3 Paths That Could Change Legacy
The following is a lightly-edited transcription of the strategic portion of the Eternal Durdles episode published on Sept. 24, 2025. The full video can be seen below:
Join the Eternal Durdles Patreon!
Neglect
Zac Clark: The way I see it, with the ban and restricted announcement (B&R) coming up after Eternal Weekend (EW) North America, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) has three choices for Legacy. The first is to do nothing.
Can they ignore Legacy altogether in the B&R; not write anything for Legacy because we know they'll intend to deal with Standard. This would be the worst-case scenario because it would, in effect, say they don't care for Legacy to be healthy. While they've never outright said, 'Hey, we're trying to destroy Legacy," they've been guilty of malicious neglect. So that's choice one: malicious neglect — "We don't care about Legacy. It doesn't make us money. We don't have to worry about it. It's not a big deal."
In our previous episode about the B&R, I outlined some of the reasons why WotC might opt for neglect because Legacy isn't affecting the value they provide to shareholders. Neglect is the easiest path for WotC, but the worst path for us.
ForceofPhil: If they stop curating Legacy, what happens to it? That's what they're doing now.
Community Panel
Zac Clark: And we don't want that. There are two other two options. Hand B&R curation to the players. I doubt they'd do that, but a community panel, I believe, is more likely; hand a bit of control off to those who play Legacy and say, “We want your opinions. We need people on the ground; what's happening?”
Let's talk about the logistics of that; what does the community panel look like?
ForceofPhil: You need to determine the qualifications for who the community could agree could to be on the panel. The trepidation about the panel is, how do you avoid bias? I don't know exactly what they did for the Pauper panel, other than regional representation across the world; diversity by location so it's not just Americans determining the format.
Zac Clark: It's amusing to me that that's an issue. As if Americans are saying, “We have to do all the American-centric Magic cards.” I don't understand conceptually why regional representation matters, but it would be fine if they chose all people from Europe or Japan, it doesn't matter to me. As long as the panal is playing Legacy and understands how to curate it effectively, it doesn't matter to me.
ForceofPhil: Region matters because different areas have different levels and volume of players and variety of archetypes. A long time ago, Europe featured many of the best Storm pilots, you were more likely to run into Lands if you went to Maryland — different regions can experience Legacy differently.
If somebody's constantly losing to Marit Lage and Loam From the Loam lock, you wouldn't necessarily want them to take action against Lands without pushback.
Zac Clark: So regional diversity on the panel. To that end, if we're concerned about bias due the region, we should also care about bias due to platform, right? Not platform like content creators but rather those who only only Magic Online (MODO) versus those who only in paper.
ForceofPhil: I'm not sure how you prove that somebody exclusively plays MTGO or paper.
Zac Clark: I don't think anyone would be particularly disingenuous about which platform they favor or play on.
ForceofPhil: How did the Pauper panel select its members? They all had some level of notoriety within the Pauper community, right?
Zac Clark: Yeah, I only know of Alex Ulman.
ForceofPhil: If they didn't have some sort of notoriety, how would WotC or Gavin Verhey even know to reach out to them? How would WotC otherwise know you exist?
Zac Clark: Yeah, agreed.
ForceofPhil: Do you think it would make sense for nominations by the community at large based on the agreed upon qualification criteria?
Zac Clark: You could do it like the Heisman Trophy.
ForceofPhil: People are nominated. Then, those nominated can choose to accept or decline. Not sure how much confidence it would court if people lobby to be nominated. It's the notion that anyone who wants to be elected to office should never actually get it. Like, if your ego is big enough to think you could or should be president, you shouldn't be president.
Zac Clark: Yes, that's a double-edged sword for a Legacy panel. If they have a ton of qualified people who would act accordingly and do the right thing, great, but those people wouldn't want the level of scrutiny that would come with it. Does the panel have to be anonymous?
ForceofPhil: I'm not sure it has to be anonymous, transparency is best. The panel is doing well for Pauper, but I don't know how competitive Pauper is as a format compared to Legacy. There isn't an EW Championship for Pauper, but Pauper events are significant.
Zac Clark: Paupergeddon. There are major Pauper events.
ForceofPhil: WotC withholds data for non-Pro Tour formats. I don't see the benefit of that. If WotC shared the data that they make decisions with then they could reliably say, "Legacy does not need any changes because of what we're seeing data-wise." Share that with us so we trust you.
If WotC were more open with data, it could guide players on how to navigate a format that otherwise seems broken or stale. If there's something we could latch onto or explore, it might be more interesting than what we currently have.
Radical Competency
Zac Clark: You're getting ahead of me. The third thing is the ideal situation: Radical Competency.
WotC actually puts in the work and effort behind their design teams and the people making the B&R decisions. Give them resources to test cards properly, refine the format, and sharing that data.
ForceofPhil: Putting resources behind Legacy is a non-starter, so they're never going to do that.
Zac Clark: I realize that, but we can dream. Every part of this, except for the malicious neglect requires some resources. WotC needs to legitimately give a crap about Legacy. WotC does not make money off of Pauper, either.
No one's buying sets to get all the Pauper cards they need. However, they do care enough to put one of their key people as the lead of that panel. Gavin makes decisions, shares announcements on his own channel, Good Morning Magic.
That is a resource put forth by WotC, right? Why can't we have somebody who champions Legacy like Gavin does for Pauper? They preach radical competency for Pauper. Every Pauper announcement, Gavin has an in-depth video explaining the choices and thought process about the curation of the format.
ForceofPhil: My contention is they apparently don't have that person currently, and they're not going to hire somebody based solely on that supposed need. What they could do now without much logistical concern, is to share all the data they gather for Legacy.
Every Standard Pro Tour over the last handful of years has been plagued with broken formats that require subsequent bannings and it has been thoroughly embarrassing. Pro Tour Final Fantasy; only having Vivi Ornitier and Mono Red where everyone dies on turn three.
"Look at this new set we're promoting as part of this Pro Tour!" Then none of those cards show up because WotC refuses to take action on the broken stuff or change what is leading to the broken designs making it to print. That's way more embarrassing than taking action for Legacy, a format that is never on any promotional stage.
Regarding Legacy, WotC should say, "Here's everything we know about the format and what we're basing our decisions on." We can disagree with their choices, but at least we won't have to question how they reach their conclusions.
Zac Clark: They stated they would increase the frequency of B&Rs, which is a step in the right direction. Even if they're only doing that for Standard, it opens the opportunity for them to do it for other formats as well.
ForceofPhil: For the the non-Pro Tour, non-RCQ formats, WotC needs to separate the B&R announcement schedule. They withhold taking action so players can confidently make travel plans and buy cards for decks they expect to play but that has nothing to do with Legacy and Vintage. So, if something is wrong, just fix it. Legacy and Vintage don't need scheduled B&Rs. Fix the problem when the problem is apparent.
Join the Premiere Discord!
Submit Your Article To Eternal Durdles!
Want to write for EternalDurdles.com? DM @ForceofPhil on Discord, Twitter, or BlueSky.
Subscribe to Eternal Durdles on YouTube!
Featured image: Sorrow's Path by Randy Asplund-Faith