So first looks at the M14 rule changes have came out, indestructible is now a keyword, unblockable is now just cannot be blocked and the legendary rule changes, clones don't kill legendary, article here
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/248f .

Well, this sounds like it's going to be weird.

Yeah, I just saw that and sent an email out to my EDH league's mailing list. There are some commanders that are gonna simply suuuuuuck to play against now.

At least the changes don't take effect until July 13.

I need some more Progenitor Mimics, stat!

There are some people speculating that this is in preparation for Theros being a legend-heavy set, like Kamigawa was. That could be interesting.

Well, my Uril and Zur EDH decks are dancing on the graves of clones right now.

So, let me get this straight. If my opponent has an Elesh Norn on the battlefield,

I can cast Sakashima the Imposter and get my own copy, except his name stays the same.

Then I cast Lasav Dimir Mastermind and somehow kill their Elesh Norn, which turns Lasav into a copy, except his name stays the same.

Then I cast Body Double, targeting their Elesh Norn in a graveyard.

I now have three copies of Elesh Norn: Sakashima, Lasav and Body Double. All my creatures get +6/+6 and all my opponents get -6/-6. Even if they manage to play a clone targeting one of my Elesh Norns, it won't put any of them into my graveyard, due to the change in the Legends rule, which allows both sides to have the same copy of a Legendary card.

1019215 no you will only have one Elesh Norn everything else has just gain a lot of characteristics of it
oh and all there creatures are white

1019229
Yes, I know they'll have different names. I said "three Elesh Norns" even though two of them have different names. I was careful to note that the names stay the same; thus affording me to play with three "functional copies" of Elesh Norn, or any legendary creature for that matter.

Imagine grabbing three enchantments a turn.

Or naming three colors that your opponents can't cast.

Or everyone taking 18 damage for casting a noncreature spell.

Or all your opponents spells costing an additional three, while your blue and white spells cost six less to cast.

Granted, all of these scenarios hinge on your opponent having the corosponding legendary creature in their deck, in order to get Lasav to trigger, but you can still get a "functional copy" with Sakashima.

1019259 you can do all that now so what of it this is to discuss M14 rules

1019279
The last line of my initial post.

Even if they manage to play a clone targeting one of my Elesh Norns, it won't put any of them into my graveyard, due to the change in the Legends rule, which allows both sides to have the same copy of a Legendary card.

Under the new rules, your legends don't invalidate your opponents' legends. That means if we both have Elesh Norn, Sakashima the Imposter and Lasav in our decks, we could have six functional versions of the same legendary creature's abilities. That means in a multiplayer game, two people could each have three functional copies of Elesh Norn and all their opponents' creatures would get -12/-12.

I'd just like to see an opponent play a Worldspine Wurm under those conditions and have it be a 3/3.

A -12/1 Tree of Redemption would also be hilarious.

1018828
I would be quite alright with that- Kamigawa was one of my favorite sets, right after Zendikar and Lorwyn.

(The article Pino Graham linked to just talks about the Uniqueness Rules changes. There are others.)
I think my playgroup is going to work out some bastard hybrid Legend/Planeswalker rule, using the new rule when multiple copies are controlled by the same player but using the old rule when they're controlled by different players. That incorporates all the real beneficial changes, while keeping the proper uniqueness. The land-drop change makes perfect sense, as does the sideboarding change. I am uncomfortable with the functionality change in making "indestructible" into a keyword, but any solution I can think of (aside from ignoring the change entirely, which isn't remotely sustainable long-term) probably isn't worth the additional confusion. And the templating change of "is unblockable" to "can't be blocked" is just harmonizing the base unconditional case with all the existing conditional subcases, which is definitely something I approve of.

As with most things, I'm going to defer my judgement until I actually play with the new rules. Also, it's hinted that this will have some interesting ramifications for the design of Theros, so that's something to look forward to.

Still, I'll miss being able to paradoxify opposing generals to death, and the planeswalker changes don't really make sense from a flavor standpoint. Sure, it works for the legends, since you're just making a simulacrum of the fellow in question, but you're actually calling in the planeswalker to help, aren't you? I figured they just left when another person called on them due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Now...

Oh well. They've practically stopped caring about flavor anyway. Goodness knows they've made that clear...[/angryvorthos][/firstworldproblems]

1019647
My interpretation of Planeswalker cards was that you were calling on the power of said 'walker, and not summoning them personaly. Hence why they only have 3ish abilities [Jace Wallet Sculptor and Garruk Relentless notwithstanding]. I do agree that this is going to be different, and I'm interested to see what this leads to/shifts in the metagame.

My problem with these changes is mainly the huge flavour fail.

For example:

Let's say I have a Gideon, Champion of Justice, and you have a Gideon Jura. You "animate" Gids, and attack my CoJ with him, killing him.

Since the flavour of planeswalkers is that they come and help you, get this: Gideon caused himself to become disloyal to me because he just whacked himself upside the head. It's ridiculous. Also, stuff like two legendaris fighting each other when they're the same card? No way!

I hate it.

The way creatures have always meant to work is that you as a master Planeswalker was making your memory of them tangible and loyal to you. it only seems fair that your opponent can have a legendary out that you also possess, because they're both from your respective memories and therefore can't technically conflict with each other, assuming that each legendary requires a butt-load of thoughtpower to maintain.
The same can be said for Planeswalkers, I feel, though for me that's more 'pulling them from a fixed point in their personal timeline'. Of course, things get confusing if two players have two (for example) Ral Zareks out at the same time. Unless one is from a day in the other's past or something. Then the flavour remains relatively intact (albeit fragile).