Is It Time To Errata The One Ring?

[@oQuindo1]

The Burden counters REALLY should have gone on the players. (Note, I have not finished the video yet.)

[@cherry9787]

This.

[@cokolwiekwpisane]

And the card should be black artifact

[@Bouillestfu]

I disagree, because when you pay your second copy it allows a second activation at full burdens. I.e: draw 4 then 5 in the same turn

[@MemeTeamSince-]

@@Bouillestfuthis would make it way too wordy but it could put burden counter on the player (damage) and charge counters on the ring (draw).

[@zztzgza]

No, you could chain cast copies of it and draw a lot of cards for no little downside. If each burden counter bolted the player that would be more of a burden.

[@Dot_Eleven]

I remember when they did the recent bans for Modern and they even mentioned the One Ring and said something along the lines of "There's no specific One Ring Deck causing problems". And it's like, that's sorta the problem. It's a "It fits in ANY deck" kinda card. No one's building a deck around the One Ring, they're building a deck and then putting the One Ring in it because it's that good and it's a colorless artifact so you don't need to worry about color identity.

[@TehKorwinMikke]

Doesn't hurt the reprint equity of fetchlands and shocklands, so they don't see any reason to ban it.

[@limitedlistener6460]

See, the problem isn't The One Ring, it's the lands! The One Ring is only playable if you have lands, so we just need to ban these terrible enablers and it won't be such a problem anymore!

[@jakegunning61]

Get good I don't have an issue with one ring

[@icantpronounce]

@@jakegunning61 are you going to sponsor everyone what is it at now 200$ a copy for their modern decks?

[@jakegunning61]

@@icantpronounce nah I actually just quit magic like not joking with the universe beyond anoncment I was just done staying with 40k

[@ivernedit]

One ring would be cooler if it said you can only have one copy in a deck

[@funkydiscogod]

Games would then be decided by who drew the restricted card.

[@ivernedit]

@@funkydiscogod there’s many ways to get it. Better then seeing 4 all the time and running cards to get it out of someone’s deck would be so much more rewarding. Also is thematic. Makes no sense why you can run multiple copies.

[@cherry9787]

Just ban it, for God's sake. I'm tired of this suggestion. By that logic, every legendary card would be restricted. Plus, it's giving Universes Beyond more favoritism for the sake of "flavor" or "theme". Bans and restrictions should be entirely based on gameplay perspective.

[@ShadeVial]

​@funkydiscogod not as much, with only one copy it would make the card less powerful. Because as is you can just negate the downside of the bruden counters by playing a second copy and legend ruling it, which also you cant be punished for spending mana on because it makes you immune. For decks that cant run cards to get rid of their own ring it WILL get you killed and even though said protection effect is strong similar effects on their own see little play. Would still be really strong but far more risky and punishable as well as making it not go in EVERY deck, not to mention not requiring someone to buy 4 copies of an absurdly expensive card without outright removing any value from the people who already own it. It might not make it a perfectly balanced or healthy card, but it would definitely be a more fair one with less toxic play patterns and would be used more in line with how it was designed and would be a significant nerf for even the player that draws it every time.

[@yScribblezHD]

@@funkydiscogodYou can't just apply this 1:1 with how TOR interacts with the current metagame because the drawback will actually exist if they errata it.

[@raiserofchickens]

This video illustrates perfectly what happens with deck homogeneity becoming warped around certain cards; and why cards get banned or restricted, or in rare cases, get an errata.

[@saveachip2620]

My one friend pointed out that the play rate is the same as some of the Fetch lands. This card is so good that it is as ubiquitous in deck building as slotting a land in, like this needs to be handled

[@petrri323]

Wizards likes ubiquitous cards though unfortunately. Just look at their reasoning for the lack of banning of sol ring in commander. I guarantee the one ring has the same reasoning behind it.

[@saveachip2620]

@petrri323 Except Sol Ring has been printed in every single commander precon, which banning it would make all of them illegal. The one ring does not have that same kind of precedence. It will get banned, its only a matter of time.

[@raiserofchickens]

13:40 I remember when Splinter Twin being run in like 35% of decks was considered too homogenous for the modern format, and got the ban off that along. The One Ring is pushing more or less double that number. From past precedence, it should get the ban from just being played in so many deck lists.

[@karenwest6350]

I'm gonna slightly play devils advocate, Splinter Twin being 35% of the meta is just a *single* deck and its variations. The One Ring is trying to just be a role player, it's not the thing your deck is trying to *do* generally, it's a tool you use to help your deck do the actual thing it wants to do (control, eldrazi stuff, through the breach, grinding station, etc.). Like how Lightning Bolt used to be, you wouldn't say "Oh my deck is a Lightning Bolt deck" because you were playing jeskai control and *could* bolt snap bolt to close a game out quick. So I can see why they're more hesitant to say that it's similar to Twin. ...but holy shit The One Ring needs to gooooooo and stay gone 😭

[@UniGya]

Ban the One Ring and unban Splinter Twin, let's go!

[@renzuki5830]

@@karenwest6350 The ring isn't lightning bolt though. It's a winconditio you lose to. And a bad one at that, oftentimes forcing you to play 3 more turns and hope your opponent doesnt draw another ring in 10 cards. Which makes it WAY worse than splinter twin. At least in that meta 65% of the time you didn't lose to twin. Can't say that for the one ring. It's powerful enough that it really doesn't matter what deck you play it in either.

[@ArceusShaymin]

@@karenwest6350 I would present a counter-point to your example by suggesting that TOR and Bolt aren't even comparable in your given comparison. Lightning Bolt is a simple multi-tool. It deals 3 damage to any target - whatever that could mean at a given time. The tool's function forms around the use-case and the context. It's good, but its actual scope is limited. In contrast, The One Ring *completely* warps the game around itself once it's been permitted onto the battlefield. All other axes of play pretty much turns off because the BEST thing for the Ring player to do is to protect and draw as many cards with Ring as possible while digging as fast as possible for a new Ring, whereas the opponent's new gameplan 100% of the time is *remove that fucking card right now* because if you can't then you get outvalued. The context and problems are now morphing around this ridiculous multi-tool rather than Bolt's converse case. This is because - and I think this is a pretty objective statement - nearly free card draw with a pillow fort stapled on top is almost never NOT good. In this instance, you COULD say every single deck that plays The One Ring IS actually just different "The One Ring deck" variants because that card IMMEDIATELY becomes the crux of any game it's played in. Psychic Frog is in a similar position, where any deck that runs it just eventually devolves into "I either played my deck and didn't draw Psychic Frog or I played Psychic Frog and played the same gameplay pattern as every other Psychic Frog deck." Therefore, if Splinter Twin decks were a single deck and its variations, then I'd posit that The One Ring decks and its variants being 62% of the metagame share (or even anywhere close to that) is completely unacceptable.

[@MuxusLordofthehorde]

Ex twin player here. I believe the meta game percentage was 18% or so.

[@TabletopGamer99]

Erratas in paper tcgs are always a messy situation. I like the idea of restricting it to one copy in every format, though.

[@joshua_lee732]

I hate the idea of restricting it. Just ban it

[@TabletopGamer99]

@joshua_lee732 i agree, banning is a better choice. But i doubt WotC wants it banned

[@archades9699]

What is so bad with restricting it?

[@TabletopGamer99]

@@archades9699 it would be the only restricted card in Modern. Pretty unprecidented, and would result in more variable games where whomever draws could become the deciding factor.

[@kylegonewild]

@@TabletopGamer99 Or its usage could drop significantly because the benefits of maybe drawing the only one are outweighed by the 4 potential slots in your deck you now have for a lot of decks. Decks relying on Karn and stuff would still play it but I could see its usage dropping quite a bit.

[@Rancidtunip]

I know this would never happen, but i feel like Horizons sets should be only there to add jank that does not fit standard or some key answers for decks overpopulating the meta... but Wizards wants to sell boxes, so they push power instead. I fear pioneer Horizons.

[@Frommerman]

Capitalism ruins everything.

[@link670]

Honestly when I was still playing magic I was excited to hear about the format specific booster sets as I thought it would be a great way to get staples reprinted that wouldn't fit into other sets and allow more people to access the format by bringing down the overall cost of entry. How naiive I was, and how glad I am that I stopped playing.

[@Xynic.7391]

They didn't announce a pioneer horizons did they? Only being actual magic sets is the only appeal to pioneer so God I hope not

[@Leuber]

@@Xynic.7391not yet, no. But I really wonder how long that will take. Probably when enough players have left MH block constructed behind in favor of Pioneer. (Not me, I won’t get into Pioneer exactly because I see PH on the horizon)

[@metalplaysgames]

I actually agree the burden counters should be on the player, it makes it more lore accurate and risk/reward for commander aswell

[@GuyFromCanada]

Wow, card draw that can fit in every deck? That’s good? Wow, I never would have thought that. If only we had cards like Skullclamp, gitaxian probe, arcum’s astrolabe, Once Upon a Time, or sensei’s diving top to teach us this lesson in modern, and/or Smugglers copter, reckoner bankbuster in standard. It’s a shame we don’t have any examples that could teach us. (Yes I know that’s an oversimplification, but all of these are a form of card draw that can be slapped in nearly any deck.)

[@freddiesimmons1394]

Well, at least they learned and stopped making cards that cheat on mana. Good grief, could you imagine?

[@bookerplayer01]

@@freddiesimmons1394 The idea fills me with fury.

[@freddiesimmons1394]

@@bookerplayer01 I'm just sad this joke couldn't be told with more... nuance

[@GuyFromCanada]

@@freddiesimmons1394 Yeah, I feel it’d be quite the mental misstep to print cards like that.

[@freddiesimmons1394]

@@GuyFromCanada i love you guys lol This has been great

[@ocha-time]

The best defense I've heard is "In Modern, four mana is basically a million mana" to which my basic answer is "Funny that everyone slots it in, then, if it's so unplayable" which is where the discussion trails off

[@vb_blokeboi7251]

It wasn't always. Noble Hierarch was the best mana dork in modern once

[@riotron1026]

That argument holds no water if the 4 drop is powerful enough. TOR is absurd.

[@vb_blokeboi7251]

@@riotron1026 Pretty easy to separate Vintage Cube and Legacy players from the new ones dude

[@riotron1026]

@@vb_blokeboi7251 ?

[@bluerendar2194]

Also something something MtG Arena timeless where Ring is a lot less powerful because more decks semi-consistently win on turn 3/4 even through Ring protection

[@sangreiti]

I'm feeling the contract making you say the "thousand" 40K lol

[@aytakk]

Enabling weaker decks? They said that about Skullclamp in Mirrodin block and type 2 at the time before it got banned. If any card enables weaker decks it is usually putting stronger decks into overdrive.

[@WhipLash42o]

Which is what happens, without fail. Your broken card doesn't make rogue decks better, its just makes better decks better. The powerlevel of your shit rogue deck barely changes, but the powerlevel of the best decks go up exponentially in nearly every case.

[@MenwithHill]

It's an argument well known to YGO players. Sometimes some people will say that bringing back Pot of Greed would help rogue decks compete, but it's such a generically powerful card, everyone would run it including top tier decks and it would make them even more consistent.

[@oldpoetmen]

Friendly reminder that they snuck this version of the One Ring past the contractors they hired to make sure LotR didn’t break Modern - and waddaya know, the card they snuck past did. ETA: And ofc Vince mentioned it; that’s what I get for commenting before finishing the video, lmao.

[@nitramreniar]

That doesn't seem like a fair characterisation of the events as far as they are publicly known. A number of prominent Modern players were brought in to consult on the Lord of the Rings set and the version of The One Ring they were shown at the time was a clunky, bland and overpriced equipment, to which several of them said something along the lines of "This is unplayable and unexciting for Modern, which seems like a bit of a waste for such an iconic item in the lore". After that it would have had to be completely reworked to arrive at the final version, at which point the consulting contracts with those Modern players had already ended. Maybe you can allege that they already had this version of The One Ring done at the time, but knew it might be criticized by the consulting players (but they wanted it overpowered to sell product) and so they showed them a bland and weak version to give them a better excuse for releasing the powerful one - but that's getting very speculative and conspiratorial.

[@davwad2]

That makes sense, when the one ring is being used, it makes the user invisible.

[@0xndrej902]

The reason modern has the most balanced distrbution across all tournament formats of aggro, control and combo, is because the one ring does exist. It uplifts control decks, that apart from dimir would have 0 relevance and the distribution would look like legacy. The one ring made modern the best format, because experimental decks "are viable with the one ring", but top tier decks dont even need it and mostly dont even play it, apart from boros.

[@oldpoetmen]

@@0xndrej902 if one single card that shows up in approximately half of all competitive decks is the only thing keeping the format diverse, then a) I question how much diversity it actually ends up feeling like, because The One Ring is strong enough to win games on its own and will therefore decide a lot of games by itself, and b) that to me sounds to me like a reason to ban it and a lot more stuff, if one card warping the format around itself is the only thing preventing certain strategies from stomping on everything else.

[@0xndrej902]

@@oldpoetmen Thats my question. "Half of all competitive decks". 0.X% represented decks, that have to play the card, I dont rate as competitive decks. Competitive decks are Top Tier contender, not fun-decks that make it into the stats. If you filter out at least 3-4% represented, the one ring does not shine as a 50% pick. The one ring is not the wasteland of legacy. Its a major pick up for

[@88tallyn]

Considering Nazgul already has a good in universe limit, it seems perfect to make the same change to T1R

[@quincywilliams9860]

​@@ArenaRat-xd8fuYour insecurity is showing.

[@robinsonfamilyadventures3675]

I feel like gitaxian probe saw less play as the one ring. And it got the axe for being in a high percentage of decks

[@MrPiotrV]

the funniest thing about this imo is that the ring would be infinitely worse were it not legendary. i think that shows that there's something off with the design

[@davidbrauch6967]

I disagree making it legendary allows one to remove burden counters via casting another copy kinda negating the downside

[@MrPiotrV]

@@davidbrauch6967 did you...read what I wrote?

[@joshreed316]

I didn't immediately realize how busted the card was because I misread it when I first saw it. Honestly, the way I read it would probably make it okay to stay in rhe format.... I thought on first read, that when you tapped it you just drew 1 card every time and it didn't scale with the burden counters. I thought the only thing the counters did was increase the damage each turn. Just 1 card a turn and the turn of protection made me think it was playable but not broken..... When I reread it and found this was wrong I went from thinking it was an interesting protection spell with decent card advantage to thinking it was broken as most people do now.

[@Meldon44]

I also didn't look past the 32nd place, but am interesting trend that should be noted -- 20 out of 32 is 62.5%, 13 out of 16 is 81.25%, and 7 out of 8 is 87.5%. I can only imagine the percent will decrease as you keep looking at lower results..... which tells a clear tale: Play the One Ring if you want to win. Yes, yes, I realize there's far more nuance to it than that. But i still think it's pretty telling that the higher a deck placed, the more likely it was to also contain The One Ring.

[@docopoper]

As a huge Tolkien nerd it has always bothered me that the ring kills you over time. Like, that's not what it does. In fact for a mortal it extends your life. I think a much better way to flavour this artefact would have been to go off Sauron's intended use of the ring, namely to control the elves. Therefore I would make its effects be about controlling other players. And to fit it now being from Sauron's perspective I would make it indestructible (and maybe give it ward) but have you lose the game if it leaves the battlefield.

[@lancejburns]

Despite being one of the most top-down sets of all time, LotR ended up being absolutely filled with downright weird flavor fails.

[@bealtaine2373]

I think it makes more sense for the Ring to treat us as though we're not Sauron, aka we don't get access to its "real" abilities (cause none of us are actually Sauron) I'd expect it to behave for us like what it does to Gollum and Frodo. It extends your life, sure, but it has side effects, too. It affects your sanity, it saps your will. Theoretically you're still drawing cards, but perhaps self-milling or discarding in exchange (I believe the library and hand represent our sanity and memory to some extent, a lot of discard and mill spells are flavored as assaults on the mind, or deleting memories). I guess the protection from everything represents the temporary invisibility, which works, I guess? Invisibility doesn't like... make you immune tho, Isildur still got shot. Maybe just hexproof/shroud?

[@Tera_GX]

@@bealtaine2373 I agree that's relevant here: a lot of MTG's player themes are about the mind. And a planeswalker at 0 generally escapes to recover.

[@thomasdawicki141]

Or have it so you flip a coin for massive damage to reflect the ring betraying you in the worst possible scenario.

[@bradleyhoward9638]

​@bealtaine2373 should've gone with you phase out

[@GellyVelly]

TBH I'd rather cards be banned than "errata'd". I never understood the point of erratas in a physical card game. Just ban the real one and print a different card with the effect you wanted to ruin the original card with. Enough damage has already been done recently that we don't need to do more.

[@TheAngelRaven]

The One Ring should have been a 1-of upon creation for your deck. This is one of the few times where I'm fine with an errata solely because it'd be something anyone with LoTR knowledge would understand and most of the community would agree with. It's THE One Ring, you should only have a single copy.

[@Zieoajcjcjwid]

​@TheAngelRaven no need to errata, just restrict it in all formats besides commander. That accomplishes the same thing without creating printing issues.

[@fernandobanda5734]

​@@TheAngelRaven Should you only have a single copy of each legendary creature?

[@U1TR4F0RCE]

You don’t understand why it made more sense to errata hostage taker than banning it in all formats and be stuck printing an extra rare later in the block?

[@GellyVelly]

@@U1TR4F0RCE Well duh, obviously if the card is worded in a way that LITERALLY breaks the game rather than "I dont like it cause it's too strong IMO" thats a completely different scenario.

[@brianhanson7686]

I own six copies and I am in the camp of ban it everywhere. Its outrageous and making it colorless just makes it omnipresent.

[@dadrising6464]

MAYBE keep it in commander (where all lotr stuff should have been kept with universes beyond).

[@Magnet977]

As an owner of multiple copies myself, I wouldn't be sad if it was banned in everything but commander. As an eternal format, commander has much better tools to deal with it in various ways (like yoinking it from a player!). That said in non-singleton formats? it really needs to go sooner rather than later.

[@cephalosjr.1835]

Do any of you play Legacy or Vintage? The One Ring is unproblematic in both formats. It doesn’t need a ban from either of them.

[@Magnet977]

@cephalosjr.1835 not trying to be a troll, but I'm curious as to the reasoning. While I'm not a fan of it being in modern I'm curious as to the arguments for it.

[@cephalosjr.1835]

@@Magnet977 So in Modern, everybody plays The One Ring because it’s the best thing you can be doing in the entire format. In Legacy and Vintage, there are a lot of other things you can be doing that are better than The One Ring, which makes it a lot less popular. In Legacy it’s only played in mono red decks, colorless artifact decks, and some Eldrazi lists. Everyone else is running stuff like reanimation targets, Beanstalk, combo cards, or a ton of removal. In Vintage it’s played in Jewel and Prison Shops and little else. Everybody else is running Lurrus, Bazaar, combo cards, aggro cards, or a lot of cheap colored cards.

[@robbschnell8784]

"Draw 15 cards over the next 5 turns, and skip 2-3 of your opponent's turns, cancel target game" is actually how the ring reads. Outburst was banned for being in 20% of decks. But ring being in over 50% is fine?????......

[@Higley1234]

Outburst was banned because it made cascade decks too good. The one ring brought control and Tron back as archetypes, and even made other midrange strategies viable. Half of the Ring's meta share is also just energy. Ban energy and the ring goes back down without also killing four or five other decks

[@robbschnell8784]

@Higley1234 ok. Do it. Let's see I'd youre right... Or if modern becomes a ONE deck (eldrazi) format. Cause that would be better. Question mark.

[@adriano7444]

Errata to fix design is just the coward way to ban a card. You should just ban the one ring If It hurts the format. We need more bans anyways.

[@HeyApples]

They could actually turn this net negative into a positive. Create a new Super type that is "mega legendary" or whatever, and the rule around it is that you can only deckbuild with 1 of them in your list. The One Ring gets grandfathered in as the first member of this club. Now maybe there's some interesting applications for design down the line where you have this new "mega legendary" mechanic in the toolbox as a balancing mechanism, maybe for future licensed IP's. Based on this precedent you know the Infinity Gauntlet is going to be some god awful pushed pile of bullshit.

[@JoeNokers]

I think cards that are so good they need to be limited to one copy really should just be banned. Otherwise you end up with a format where the player that draws all the broken restricted cards in their hand just wins.

[@screwthisnaming]

really love the choice of "Lon Lon farm" - time challenge song while you go through the decklists. clever ;D

[@donald422]

boros doesn't really have to worry about drawing more one rings to prevent damage from the burden counters due to the amount of life gain in the deck, list trying to be more aggro will play 2 in the mainboard, while list going for the mid range plan will go for three in the main board

[@wesleywyndam-pryce5305]

no. errata should never be used to fix cards. if its a mistake it should be banned not errata'd and that should be done without warning.

[@CaptainSauce]

Card erratas should never be an option. They were intended for old-format cards that simply didn't make sense or were unplayable, not to tweak cards post-printing. We can't expect players to research every card they own to make sure the text on the card is all it does. If TOR is a problem, change the legend rule so the first legend in play is always the one that stays.

[@RtheDoost]

As an otherwise entrenched player, I don't even understand how being "Tempted" works. I like some of the LotR cards, how they function amidst traditional releases (even if I don't follow most UB releases), and some...of the thematic points they touched on with the i.p.. Didn't care for a new Dungeon type effect to track and leverage, even as I watched the community break it wide open. I think it gets into a IYKYK issue that serves competitive players more than it is a fun piece for casual players to enjoy.

[@TheFlukeDuke]

I sent an ask to Maro a while ago about restricting it, and what he said was it makes the game way more luck based, which is fine for casual formats, but the most popular one is already singleton. But people are already running single cards on sideboard with wishes and Karn, so I don't think it would be that much of an issue

[@Bewsh]

You’re right about Karn boards but the four copies of Karn are effectively “four copies” of those single sideboard copies

[@as95ms98]

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[@girlhunter2102]

I recently learned that insult // injury is some sneaky tech against the one ring.

[@ZiggyUchiha]

Time to Ban it honestly.

[@misuvittupaa8068]

Woah, carefull there. You're gonna get dead threats.

[@noobwant3d]

Why? Just errata it to only being able to have 1 in any deck.

[@simic0racle157]

You forgot to mention, the one ring is already errataed on arena.

[@PleasantKenobi]

Yeah, this totally slipped my mind as I haven't played many Alchemy formats lately. Should have mentioned that tbh.

[@yeghost4232]

to what?

[@OlgaZuccati]

@@yeghost4232 the draw effect requires you to pay 1 mana

[@rem134]

@@PleasantKenobi Played the one ring a lot on Arena after it came out. Let me tell you that the 1 mana to tap is a huge fix. If you play it on turn 4 you can not really use it until turn 5 at best. Surprised how many times you get the crap I need to play spell X and run out of the mana to draw. When you have the ring with counters and your not tapping it it really hurts.

[@AlienValkyrie]

Another errata option that wouldn't even need to change the card itself would be messing with the Legend rule again; making it so if you've already got an older one on the board, you have to keep that one, rather than lose the old and keep the new one.

[@connormainwaring8866]

That would be better I think, it was also get rid of the Dark Depths/Thespian Stage combo.

[@sgjuxta]

I honestly don't get the people complaining about the price of the One Ring...as far as I'm concerned that is the least of its issues. Like, this is Modern, where, not *that* long ago, cards like enemy fetch lands, Liliana of the Veil, Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster, Dark Confidant, Mox Opal, Noble Hierarch, plus more I'm sure I'm forgetting were all heavily played modern staples that had prices comparable to or exceeding the One Ring for a substantial amount of time.

[@prestonjohnson1537]

Only having one copy of it in your deck is probably the BEST way to fix it. Love the idea.

[@grip7777]

The "play one copy" idea is actually quite nice and I think it would in no way make the card bad in all decks. Playing a prot from everything card that stabilizes you and allows you to draw cards is good, the fact that it has a downside is the actual balancing factor of the card and it does allow you to (for instance) channel otawara to get it back and not only reset it but get the protection for an additional turn.

[@TheAverageGuyTAG]

No restrictions and definitely no erratas. Either ban it or don't. Yes, they goofed on its design, but power-level erratas should be avoided at all costs IMO. And of all the justifications to issue a restriction or power-level errata, flavor is by far the worst one.

[@wesleywyndam-pryce5305]

correct!

[@ENCHANTMEN_]

I feel like if they post the errata _immediately_ it's fine, but not after being legal for a long time

[@fernandobanda5734]

Thank you

[@Frommerman]

In this specific reason, flavor is the best reason for an errata. In all other circumstances I would agree adding "one per deck" is a terrible idea, but for THE ONE RING not having that originally was a mistake.

[@TheAverageGuyTAG]

​@@Frommerman Flavor is never a good reason for an errata. I especially don't see why there being only one The One Ring is a good reason. The Legendary supertype already indicates that there's only a single The One Ring, much like how it already indicates that there's only a single Celestus or a single Aether Heart belonging to Gonti.

[@PowerfulSkeleton]

1:40 You can trim this whole section out of the video, IMO. You don't need these disclaimers, Vince. You run a YT channel where you give your opinions, it's why we watch. Anyone who'd say the stuff you listed off doesn't care if you make a disclaimer anyway.

[@petrri323]

Absolutely not. Ban it. Paper cards should not be errata’d. Ban it and make a new card.

[@billyhoover7031]

My friend group talked about a possible errata to The One Ring and came up with a different solution that I think works even better. The problem with the burden counters being on the player is that you add a new problem with The One Ring where you're second copy is able to draw you 3, 4 or even more cards off the first activation. You get rid of the reset problem but introduce a new one. This problem is amplified in the extreme example where you have a repeatable bounce effect for The One Ring. Not only do you get protection every turn but you're ramping up in card draw each time instead of each activation only drawing one card. The solution we came up with was to add a clause to the one ring stating that if you are required to put the one ring into the graveyard due to the legend rule you are required to keep the one ring with the most burden counters on it. The change might not work mechanically with the rules as they are but it wouldn't be the first time wizards had rulings on a card that didn't match up with the rest of the rules. I believe this better solves the issues with the card as it still prevents resetting counters with a second copy. Additional copies are made even worse since legend rule is a state-based action you cant even use additional copies to draw a single card since you don't have priority between when it hits the battlefield and you have to put it to the graveyard.

[@CanadianOreoable]

Something that i like about the flavour of tracking the counters on the player is that it makes recasting the ring similar to finding the ring again after having lost possession of the ring. You slip the ring back on to fade away for another turn, but the burden from when you had it before remains.

[@CanadianOreoable]

@ArenaRat-xd8fu yeah, that's kind of what the video is about?

[@CanadianOreoable]

@@ArenaRat-xd8fu what are you talking about?

[@arandombard1197]

The damage needs to happen afte you tap it in my opinion. The frontloaded cards and backloaded damage is what makes it OP.

[@hayhay2640]

Maybe just ban the card

[@williamsimkulet7832]

Ban it. Or Restrict it? Ban it.

[@LordMigit]

You could make a broader rules tweak to say, when a second copy of a legend comes into play you have to sac the new one and not the old one. But that would have a lot of ramifications throughout magic. Stage/Depths etc. But it might still be worth considering.

[@OracleCura]

Burden counters being on the players is a great change, and it was the first thing that came to mind before you even mentioned it. It's obvious, and it makes a lot of sense. I also agree that for the sake of modern, only one should be playable in the deck. It makes sense, it's thematic, and it also helps address the problem. Post-release errata is a logistical problem though; I know we can't really pretend that "reading the card explains the card" still holds true, but this sort of errata where it outright defies the text on the card is inevitably going to cause disputes somewhere. ...maybe that's a bullet wotc should bite every once in a while, though.

[@bealtaine2373]

to be fair, we do live in an era where a lot of people are carrying around portable internet machines, it's pretty easy to pop open scryfall and access the errata text for any card, even mid-game (I do it all the time, in my case a lot of the time it's to prove errata'd subtypes did in fact get errata'd, like yes this Hound in paper does count as a Dog now)

[@3GThesla]

While the "1 copy per deck" change would be interesting and in theme for The One Ring lore-wise, it may feel like even more of a sack when drawn. Maybe adding some text like "you can't play The One Ring if you already control The One Ring" would be better? Burden counters on players instead of the cards would be great either way though, awesome change

[@Nic1700]

I think my favorite solution is an update to the legend rule so that a player cannot cast a legendary permanent that player already has on the battlefield. The text on the card itself would be unchanged. Then players would have to actually bounce, sacrifice, or exile their own One Ring to get off the hook from the life loss. There have been other combos involving Mox Opal or Mox Amber that this would have broken up without the need for bannings. There's some minor downsides like no longer being able to reset PW loyalties or psuedo-viligance for legendary creatures. If its worded "cast" versus "play", players can still lotus petal legendary lands if that's an important thing to keep, although including lands might help prevent a Nykthos ban in Pioneer some day.

[@PajaKulebrc]

Havent watched the full vid yet - but my proposed solution was always to change the life loss to be "At the beginning of your upkeep or when The One Ring leaves". It would preserve the functionality (protection + draw) but it would actually hurt when youre replacing the ring with a fresh one. Because in my eyes the biggest issue wasnt the overall power of having one copy, but the fact that you eventually draw into more and "refresh" it with literally zero downside.

[@ryanhollands5429]

Minor point, Companion cards were not erratad, the Companion Rule was changed (and reminder text was changed on later printings). Much like every legend wasn't erratad when the Legend type rules changed. Following that, maybe change the Legend rule to "you cant cast/play a legendary spell/land if you control a permenant with the same name". This covers future things, and fixes the One Ring without needing to errata the card.

[@otterfire4712]

They've already settled on Legend rules and it's still leagues better than where it started.

[@ryanhollands5429]

@@otterfire4712 They were "settled on" it until it changed, much like mulligans, and other rules changed over time.

[@thelastone5457]

That legendary rule change you are talking about was/or was similar to the old school legendary rule. It messed with EDH hard because people would just run the best of decks and locked people out of playing. Which is why it was changed, arguably of course.

[@thewhiteknight3945]

​@thelastone5457 I think he just means you cant play an9ther, not that no one can play another.

[@otterfire4712]

@@thewhiteknight3945 still messes with copymander decks/strategies.

[@NewFemtex]

I'm on the either ban it or restrict it to one copy per deck (which, as you rightly point out, it should be thematically anyway).

[@jonathanogden8756]

Small rules clarification. The “legend rule” does not cause you to sacrifice one of them. You just choose one to put into your graveyard. This does not trigger sacrifice abilities.

[@PleasantKenobi]

Very fair.

[@mikotagayuna8494]

Maybe it's time we get a restricted list for Modern. Unfortunately, at the rate that power creep is being pushed, this will end up turning it into a singleton format like Commander.

[@thejewthatlived]

I like having the burden counters apply to players, I think another solution would be to have the one ring errataed with a line of text that says "you may not cast spells named 'the one ring.'" I think this solves most of the issues for modern without making it a miser one of in every deck while still reinforcing the thematic nature of there only being one, and if you still want to go really deep and reset your ring with other cards you can still use copy effects to reset it. Just my thoughts!

[@Raagentreg]

There's another errata that could thematically work too. Simply add the line "While The One Ring is on the battlefield, you cannot cast The One Ring" This keeps the burden counter as an actual burden, but also stops replaying TOR to get even more cards & protection via playing multiple TORs in one turn / over several turns. It's also very flavourful. You can't cast TOR again, because it IS The. One. Ring. Ain't no replacing that!

[@TheBlackGunslinger]

Tbh, the best way I could think to Errata the one ring would be to either have Burden Counters transfer between One Rings (Think of like Skullbriar keeping counters) or to simply restrict it to one. Adding 'Your deck can only have one copy of The One Ring' would also work but alas, paper sucks to Errata. (Adding this comment before finishing the video)

[@Morgilson]

I do love your content even when i dissagree, your are informative but more important; rather than just point out the flaws you activly try to find solutions. I think making burden counters into "emblem" type effects could work well,, it they were xp counters you could even proliforate them. Ways any, been lurking long enough, u earned the sub along time ago.

[@PleasantKenobi]

I really appreciate the kind words and need them atm. It's been a rough few weeks. Thank you.

[@Morgilson]

@@PleasantKenobi Well you earned it many times over, sad about the rough week thou, hope u pulle thru.

[@daytimecloudsurfer]

Here's my convoluted idea 🥂: restrict the one ring so that it is only legal if you have a specific companion (which doesn't exist yet, would be some kind of sauron, "sauron the dispossessed" eg with the restriction that you have at least one copy of the one ring in your starting deck) that has an eminence style ability that creates a legendary token land called "Mordor" when one ring enters the battlefield that uhhh does something bad to you, like burns you when you get burden counters or idk. If you cast sauron he is a powerful 9/9 intimidate creature (probably like 7cmc) but has "when sauron or an artifact enters, exile an artifact you own and control called the one ring, you lose the game" basically if you have sauron and the one ring at the same time you lose and sauron wins lol

[@RPGFanboy14]

I genuinely agree Dad. It's strange that it didn't have that line of text in the first place. In general, the one ring mechanics in the set both being tempted by it and the card itself are very strangely designed. Between the two of them, I would like to see the uniqueness Errata if I had my pick. It maintains the flavor of the card while at the same time allowing for some Trixy wiggle room that is often half the fun of magic.

[@thatepicwizardguy]

Deck homogenization makes magic (and other games) much less fun. Generic staples being as strong and always useful as the one ring is problematic because of how it instantly reserves slots in like every deck. Its just poorly designed and could have still been really strong but drained the player with it by having counters on the player for instance. Its crazy to me how the designers and playtesters actually thought this card was fine.

[@anthonydelfino6171]

the burden counters should stack up regardless of if you use it or not. this would have been more in line with the story since Frodo was getting worn down by the ring just by carrying it even without using it. but also the burden counters definitely could also have been fixed by going on the player rather than on the artifact, sure you could still break that with Solemnity... but it's still less broken than resetting the counters by just playing more one rings

[@dragonlord23411]

Solemnity would prevent burden counters, but the ring only draws equal to the number of burden counters so wouldn't be that great.

[@anthonydelfino6171]

@@dragonlord23411 ooh. Right you are

[@PenrosePenrose]

Future Sight really saw the future. The One Ring has "Grandeur- Discard another card named The One Ring, {4}: remove all burden counters and untap The One Ring. Activate only as a sorcery."

[@BrokenTablesPodcast]

Sheoldred laughs "Hahahaha you cannot place a burden on that which has been unburdened by what has been."

[@DirtyDuckofDoom]

I've always landed on making you pay mana to activate the card draw ability equal to the number of burden counters on it. First time you tap it, it will still be free, but the next time it'll cost a mana, after that two... so on and so forth. This probably would've had to have been something that Wizards decided on before they went ahead and printed it unfortunately, since it's a fairly large rule change without the text on the card indicating how to play it by the new rules.

[@robnotwicz7002]

I think another way of doing it would be to have a burden counter added to the Ring when it enters, so the damage scaling jumps up more quickly

[@taylornewman9561]

Old cards read incorrectly all the time and it mostly works out. Changing the way the One Ring works is totally reasonable, especially if you make it one per deck as a flavor win. Can’t believe it doesn’t already have that text from the start

[@dragade101]

I like both erratas. The most logical errata is the restriction. Though I doubt WotC would press that button unless they hear a loud and resounding restrict this one card (despite its financial cost). Likely the need to change where the burden counters are counted has to be how WotC moves forward with. Never mind the card having some contractionary wording on it. Burden counters should be on the player.

[@DemonBlanka]

Errata? No, it's time for a ban.

[@brian_simmons_]

One per deck is a huge flavor win and also a fix to the problem

[@OsamuWuVT]

i mean theres a few ways to errata the one ring: the ways many have mentioned the burdern counters on the players. What Kenobi mentioned, but i'm surprised no one's mentioned adding a cost to the one ring's tap ability? Arena has it like 1 mana then tap? honestly it should increase based on the burden counters on it if you ask me. Or do one i've been thinking on for the past few days. This one combines both the arena errata and few others: For each burden counter it costs one more mana to use, to kinda emphasis the struggle of trying to put it back on via novel flavor, this combined with the fact it is the ONE RING and having burden counters on the player "should" be on there for the errata

[@TheMCGamer2012]

While we're at it, can we get rid of the "equal to" in Thassa's Oracle ETB "greater than or equal to Devotion = you win"? It makes absolutely no sense that a Devotion mechanic can't be responded to by shrinking a player's Devotion with removal, and just making Thassa's Oracle into a sorcery only able to interacted with by counterspells.

[@andrelanca2700]

My issue with burden counters on players is that you can draw ALOT of cards from a second ring, which maybe could be worse than resetting the life total, since you get the protection anyways. T4 draw 1+1 (2) 1 life T5 draw 1+2 (5) 2 life T6 draw 1+3+4 (12) 4 life It's fucking 1/5 of your library for 1 more life, if you can't win from there, don't know what can. Add it to decks that gain tons of life, like boros energy, and it might get out of hand pretty quickly as well.

[@KevinSchleich]

I feel like Wizards were thinking about the One Ring when they designed Vazal, the Compleat in Mystery Booster.

[@ecos889]

A good errata for the one ring would be when you cast the One Ring exile all other copies of the One ring from your deck or have a part of it's effect is that you can have only One ring in your deck but at that point ban it, as limting usually make drawing it being very saccy as it feels like your opp won by pure luck. As I don't think WOTC is going to start a limited and semi limited list.

[@Tristanramos1]

The most flavorful thing would be “You may only have 1 the one ring in your deck”

[@avengedbulletromance]

i will watch that video, vince!!! i’ve always been a red-white mage and i love all the cool new stuff wotc has introduced for players like me!!!

[@sunsfssb7699]

Another errata method that doesn't mess with consistency in Modern so much would be the textline: "You can't cast cards named The One Ring."

[@lonsmithicus]

Yes please. I would love more formats to have restricted cards. It's fun that way.

[@najoheuer]

Before you get to it, I've been saying that the One Ring should be limited to 1 per deck since it was printed, but I don't have a platform to spread the word. Putting the Burden on players would be a quick-fix, and would also kinda fit the flavor (Bilbo was still clearly affected by it long after giving it to Frodo)

[@coulterbaker4663]

Another flavorful option could be adding a line of text to the ring "You cannot cast spells named The One Ring."

[@DigitalQuackVT]

Everytime he says the one ring you take a shot.

[@maclenag91]

I do like this video. great points. I think either of these erattas would satisfy me with it being around still instead of a ban. Maybe 1 copy would be less playable, but I would still run it with like Karn search for it. It feels alot more on message for Tolkein as well.

[@saveachip2620]

As far the errata goes for counters it would really only empower any deck that can make use of mutated cultist

[@NeilXSwint]

Add a burden counter and draw A card. So you are only ever drawing one card, but you are stacking burdens.

[@XLuxtra]

At this point just print The one ring in every Commander Precon. So you get a Solring for yourself and the One Ring for your Partner in life (or future one)

[@Shoyro]

I can see it where if you play a copy of TOR, but instead of the Legend Rule kicking in, If you have one in play already with a Burden Counter, you EXILE the new copy instead of replacing the one that's been in play for more than one turn.

[@drmagic316]

Remember when Scalding Tarn and Verdant Catacombs were up around £100.

[@BirbIrl]

I think "You can only have one copy of the one ring in your deck" is a bit wordy and removes possible deck design. I think a much more fitting errata would be giving it "hezproof and When The One Ring leaves the battlefield, you lose the game" That way, if you can stall it out and chip in extra damage, the opponent *will* lose, even if they sacrifice it or anything. That way making a choive of "okay do i play one or three rings" becomes an actual puzzle to solve, because drawing a second one is a dead card, and drawing four with it becomes a real threat, so having one of your six draws getting voided by an unplayable ring would be good design imo And lastly i think it'd be really undun if everyone ran one copy of the one ring. It'd basically become the sol ring of commander. If you play a mirror match and the enemy draws the one ring qhile you don't, you lose. Sometimes it's already like that, but now extremely amplified.

[@retronymph]

I'm not good at the game or anything, but I imagine energy aggro really wants to see exactly one copy of the one ring, because it should probably want to be winning before it needs to reset the counters, so running 2 is probably optimal for that game plan.

[@ecpracticesquad4674]

No erratas, just ban it. I have 4 foil copies and I’m over everyone complaining about.

[@unicorndogg]

Add this via errata: "you must choose to keep this copy when resolving the legend rule"

[@Joshimuz]

My Ideas (before I watched the video, I'm apparently very unoriginal lol) 1. Erata to say "You may only have 1 copy of The One Ring in your deck." EDIT: Yeah it causes issues like you say, adds randomness whether you draw it or not, but I still like this solution the most. 2. Burden counters are per player not per copies of The One Ring. 3. When the Legend state based action happens, an opponent picks which you keep, not yourself. (This is a bit out there and changes a lot more than just The One Ring, but I think is a general improvement to the legend rule?) 4. Ban The One Ring xd

[@kylegonewild]

Note: it's not "cast from hand" just "cast" so you can cascade/discover/retrace/other cast from exile and gy stuff it for protection.

[@Otako371]

Vince I love Red & White, I want to talk about how they've been made better by the commander focus!

[@moptasticable]

this new version of “12 days of Christmas” sucks. 4 one rings, 3 one rings, 2 one rings and an infect deck with 4 riiiiings

[@kevinstanton5998]

Just change the legends rule back to whatbit used to be: If your opponent plays the same legend, yours gets destroyed. Or could change it back to the other other version: If 2 of the same legend hit the board, destroy them both. So casting the 2nd one wouldn't reset the burden because both would be sacrificed

[@PleasantKenobi]

That first rule would make the Ring as a 4 of in more decks, not less, as it counters opponents rings.

[@jinxed7915]

Man your proposals would have a lot of collateral damage just for the sake of (trying to) weaken The One Ring. There's a reason the legend rule was changed from those two previous iterations: because it sucked to play with Would rather someone just propose banning the card outright instead of changing the fundamental rules of the game in order to make a glancing blow at it

[@kevinstanton5998]

@jinxed7915 both of those previous versions of the legends rule are better than the one we have now.

[@jinxed7915]

..... No comment.

[@Magnet977]

As a commander player, I totally understand and agree with the idea of banning The One Ring in non-commander formats. Its power, utility and draw potential are completely ridiculous, and being able to "reset" the burden counters by simply playing another one ring as a means of abusing the legend rule really does bring it to a whole different level. The addition of the protection effect (while thematically accurate) also means it can double as a better fog/damage negator. While 4 mana might seem high, the value a player gets from casting it just once is insane. My thoughts are that it is another card that was designed for commander that should never have been put into the non-singleton formats: which is something that unfortunately seems to be happening a lot more than it should in this day and age. Non-commander players shouldn't have to suffer from designs like this that warp other formats so badly (and vice versa).