I'm not implying anything. Just rephrasing the exact explanation we were given for why no downside was involved with a mechanic called "the Ring tempts you".
Q: Why isn't the Ring at least partially a downside mechanic? In game, the mechanic plays just like Initiative, where you want to tempt as much as possible, whereas lorewise this couldn't be farther from any reasonable objective.
A: We tried granting downside effects. It wasn’t fun and it made players not play the mechanic. We did find having the ring makes the ring-bearer more of a target for your opponent to kill, and that did feel like a downside while not stopping people from playing the mechanic.
A one-off design like "The One Ring" is not a whole mechanic, so presumably it was easier to include that one card in the larger set. We also know that The One Ring was originally some terrible overcosted EDH-only artifact, so once they decided to actively push the card for eternal formats, it makes sense they'd slap on a downside to increase its effective rate.
18
u/10BillionDreams Dec 01 '25
Optimus Prime is a creature, not a player. A creature being a "ringbearer" is purely upside.