so:
TAP: Put a burden counter on the one ring, then draw a card and lose 1 life for each burden counter on the one ring.
This errata would prevent players from "getting around" the life loss by saccing it before their next upkeep.
Didnt they say that they will have a LOTR during fall?
I got a better idea, a new format that includes all cards that have been printed into standard ever since eighth edition. It would be powerful and fun and once you build a deck you don't have to keep spending money on it because it will stay good for a long time since only standard legal cards get added to the format
Good modern.
Commander had been ruining modern for years.
I honestly think WotC should start using Restrictions more often in formats outside of Vintage, as it doesn't make much sense for most of the cards on the ban lists to be outright banned when simply Restricting the card can be just as effective as Banning a card, but people still get to play with them.
The reason to restrict it to one copy is because having a playset lets you refresh your ring with the next ring and so forth. Stopping such an easy out for ring self damage is the best part, and flavor is the bonus.
I think restricting it is for the best. I do like the Yugioh model of ban and restrictions
Okay, prefacing this comment with the fact that I do not really play modern, but I have opinions that are not really affected much by that so I am going to share them. The "restrict it for flavor" argument makes no sense to me. I understand the concept of restricting for flavor and have no problem with a flavor restriction, largely because I played yugioh for a long time before ever touching magic and that game has probably the most famous flavor restriction of all time in the form of the exodia cards being limited. Restricting the one ring for flavor does not make sense to me because magic already has a mechanic for stopping there being multiple of things that there are only one f in the lore in the form of legendary permanents, which this card already is and if the card was not legendary then there would be a legitimacy to the restrict it for flavor concept but because it is legendary the argument immediately loses any logic it might have had. Furthermore, on the concept of restricting it for gameplay purposes I do believe that likely has more merit, however I agree with the argument that that is a slippery slope and would be opening up for more restrictions in modern or even other formats that are currently without restrictions. As I said earlier I am a yugioh player and for that reason have a lot of experience playing with cards that I can only play 1 copy of. In yugioh the limited list makes a lot of sense (most of the time, at least when konami isn't ruining their own game again) because it, when used well, is not hitting consistency outside of maybe making specifically the engine of a deck a few percentage points less consistent because yugioh is a game of hyperconsistency and instead is making it so that a deck would have some kind of choke point or thing that can be removed to greatly weaken some aspect of the deck. In the older days of yugioh though, before the game got to the point of hyperconsistency it is currently at, the limited list was primarily used for making key removal pieces, interruption tools, and game enders less consistent which was a horrible way to go about it as by making these cards less likely to be drawn losing to them felt much worse because playing around the potential 1 of was almost never justifiable unless it was coincidentally also the best play for the other much more consistent tools the opponent could have and it is for this reason I am almost entirely against the idea of a limited/restricted list in any card game that is not at least at a point of consistency where every deck can be expected to play and win in effectively the same way with effectively the same cards every single game and does not really need to care that much about what is in their hand to know that the engine will be found and the deck will get to go off and I do not think any magic format is quite to that point yet.
I always thought that it would make more sense for the restriction to be literally baked into the card itself, like said it's the "One" ring. You should only have one full stop
O snap ngl, I feel like if The One Ring said you could only run one in your deck would have been a super cool deck call.
Although i would be a bit afraid of a lot of games just being lost do to an opponent finding their ring. Buuuut on the same coin, itd be super cool for decks like Blue Tron that always feel like it just has less reasons to see play. But it has a lot more artifact tutors so that could end up being interesting.
I think there is a difference between restricting to make something less consistent, and restricting something to balance it. If something is too powerful to have four of it should be banned, but if something is broken because of interactions caused by there being several of them then restrictions are more fitting.
YES!!!!! I used to love the concept of Restricted cards to only one of it makes for more game variety and is cheeper. and its a flavor win.
this is always the case, wizards prints a op card, lets it simmer for a while. then prints something that can combat it. just print something that will remove the protection effect for all players or have something super cheap exile all artifacts.
Time to bust out Questing Beast.
Sure, we can make arguments about maintaining flavor of cards, but ultimately flavor isn't what modern is balanced around. Flavor may be a bonus but it shouldn't be the sole reason.
But I do think restricting the one ring is a good idea. On its own i think the one ring is a fine card, but running multiple copies is what really breaks it. A full playset allows you to bypass the downside of life loss by just legend ruling the old one away, as well as fogging your opponents multiple times which it very frustrating to go against. And because it provides so much card draw, its easy to find your other copies to chain it into itself.
Restricting it makes the card function as intended, as a powerful but high risk card that will kill you if you dont win soon or build a way to remove it.
They should do the Companion emergency errata and put a new line of text on it stating “Your starting deck can only contain one copy of The One Ring.” Print it as a in universe version in the next Special Guest having a new name but the old name under it.
Sorry, second post cause it's about TOR specifically. It would have been more on flavor to have the player get the burden counter since even Bilbo is still highly effected by the pool of TOR and don't get me started on Golum. That way grabbing another TOR wouldn't reset damage since lorewise, the damage never goes away.
I think restrictions are very important also for other formats not only Vintage
The burden counters should be on the player and damage would only be taken if the one ring was under your control. That way the buggest upsidenof playing multiples would be fixed. I dont want to see restricted cards, but I dont think an errata is even possible
Just thought about it, what’s the chance the LOTR owner requested that no cards will be banned from their set as an additional deal. Man I better get two more copies!
My hot take is the one ring won’t get reprinted at all I suspect something in the contract stops it even under a different name. I’d argue it’s the face of the new era of designs reserved list.
I don't think it's too powerfull for the format, it has the answers for it. I also feel like there is a huge pile of cards that warp the format around them and could be argued to be broken. All of them has been argued to be broken already (grief, nadu, fury, ring, karn tgc, urza's saga, cauldron, ragavan, orcish, wren and six, etc.). I think the problem is the price not the power level. The answer is to find a legal loophole to reprint it
The problem I see with restrictions to 1 is that you basically either draw it and win or don't and lose, I know wizards hates experimenting with their rules but I wonder how a restriction to 2 would function
Restrict and try to also intro other past ban to restrict and open the format up
It’s The ONE Ring. I think a) it should be on the strong side and b) one is in its name so it should definitely be restricted or errata to say there can only be one copy of TOR in your deck, if they can have cards that let you have as many of that card, they can do the opposite
If they restrict The One Ring and set that modern precedence, they can also immediately restrict Nadu to right that clownshow, it'd still be playable for those that find it fun, but it wouldnt be nearly as smooth
I’ve been saying for a while that restricting cards to 1 per deck should be a core mechanic. This would have been a PERFECT opportunity to make restricted cards a core mechanic but WOTC missed the boat.
Although I don’t like the idea of restricting the one ring I can see the reasoning behind it. However my concern is that banning the one ring would be detrimental as in almost all the modern games I’ve played it is through the one ring that a player can escape the grief scam package. So if one gets banned the other also need to go IMO. But also maxi needs to get banned cause it is running over the format.
I think MTGO should have a special room, or format or something (I don't play MTGO so idk what it's called) to try out potential bans and restrictions
It should have been self-restricted from the start...like a reverse Relentless Rats type restriction...
"Your deck may only contain a single copy of The One Ring."
That's it just one line of text and this card is solved...
Wouldn't have been such an issue if Wizards had the foresight to realize people would legend rule their own rings to reset the protection and burden counters... If the life loosing ability was instead worded: "At the beginning of your upkeep or when The One Ring leaves the battlefield, you lose 1 life for each counter" it would be substantial downside. First of all, the legend ruled ring would still ping you on its way out and it would make some hate cards like Pick Your Poison a tiny bit stronger. The way its right now the life loss is just a joke, because it essentially gives you 3 cards for 1 life (if you replay second ring next turn) or 6 cards for 3 life (if you replay the next ring two turns after).
So I find to combat the one ring is when an opponent activates it once it has a counter on it, proliferate it a bunch and let them kill themselves. In commander. Wonder if you can do that in modern and work.
No
The problem is that you just cast the two, three, and four ring when the counters get to high
@klolwut then they should restrict it I know that isn't popular but even yugioh does it once in a while.
If they're not going to restrict the problem card, then they need to print cheap accessible hate that will deal with it, i.e. one cost common or uncommon exile cards in ALL colors
I'll always listen to opinions on the One Ring in regards to modern but the moment someone brings up "theme" or "flavor" or "stories" you've lost me completely. Aim't no way you're telling that X years down the road my *insert card here* got restricted from TOURNAMENTS for flavor wins
Burden Counters should go onto the player not the Ring.
But it exists and will be a staple forever until it somehow gets powercrept. My biggest issue with every format is that WotC is so unwilling to actually ban a card to shake up the meta, especially in cases where a deck exists that singlehandedly gatekeeps an entire type of decks (sometimes aggro decks or control decks are just completely unplayable because one other deck is so dominant and you're stuck with it until new cards come out that get around that or the problem deck gets solved). Like, Aggro decks in Pioneer currently just do not exist.
The damage for the card advantage is too low and the delayed damage is too slow. The protection on top pushes the card over the edge.
Speaking of limiting or banning here is a thought like on magic arena they have altered casting cost on some cards just because the meta can’t support them at there cost because the tools aren’t the same but with cards like nadu instead of maybe a ban just make a statement the the card can no longer trigger twice but once instead yes it gives the card a chance to go off but hitting and triggering only once would significantly limit if it will or not and do that with maybe other cards as well like even grief maybe it can’t cause you to discard more than one card a turn so it’s still reliable but it does not double trigger.
It is NOT self-managed by being legendary. It is part of what makes it broken/uber strong. Playing a second one to legend-rule away the one that is about to kill you is part of the problem.
The card should have been printed with "You may only have one copy of The One Ring in your library."
What's needed isn't a restriction in modern, it's a card errata.
Aside from the problem of reprinting the thing I don’t feel like the ring is a problem that needs to be dealt with in modern. The problem is Nadu and people are just using the statistics from the pro tour to get it banned. Nadu being a problematic combo deck that can afford to fit the ring in its gameplan is 90% of the reason anyone is talking about restricting it(which I agree almost every deck would play one copy if it were restricted which sounds like a bad time).
Before Nadu was around sure the ring was around, but by no means was it a problem for the format. The most popular decks iirc that played it were titan and tron. Which sure it’s really good in tron, but a powerful card for tron is always just around the corner. And titan was surely not one of the top decks in the format because of the ring by any means.
This move around the ring is only because of the lack of plans for a reprint to deal with its price jump. That and the format warping problem that is Nadu, which indirectly was the reason for the price jump anyway. Ban Nadu and the people who have a problem with the ring will remember a few months ago when it was just the hold over card for titan and tron or the reason control players (like myself) believed their archetype could be viable
Universes beyond cards should never be allowed outside commander.
Whoever suggest "restricting" a card outside of Vintage doesnt understand the very basics of how 60 cards formats work. Such suggestions are crazy talk by people who absolutely dont know anything about how to run a TCG. Some might know how to play it, but dear god are they clueless about how a TCG is maintained kept healthy.
Why?
@@danw.1250 Because tens of thousands of MTG players, over the last three decades!, build their collections under the assumption that a so called "play set" is 4 cards. Starting randomly reducing specific playsets would make those people angry. A) Because their collection isnt "well curated" anymore and B) because of the financial loss (They spend X dollar on 4 cards under the promise they can play 4 cards and now the market gets flooded by the very same card they have 300% to much of, destroying the resell value) - Keeping a TCG healthy includes keeping the player base having a clear vision of how to collect those collectible cards in a "reasonable" way.
If you limit it, it becomes unplayable in modern besides being in the Sideboard for Karn or wish type effects.
7:35 I completely disagree with this statement. All decks already can play a copy of The One Ring, but it simply isn't correct for those decks to do so. Restricting TOR doesn't change the fact that it isn't correct to play TOR in certain decks, be it as a single copy or as multiple copies.
1000% should be a one of in all formats.
If we are, it would be a text line which. . . muddies the waters ton. Similar to Naz’gul or whatever its name is calling out 7 copies.
I personally think the legendary text line should be looked at from a rulings perspective.
"if you agree with the common consensus, leave a like"
i dont think it should be banned , but i do think there should be more cards printed that can handle it easier , restricting wouldnt be to bad either but i think that would just open a door to never banning and only restricting cards in modern just like in vintage wich would probobly be worse in the long run
If they went restriction on this, allow only 1 in a deck, it is the “ONE” Ring. Then the downside of it stays instead of looping rings. Otherwise I see the only option is a ban, the cards is insanely strong. That’s my 2 cents on it.
I think this would create too much variance in competitive modern. The one ring is so good that it frequently decides games. Restricting the card would just turn games into whoever has the ring.
Honestly? As a LONG time fan of the game, and as an on again off again competitive player, I think it would be super interesting if Legendary = restricted, a la hearthstone deckbuilding rules
That was part of the original legend rule
You can have only TOR in the deck.
TOR cannot be copied.
or
T: You gain 1 burden counter. draw X and lose X life where X is number of your burden counters.
I'm on the side of tossing it in the restricted category and seeing how it goes from there. I also think that magic needs a ban list that bans certain combinations of cards instead of banning the cards directly. Example: Instead of banning Dark Depths fully. The banning would be that you can't include Dark Depths in a deck that has Thespian's Stage. Example 2: No Mycosynth Lattice if the deck is running Karn. That sort of thing.
This sort of banned list was deemed to powerful before the technology would make it easy to deal with it. If you force all deck lists to be registered digitally, then it will find all of these issues and any issue with a deck will be obvious during a deck check.
What's funny is that I honestly don't like the One Ring. I don't like taking life, so stuff like Shock lands, talismans, unless if I have a way to recover life. I am not a fan, sure I'm doing better and viewing life more as a resource. But I'm not a fan of it in general, so honestly I don't really get the hype tbh. Especially in lower hp formats, as I'm a commander format player.
But hey, that's just my opinion lol😂
Limiting/restricting the card would not make interesting deck building ideas. Play Karn, and play TOR in the side. Also, limiting it would not flood the market nor lower the price. EDH exists. People will play 3 in the 3 different decks.
This.
Also restrict, Valakut and The World Tree.
Petition to bring back old legend rule for only this card
Pity Eye of Singularity is only legal in Vintage/Legacy/Commander.^^
I said this from the first modern results coming out. It’s THE ONE RING. NOT THE FOUR RING.
Ok, let's give a full reference on this it is a powerful card, yes, overpowered no, and the drawback is the burden. I've used this card and played against this card it doesn't need to be restricted for the fact that I know of over a dozen ways to deal with it. Many aren't considering the loop arounds to beat this card, and there are a lot. On another note if you use this while your opponent has sheoldred your screwed.
I stopped playing because of WOTC printing more and more broken cards for modern, so if it was up to me, there would be a massive addition to the coming banlist. Having a restricted list would be an interesting take though.
Make the one ring an ace-spec
IMO restricting it makes it more “swingy” and it’s more feel bad when one person draws it and you don’t
Modern is becoming the "new legacy". New UB sets are coming straight to modern, and I believe we will see more of that. When all the new noncommander sets are released, they will be modern legal to improve and push sales for modern players with a few powerful staples (see TOR and Bowmasters). I think MH sets (how they are) and UB sets were mistakes for modern.
They should've printed it on the god damn card. Like, it's in the name bro.
Honestly restricting sounds reasonable but people already remembers the taste of using the one ring. Honestly there’s no way they’ll really ban that card. Just add some counter spells in your deck or it just keep punishing you for not doing so.
If mtg didn't have a restrict mechanic it would be still right to create it only for The One Ring
I don’t know how it follows that restricting the one ring will then make it easier for other decks to run one copy when they don’t already run a copy. Am I missing something here?
I mean, just imagine if the one ring was restricted then Brian boss would’ve been able to run it in gruul prowess and take down pt Amsterdam. That’s how silly this sounds to me.
It will make it *economically* easier to access, because if the ring gets restricted many people are going to liquidate their additional rings and people with no rings will pick them up for cheaper than they are now.
Would that mean we would suddenly see dimir murktide running one of ring? I really doubt it. Pro tour decklists, where cost is quite literally absent in consideration, don’t all run rings. I’m not convinced we’re suddenly going to see a situation like vintage where it’s a set of power for table stakes. The one ring is powerful, but 4cmc is significant such that plenty of archetypes don’t run it. I don’t think you can make the same argument for 0cmc rocks
Also, based on what’s being said at 7:20, that doesn’t sound like an argument centered on costs but rather the proposed low opportunity cost of running a one of, which I simply disagree with. The one ring enables a plethora of strategies but when you’re running sub 19 land counts, you’re not that interested in 4cmc cards
Restricting it is needlessly complicated imo I dont want to see a YuGiOh style ban list where cards are legal in different numbers.
Either ban it or reprint it to lower the price. I get that its a cute solution because its in line with the lore, but its just going to lead to this conversation about every card people have problems with.
I feel like anyone who thinks Sol Ring is fine in Commander should feel restricting The One Ring is fine in Constructed formats. Besides, it’s a flavor win!
Bring back the old legend rule.
It gives advantage but it doesn‘t win you the game or breaks the game on its own so I’m against restricting or banning it. Mixing lore with actual reasoning doesn‘t seem very smart, although it sounds fitting.
We have a literal restricted list? Why people pretending theres no precedent for restricting cards?
xD Modern players still thinking or probably hoping that their format will be untouched by hasbro's greed policy...
restricted in every single format for good flavor? seems good
I've advocated for something like this since it was spoiled.
Something akin to persistent petitioners
Where it says you can only play X in your deck
Effectively restricting it without putting it on the restricted list
Potential errata
That card is the opposite of this tho
@@juter1122akin means similar. Which is what that wording is. Similar to petitioners. Not the same
@@Rleasure0XD People don't use akin in the way you are using it. You are correct that akin does not mean the same. However, if you are advocating for a card to be restricted, you shouldn't be saying "similar to this unrestricted card named persistent petitioners".
@@raytweetsalotdisagree. Both would be abilities that alter the same rule for flavor and balancing reasons.
I don't see restricting it as a good idea. Other legendary spells are also one of a kind, the flavor argument is weird. Setting a precedent isn't what I'm worried about, it's the idea that it might be a single outlying exception that people have to memorize. I'd honestly prefer if they did a Time Vault and errata'd the card to change what it does, and put the counters on the player, or otherwise made it so you can't reset the counters simply by playing another one.
I disagree with the "there's one of it so this is a flavor win" this is literally point of the legendary mechanic lol what's next restrict all legendaries to 1?
Tbh I look at cards like paradox engine, golo, channel and lutri that got banned in commander yet we allow games with sheoldred, the one ring,mana crypt and Ragavan. The Rc is a joke
Chaining one ring is so strong
Bro if you think that the one ring is one of the best artifact you are weak.
In modern the power level is raising by each set and considering that they print every month something the increase in power is very quick.
Probably in 2 years will be 15 dollars (like ragavan)
I think people who own 4 would be happy to sell 3
I really do implore people to stop talking about restricting The One Ring like it's a good idea for the modern format. It might even be worse than just having it legal because if I cast my single copy of The One Ring and you don't, I am going to win that game a HUGE percent of the time. The card gives so much for so little. Just ban it or leave it legal, but the more we talk about restricting it the more I am worried WotC will ACTUALLY restrict it, an that's a losing situation for everybody except the people who want the card to be a little bit cheaper, and the guys selling the packs. The game experience would play worse with the card restricted.
Modern doesnot have restrictions we have bans
As a former yugioh player: no.
Do not restrict this card.
This card is the equivalent of "maxx c" - which became almost even more broken when they became limited. Maxx C is still so broken that every yugi deck would play it if they could. This is the excact same. There is no reason not to play the one ring. So no. Ban it. It is that simple.
4 mana extra turn spell that ancestral recalls twice. I don't even know how any modern player can possibly be ok with such a braindead card lol. That is 9-12 mana worth of effects for 4 mana. To me it's a no brainer, it obviously should be banned and there is zero good argument to keep it around.
One Ring isn't magic. Magic is a game about managing ressources and in a true game of magic you can run out of ressources and be in top deck mode. One Ring gameplay simply isn't magic the gathering because your ressources become infinite and the drawback is minimal or nonexistent since you are likely going to draw into another Ring.
Smuggler's Copter was initially banned in pioneer because "there was no reason not to play it" and "it went into too many decks, stifling diversity and creativity". One Ring is 100x worse than Copter was in pioneer because Copter only saw play in aggro decks, but all aggro decks were Smuggler's Copter decks. The One Ring doesn't only go in one kind of deck, it goes everywhere and in almost anything.
Why are Magic Players so opposed to limits?
Limiting the one ring would actually solve a number of the outstanding problems that the One Ring brings.
Having everything be all or nothing in most formats just seems so misguided imo.