How dare they change the rules of commander to allow people to have access to their commander!
...seriously folks?
This decision makes a lot of sense to me.
Same. There have been multiple times where I've put someone's commander in their library and they thought I was cheating until I explained it a bit because they assumed the rule covered that already. Because it's in line with the intent of the rule, that you can get your commander back relatively easily after someone's gotten rid of it.
If you want to deal with someone's problematic commander, the rules shouldn't push you towards cards that do that by taking advantage of loopholes. You should go looking for cards designed to stop specific cards or lock down creatures without killing them, like if you were dealing with a similar problem in normal Magic. My hope is that Wizards had some heads-up about this and there'll be several new commander removal cards in Commander 2015.
I couldn't disagree with you more, on every single point.
1) if you play a card like Hallowed Burial, and your opponents assume you're cheating, stop playing with idiots. The interaction is right on the card, I don't know why anyone would assume there's some rule out there in the aether they've never read that says ALL somehow means 'except this one'.
2) The above reason is exactly why I despise this change. They're extending the rules to create an exception that doesn't exist in the cards. (That, and some commanders get so degenerate a tuck is the best answer for everyone at the table).
3) Tucking was never a loophole. Oblation existed before Commander did, it's not like it was a post-creation precedent. Since the birth of the format, Oblation has been a card, it did what was printed on the card, sometimes it was mean, sometimes it was necessary, but it's existence and other cards like was always known.
4) For the love of God, Wizard's needs to stay the hell away from Commander. Every time they touch it, we get Sylvan Primordial, Kaalia, Narset, Proshh, Nekuzar, Derevi, and a host of bad ideas. They've overblown the power level of legends in Commander almost to the point of ruining it as a casual format. They thought it'd be great to give across-the-board access to powerful (read: broken) commanders in every conceivable color pair. Except, it's not balance when everyone at the table has a rocket launcher. Some of these recent additions are so strong you almost can't help how much of a target you make yourself. Try building a Kaalia deck that doesn't feel broken. Build a Nekusar deck that doesn't make you either bleed everyone at the table in 20 minutes or get you targeted by everyone in the first 5.
I don't really know how I feel about removing tucking. It's easier to understand for everyone, especially new players and the commanders stand out a lot more, but games might get frustrating pretty fast now. No tucking of generals like mimeoplasm, karador, gaddock teeg, derevi or some other nuisances isn't something I'm looking forward to.
I'm SO SICK of the "too strong for Standard" argument. It's the new "Dies to removal". We can have a two mana 4/4 with a zillion abilities, but we can't just have Accumulated Knowledge. Makes sense.
Why can't the game still make fun even if you lost your commander temporarily?
Tucking really isn't temporary unless you have a tutor immediately available. It basic creates a state for most decks where they can't access their general again for the match, and there is no way they can interact with you or the battlefield to change that. Defeats the point of the format.
I cannot disagree more to this. If they are niche cards, they already getting way more credit than they deserve and put the whole rules change discussion ad absurdum, because it is meaningless. Making changes that require further changes and restrictions in a casual fun format is good? Promoting deck-building without thinking about the meta nor adapting to certain cards is nobraining a format. Build something go autopilot, need further need to think about it. By what data or statistic do you tell what MOST players want? I can give you my own experience of some 40+ players that have never been bothered by it. Usually, it's by fact always the displeased minority that complains in forums, because happy people usually don't tend to bother.
It's not data or stats, it's basic game design. If you create a game, or in this case a format, based around the goal of getting people to base a deck around a specific card, you don't also include cards that make it impossible for the person the ever have access to it within your rules. Allowing cards that put it in your library makes the General almost permanently inaccessible and defeats the point of the format. You're arguing from the point of view of what you're used to, and not what is better for the format. Sure, things will have to be adjusted because those cards served to depower certain generals, but I rather have a format concerned about discussing what generals are fair then what cards make ALL generals unplayable.
This move just shows that they know what they need to do to make a better, more successful format as game designers. Making it more fun for the majority of folks who are jumping on board without rose colored glasses. People gripe about these kind of changes all the time and catering to the new players, but guess what? Doing that has made the game BETTER and HEALTHIER.
I can even hold
There have been no outrageously broken or fun-sucking cards printed in recent sets, and no older cards are currently approaching any kind of aggravating tipping point. Things are good and the format is healthy.
from the January changes against it.
And taking it a step further, they contradict their own philosophy of deck building that states
The Commander is the principle around which the deck is built. It is more easily available than other cards in the deck, and decks will ususally want to leverage their Commander's strengths in their plans.
It also never stated in the whole document, that they intended the commander to be always accessible, but more easily available than other cards.
So are you arguing that tuck cards leave commanders "More easily available than other cards in the deck"? Because I think an objective view makes it clearly the opposite... it makes it the same odds as drawing any other card in your deck, if not worse since many of those effects place it on the bottom.
I couldn't disagree with you more, on every single point.
1) if you play a card like Hallowed Burial, and your opponents assume you're cheating, stop playing with idiots. The interaction is right on the card, I don't know why anyone would assume there's some rule out there in the aether they've never read that says ALL somehow means 'except this one'.
Blaming the players is a classic example of bad judgement when designing a fun format. If your players naturally feel they should be able to do something that goes against the rules, you should ask why and figure out how to meet their expectations. The expectation of commander is to be able to play their commander, and cards that kill or counter in a way that (essentially) permanently removes it from the game is simply...bad.
2) The above reason is exactly why I despise this change. They're extending the rules to create an exception that doesn't exist in the cards. (That, and some commanders get so degenerate a tuck is the best answer for everyone at the table).
You mean like the exceptions that when a commander is destroyed, you can put it in the command zone instead of the graveyard?
3) Tucking was never a loophole. Oblation existed before Commander did, it's not like it was a post-creation precedent. Since the birth of the format, Oblation has been a card, it did what was printed on the card, sometimes it was mean, sometimes it was necessary, but it's existence and other cards like was always known.
You're right that tucking was never a loophole. You're wrong that that is in anyway relevant to the decision made. Which focuses on making the format where you have access to your commander.
4) For the love of God, Wizard's needs to stay the hell away from Commander. Every time they touch it, we get Sylvan Primordial, Kaalia, Narset, Proshh, Nekuzar, Derevi, and a host of bad ideas. They've overblown the power level of legends in Commander almost to the point of ruining it as a casual format. They thought it'd be great to give across-the-board access to powerful (read: broken) commanders in every conceivable color pair. Except, it's not balance when everyone at the table has a rocket launcher. Some of these recent additions are so strong you almost can't help how much of a target you make yourself. Try building a Kaalia deck that doesn't feel broken. Build a Nekusar deck that doesn't make you either bleed everyone at the table in 20 minutes or get you targeted by everyone in the first 5.
Again, irrelevant. If anything, wizards adoption of the format has made it grow. If Commander is going to continue to do well, it will need to refine its rules to ensure the fun of the format, preserving what players expect a format to be about. You know, playing their favorite legend and smacking down with it.
This is the difference between designing to make a good game and designing to satisfy people who want to make it so they don't have to interact with their opponents. The latter kills formats.
Again you neglect the fact, that the policy itself states that you USUALLY build your deck around your commander in a way that it's complements your deck with strategies, calling upon it's strength. Not being the uber-creature that solemnly is there to abuse every single card in your deck and must be there to make your deck playable.
Also, the main argument seems to be that tucking cards make up like 100% of all removal played in all decks, rather then being like 3-5 cards out of 99...
Objectively, there is also a significant STRETCH moving from "easily available" up to "always available" (you did the same with temporary by the way. It is by fact NOT impossible to draw your general again, or draw the tutor, using carddraw... to get your commander back). By being the card you chose beforehand and placing it in the command zone, it is BY fact more easily available than ANY other card in your deck right from the get-go. Even if it was destroyed or exiled, it is still MUCH more easily available than ANY other card in your deck.
Again you're totally oblivious of the fact that tucking is still possible and not abolished at all.
Wow. You're treating me like
A) I said that it was impossible to get your general back if tucked (I didn't.)
B) I'm not aware that tucking is still possible (I am aware the rule gives you the option.)
C) Either of those things are really the main point I've made (they aren't.)
Besides, if you consider tucking as still leaving a persons general "Easily" available, you're stretching, not I. It becomes no longer an easier to get creature then any other card in your deck. THAT's objective.
Part of me is understanding to their plight. Who wants to play a game for an hour, hoping beyond hope to somehow draw your commander from your ninety-nine-card deck? In the meantime, you can do almost nothing and have little to no chance of winning the game. It is miserable.
The other part of me wants to say, "Suck it up, Buttercup."2 Tuck is a part of Commander and needs to be there. There are some commanders that just need to be gone. There are times in a game where your only shot is to stop your opponent from using his or her commander, and tuck is the most effective way. If your deck is so reliant on your commander that the deck cannot function without it, then you better have a way to search for your commander in your library.
That said, tuck is a potent weapon that carries plenty of ill will. Use it sparingly.
If not just keep bashing that excessive user over and over until he drops to an okay amount.... land destruction is also a tool and again you should only use it for those pesky cards that really need to be removed. Not killing all enemies lands, really taking him out of game.
That's thing I think you're bent on. You're looking at the original frame of the format in terms of how it was one of gentlemen agreements on how it should be played. But now that it's a larger supported format that's encouraged beyond the that frame, you can't realistically expect folks to follow your preferred playstyle at FNM and other more public forums. There has to be some core set of rules, and those rules should focus on making the format fun. A format where you general isn't "usually" available would make it unfun for more players than allowing otherwise. It's really that simple. The rules adjustments and repercussions are not as important as steering the format for being more fun when you go out and play it with others.
As if WotC or any other company, rules commitee or whatever NEVER made mistakes. Following what is said like an innocent lamb not questioning it at all is not healthy either.
The only consquent point is, the game designers know what they do, which is quite true, to some degree. They also need testing and sometimes, something they tested, turns out worse than they imagined after publicating it.
I agree the WotC makes a lot of mistakes... but less and less so then people tend to give it credit for. The fact is, despite their mistakes WotC know more about the game then any single one of us. I voice my suspicions on a lot of their decisions, but I wait to try them first after trying to understand why they made the changes.
This change is in a direction that promotes encouraging the fun of playing your commander, and as someone with a game development background, It's hard to fault the committee for that.
I guess, I'll let it go at this point, as pro- and contra-tucking people probably won't come to an agreement. I stay with my opinion, that it should be open to players to use this rule or not, according to the "gentlemen's agreement" idea of Commander (which they also left open for many other cards)
Fair enough.
In short:
Common sense, playgroup politics and gentlemen's agreement. No to the mandatory rules change
Less people have common sense than you think. But hey, within your playgroup, you can still make tucking Mandatory!
If one of the big points of rules awkwardness was to eliminate the "I don't know whether this face-down permanent is your commander since it was manifested from your library" concern, why didn't they make the destination zone change mandatory? The concern will still be there even though it's not nearly as likely to happen, so the rule still has to exist. By making the zone change mandatory, you eliminate the need for such a rule entirely, and so all confusion regarding the rule will be gone.
I'm not saying that people should intentionally let their commanders go to their libraries and then make them become manifested just for the sake of showing that the rule exists, but whether a person has better things to do to their commander has no impact on whether the situation can arise.
At least these optional zone changes aren't replacement effects. If they were, that'd just add even more rules headaches to this format of seemingly too-confusing rules. ("I have a Rest in Peace out. My commander doesn't get to go to the command zone anymore because I apply the command zone replacement effect first and then the exile replacement effect.")
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
[quote from="drakelordphil »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/601132-dragons-of-tarkir-duel-commander-and-edh-banlists?comment=105"]
A) I said that it was impossible to get your general back if tucked (I didn't.)
B) I'm not aware that tucking is still possible (I am aware the rule gives you the option.)
C) Either of those things are really the main point I've made (they aren't.)
A) You did say impossible. But it vanished. (Should've quoted that part, my bad)
Thank you, you disqualified yourself from receiving any attention from my side and your credibility hit rock-bottom.
Less people have common sense than you think.
The irony in that
If you're suggesting I'm a liar who edited my post to make you look bad, the fact that my post shows it was last edited before your initial response proves that you're dead wrong. Own up to your mistake.
If one of the big points of rules awkwardness was to eliminate the "I don't know whether this face-down permanent is your commander since it was manifested from your library" concern, why didn't they make the destination zone change mandatory? The concern will still be there even though it's not nearly as likely to happen, so the rule still has to exist. By making the zone change mandatory, you eliminate the need for such a rule entirely, and so all confusion regarding the rule will be gone.
I'm not saying that people should intentionally let their commanders go to their libraries and then make them become manifested just for the sake of showing that the rule exists, but whether a person has better things to do to their commander has no impact on whether the situation can arise.
At least these optional zone changes aren't replacement effects. If they were, that'd just add even more rules headaches to this format of seemingly too-confusing rules. ("I have a Rest in Peace out. My commander doesn't get to go to the command zone anymore because I apply the command zone replacement effect first and then the exile replacement effect.")
The tuck rule change had nothing to do with manifest. Just like morph, if your commander is on the battlefield facedown, you are required to inform the other players because it carries the "commanderness" property. So if you manifest it now, you still need to reveal it. The only awkwardness with a general being in the library is the debate on whether the commander can be in a different sleeve if it gets tucked.
I reread the whole thing, calmly. Please take my apology.
You did indeed and still say impossible but in a slightly different context, rephrasing that later into almost unavailable for the match.
Sorry again, a combination of tiredness, being heated up about this topic and sloppyness while reading led up to me misinterpreting your point.
I'll reply after sleeping my share (almost 4:00 am where I live), if you still care about it.
Thank you for the apology. I did say that in a format focused on playing a single card, you shouldn't also allow cards that make it impossible to play that single card. I then followed in the next sentence saying that tucking cards make commanders "almost permanently inaccessible." I can understand that being misread as it was somewhat disjointed, especially if you're tired, but as I said I did not say it was impossible to get your general back if tucked. I just feel tucking a general makes the odds of you being able to play it again very low, and that works against the fun of the format. That's the major point I focus on because, as a game, that should be the point. Fun.
Blaming the players is a classic example of bad judgement when designing a fun format. If your players naturally feel they should be able to do something that goes against the rules, you should ask why and figure out how to meet their expectations. The expectation of commander is to be able to play their commander, and cards that kill or counter in a way that (essentially) permanently removes it from the game is simply...bad.
"If your players..." Whose players? Your players? The guys at my LGS never had an issue or question about the 'spirit' of Commander as it related to tucking. Some cards did it. Most didn't. When it happened, it was probably through a Terminus or Oblation. There was no mystery involved. And yes, the expectation is to be able to play your Commander. That expectation is met. Tucking applied to/was needed for Voltron'd up, Hexproof Indestructible Trample Commanders in almost every case where it was relevant, or collateral damage from a Terminus. Please don't make it sound like there's some poor sheep at the table that barely understood the rules of Magic that just 'doesn't get it because it doesn't feel natural'. If my Commander got tucked, there was probably a really good reason for it, and it's not like I didn't know it was a possibility. Hell, half the time I will say out loud to my group 'you guys have to do something about this before it ends the game'.
You mean like the exceptions that when a commander is destroyed, you can put it in the command zone instead of the graveyard?
No, I don't mean like that. It's not cute, it's snide. The command zone had set interactions from the outset of Commander. This is taking a way cards were already played within the format and altering how they function.
You're right that tucking was never a loophole. You're wrong that that is in anyway relevant to the decision made. Which focuses on making the format where you have access to your commander.
Having access to your Commander at all times was never a promise or guarantee of this format. As a matter of fact, the only things the ever put that in check was tucking. As someone who has had to dismantle decks multiple times to maintain the balance of my local meta, I can assure you, there are some Commanders that need a 3 or 4 break turn while you have to dig them back up. I've never once been locked out of a game because my Commander was in the library somewhere. We're playing with the game's most powerful cards...if you don't have draw, tutor, or a backup plan, you're doing it wrong.
Again, irrelevant. If anything, wizards adoption of the format has made it grow. If Commander is going to continue to do well, it will need to refine its rules to ensure the fun of the format, preserving what players expect a format to be about. You know, playing their favorite legend and smacking down with it.
Wizards didn't refine the rules, the RC did. Wizards made Sylvan Primordial, RC banned it. That's only irrelevant if you completely ignore they're two separate entities and ignore the remaining parts of my comment. After reading your other replies and the condescending way you come off, this wasn't much of a surprise.
This is the difference between designing to make a good game and designing to satisfy people who want to make it so they don't have to interact with their opponents. The latter kills formats.
Not tucking Uril is like watching a Solitaire game. Go play against a Kaalia deck with no tucks, please. Tell me you're meaningfully interacting. You really have it backwards.
Not tucking Uril is like watching a Solitaire game. Go play against a Kaalia deck with no tucks, please. Tell me you're meaningfully interacting. You really have it backwards.
I can at least verify that if Kaalia dies enough times, and she definitely will, you're better off just hardcasting your creatures. Commander tax can delay a commander enough to basically be the same as tucking, it just needs to grow past the game state. I will concede that Uril is pretty difficult to get rid of otherwise. At least Wizards has been making ways for Hexproof hate easier on people.
I'm kinda glad for simplicity reasons, because I sleeve my commanders in different sleeves from the rest of the deck, so it's problematic shuffling it in there. Otherwise, I didn't really care if the rule sticks or not as I don't don't necessarily need my Commanders for my decks to run, but they do great work when I do use them.
I can at least verify that if Kaalia dies enough times, and she definitely will, you're better off just hardcasting your creatures. Commander tax can delay a commander enough to basically be the same as tucking, it just needs to grow past the game state. I will concede that Uril is pretty difficult to get rid of otherwise. At least Wizards has been making ways for Hexproof hate easier on people.
I'm kinda glad for simplicity reasons, because I sleeve my commanders in different sleeves from the rest of the deck, so it's problematic shuffling it in there. Otherwise, I didn't really care if the rule sticks or not as I don't don't necessarily need my Commanders for my decks to run, but they do great work when I do use them.
As someone who uses a Kaalia deck, I completely agree with this. Come to think of it, I believe I've only played it against people who use conventional "destroy" and/or "exile" types of removal...and still, there tends to be a point in the game when she becomes so expensive that it becomes pointless to cast her. Even without playing against "tucking," I still found it extremely important to build the deck in a way to not be dependent on her.
The only tuck I ever played was spell crumple in a deck way back when the original commander decks were released. After playing several games with crumple in hand, I would often just not counter my girlfriend's commander because it felt really mean and wrong. Crumple was an obvious early cut. Even back then I knew that tucking the commander wasn't right and this rules change validates that feeling.
The tuck rule change had nothing to do with manifest. Just like morph, if your commander is on the battlefield facedown, you are required to inform the other players because it carries the "commanderness" property. So if you manifest it now, you still need to reveal it. The only awkwardness with a general being in the library is the debate on whether the commander can be in a different sleeve if it gets tucked.
The rules change being made official after the introduction of manifest -- and the fact that the post specifically mentioned how FRF's manifest mechanic made them think through again what it meant for a permanent to be a commander, I think it's safe to say that manifest at least partially is responsible for the rules change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The rules change being made official after the introduction of manifest -- and the fact that the post specifically mentioned how FRF's manifest mechanic made them think through again what it meant for a permanent to be a commander, I think it's safe to say that manifest at least partially is responsible for the rules change.
Yes, talking about manifest lead them to revisiting their discussion on tuck, but that doesn't make it a direct correlation. In fact, I had this same conversation with Papa Funk:
Quote from Papa Funk »
When the first commander rule was written that let the commander return to what was then exile, the graveyard was the only place it would realistically end up. I doubt anyone noticed Oblation. A few years later, probably around Spin Into Myth, people realized it could be done. That was a loophole, but we didn't rush to fix it because the rules weren't as formalized as today. Then, it was a rare occurrence that would be a way to occasionally say "hey, maybe you shouldn't have your commander for a bit", but not something that came up enough to matter. Then it got ignored for a bit, because there were other interesting things to focus on, and the "necessary protection" meme kind of sunk in without being properly questioned. Finally inertia and how-its-always-been took over.
With Manifest, we started talking about all the weird corner cases in Commander and most of them started with "well, your commander goes to the library, then..." which led us to ask "why should the library be so special?" That caused us to really dig into the question for the first time in a long while.
In other words, manifest was the spark, but the other reasons were the keg.
If you want to look at it that way, I guess. If you looked at the thread I linked you can see that I also interpreted the announcement as "manifest is the reason we can't have tuck", but there was some good discussion with PF which says this wasn't the case.
Well, this sucks a lot. Tucking cards are fairly rare, and somewhat inefficient compared to other removal spells (not counting terminus). I also feel like they play an important role in the game. I feel like it makes early commanders a bit better, as playing them early always increased the likelihood that they would catch a tuck.
On the other hand, I suppose this frees up some slots in my Dakkon Blackblade deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Dark Night Cavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Blaming the players is a classic example of bad judgement when designing a fun format. If your players naturally feel they should be able to do something that goes against the rules, you should ask why and figure out how to meet their expectations. The expectation of commander is to be able to play their commander, and cards that kill or counter in a way that (essentially) permanently removes it from the game is simply...bad.
"If your players..." Whose players? Your players? The guys at my LGS never had an issue or question about the 'spirit' of Commander as it related to tucking. Some cards did it. Most didn't. When it happened, it was probably through a Terminus or Oblation. There was no mystery involved. And yes, the expectation is to be able to play your Commander. That expectation is met. Tucking applied to/was needed for Voltron'd up, Hexproof Indestructible Trample Commanders in almost every case where it was relevant, or collateral damage from a Terminus. Please don't make it sound like there's some poor sheep at the table that barely understood the rules of Magic that just 'doesn't get it because it doesn't feel natural'. If my Commander got tucked, there was probably a really good reason for it, and it's not like I didn't know it was a possibility. Hell, half the time I will say out loud to my group 'you guys have to do something about this before it ends the game'.[/qoute]
I'm just talking game design 101. I'm not looking to create a strawman of "player who doesn't know the rules." I'm looking at what expectations a format like commander creates, which I argue is the ability to attempt to play your commander.
You mean like the exceptions that when a commander is destroyed, you can put it in the command zone instead of the graveyard?
No, I don't mean like that. It's not cute, it's snide. The command zone had set interactions from the outset of Commander. This is taking a way cards were already played within the format and altering how they function.
Logical fallacy. Argument of tradition. Just because the destroy rule was from the games inception doesn't mean other rules can't be added to expand on it. The destroy rule was made the way it was so that when your general died you still had access to it, since it was a cornerstone of the format. Allowing the option to put your commander in the command zone when tucked just like when it is destroyed is obviously in the same spectrum of interests. It just didnt get as much attention becuase when the format was first conceived those effects were only on a couple cards, but now are more widely printed, known, and used.
You're right that tucking was never a loophole. You're wrong that that is in anyway relevant to the decision made. Which focuses on making the format where you have access to your commander.
Having access to your Commander at all times was never a promise or guarantee of this format. As a matter of fact, the only things the ever put that in check was tucking. As someone who has had to dismantle decks multiple times to maintain the balance of my local meta, I can assure you, there are some Commanders that need a 3 or 4 break turn while you have to dig them back up. I've never once been locked out of a game because my Commander was in the library somewhere. We're playing with the game's most powerful cards...if you don't have draw, tutor, or a backup plan, you're doing it wrong.
You're arguing balancing the format and I'm arguing the design of the format. We are on two different wavelengths here. The commander format inherently promises that your chosen commander should be "easily available" compared to other cards. Making tucking mandatory works against that, and that's a problem. The repercuations of removing them are a balancing cocern and is better covered by ban list, alternative ways to stop generals (as there are no generals that are all hexproof, indestructible, and exile proof to start) or the gentlemen's agreements among your players that certain generals are not ok.
Again, irrelevant. If anything, wizards adoption of the format has made it grow. If Commander is going to continue to do well, it will need to refine its rules to ensure the fun of the format, preserving what players expect a format to be about. You know, playing their favorite legend and smacking down with it.
Wizards didn't refine the rules, the RC did. Wizards made Sylvan Primordial, RC banned it. That's only irrelevant if you completely ignore they're two separate entities and ignore the remaining parts of my comment. After reading your other replies and the condescending way you come off, this wasn't much of a surprise.
The RC is now influenced by wizards, and is full of high level judges that support the game. Acting like the design methods and market strategies of wizards has no influence here is ignorant.
This is the difference between designing to make a good game and designing to satisfy people who want to make it so they don't have to interact with their opponents. The latter kills formats.
Not tucking Uril is like watching a Solitaire game. Go play against a Kaalia deck with no tucks, please. Tell me you're meaningfully interacting. You really have it backwards.
Considering the number of post directly refuting your claim here, I'm not the one who has it backwards.
If there are generals that are so powerful that the only way to combat them is by making it so a player isn't allowed to cast them by tucking, that should be a ban list concern, not an card design one. Allowing tucking nerfs other completely fair generals from every being able to be cast as well.
I just feel tucking a general makes the odds of you being able to play it again very low, and that works against the fun of the format. That's the major point I focus on because, as a game, that should be the point. Fun.
And even if it has been tucked, it never beat the fun of the game as people build decks that the commander can greatly benefit from, but isn't totally dependant. (Also, it never meant that you couldn't react to the swipe by getting rid of your commander yourself to protect him/her/it or countering it)
That's the thing though, for a number of people getting your commander tucked beat the fun of the game, because they play it to play with their commander.
For us, since EDH came out, it was about:
#1 the fun idea of choosing a figurehead creature that restricts your colors and building around those restrictions. That is "easily accessible" but not an "always available card". (I think that's also the point we won't agree on :pokerface:)
#2 having more life, thus being able to play the "big spells" you usually cannot.
#3 playing cards you usually wouldn't.
#4 being limited to one copy making the game more versatile.
#5 the politics (by that I mean following: if you know the people you play with and their decks, if someone plays something too hardcore - commander/combos/unfun strategies - the group will take him/her immediately down, anyway. Thus tucking is also irrelevant, as you'd have to "specate" anyways)
We don't agree on what is "easily available", that is true. I do agree with each of your points on the intent of the format, but I feel you're leaving out the picking a general wasn;t just to restrict your deck, but again to have fun playing your general card as a leader. That role has become more and more important as the game has evovled and legends have become more "build around me" cards. Acting like a large portion of the format isn't to use your general as a core aspect of your decks strategy isn't realistic. Tuck cards work against the spirit of playing your general.
Anyway, I'm done debating this point. I'm looking at it as much as a designer as a player, which is not the same standard I can expect of others. If you're unhappy with the change home rule differently, but I fully support it.
I keep seeing people throw the term "casual format" around, but the effect feels lost on me. Maybe it's because I associate "casual" with "kitchen table", and I believe hard-rules to be for the benefit of the LGS and more serious players.
I'm a Kaalia player and I don't like the change. My playgroup runs tucks; They're necessary with Prossh, Mikaeus (Unhallowed), Azami, Derevi, Animar, and of course, Kaalia running around. Some Commanders are too oppressive, and tucking them is a nice answer to their seemingly masturbatory playstyle.
It just feels silly; I don't know. "Because losing repeatedly to Food Chain Prossh, MoM Azami, and two-card 'oops I went infinite' Mikaeus is more fun than losing my commander". Meh.
And here is where I feel lies the foundation of the basic disagreements in this thread. You're right in that the people who look at the rules from a design perspective are not arguing on the same wavelengths as those who are concerned about balance issues. And the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to teeter off the fence to the side of fully embracing the change. While I'm still going to be cautiously vigilant of what kind of powers will no longer be placed in check by the tucking mechanic, I feel that this change was long overdue mainly for the sake of consistency, elegance, and making the game more intuitive (as opposed to the belief that it's done to appease the "crybabies" who rely on their commander as someone here has said). And of course, as with any change, there will be people who'd be unhappy on the stance that they're just used to what's been around for awhile. To that, I now say, "Mtg is a game of change and adaptation whether it'd be towards meta-gaming, standard rotations, ban lists, etc. We'll manage." And I'm sure that after this change has been put into place, balance will eventually come into play in the form of new bannings. If a particular commander is OP, I feel that the cards themselves should be put into question rather than have the answer in the form of exploiting an oversight in design.
At least something everyone agrees on in this thread is that within playgroups, rules are just a guideline in casual settings and people can play however they want.
If the standing rule had been, "Any time your commander leaves the battlefield, you may put it in the command zone instead", and they had decided to switch it to make an exception for hands and libraries, this thread would be filled with people angry about that change.
If the standing rule had been, "Any time your commander leaves the battlefield, you may put it in the command zone instead", and they had decided to switch it to make an exception for hands and libraries, this thread would be filled with people angry about that change.
So? I mean, really, I think that'd fall under the purview of "You can't please everybody," doesn't really say anything significant about the subject at hand.
I must say, irrespective of if you agree with those opposed to the rules change or not, you gotta admire the amount of solidarity, union amongst people in their opinions on the matter.
Logical fallacy. Argument of tradition. Just because the destroy rule was from the games inception doesn't mean other rules can't be added to expand on it. The destroy rule was made the way it was so that when your general died you still had access to it, since it was a cornerstone of the format. Allowing the option to put your commander in the command zone when tucked just like when it is destroyed is obviously in the same spectrum of interests. It just didnt get as much attention becuase when the format was first conceived those effects were only on a couple cards, but now are more widely printed, known, and used.
This is the main issue I have with this change, and it's not an argument of tradition. Commander had a bonus replacement effect that said 'If your Commander would be destroyed or exiled, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'. That doesn't change the functionality or the rules text of Oblivion Ring or Doom Blade. It works with the rules of the card as printed. This change adds conditional clauses on every bounce and tuck card that fundamentally changes the wording of those cards. That's not intuitive, it doesn't make sense, and from a design perspective, if you have to explain to someone who hasn't played Commander in years why suddenly a select handful of cards in magic no longer do what's printed on the card because some guys got together and said 'it doesn't work the way it's printed, it instead works this way...' that's not evolution, and it's not good game design.
Also, you can't really use a defense of 'it didn't get much attention because it was only on a couple of cards, now it's on more'. Wizards did that on purpose. They printed more cards that tuck because that particular feature was a relevant option in Commander that they expanded on. Specifically for Commander. To hit a Commander and tuck it. There's no mystery here why there's more, it was designed that way with this format in mind.
We've known for a while that the rules commitee doesn't actually care about making EDH a good format. If they did, cards like Gaea's Cradle, Sol Ring, or Defense of the Heart would've been banned a long time ago.
This is the main issue I have with this change, and it's not an argument of tradition. Commander had a bonus replacement effect that said 'If your Commander would be destroyed or exiled, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'. That doesn't change the functionality or the rules text of Oblivion Ring or Doom Blade. It works with the rules of the card as printed. This change adds conditional clauses on every bounce and tuck card that fundamentally changes the wording of those cards. That's not intuitive, it doesn't make sense, and from a design perspective, if you have to explain to someone who hasn't played Commander in years why suddenly a select handful of cards in magic no longer do what's printed on the card because some guys got together and said 'it doesn't work the way it's printed, it instead works this way...' that's not evolution, and it's not good game design.
I'm confused about this argument. Nothing is fundamentally changed about any cards. The Commmander replacement effect is simply changing from:
'If your Commander would be put into the graveyard or the exile zone, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'
to:
'If your Commander would be put into the graveyard, exile zone, hand, or library, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'
Which is hardly a large change, rules-wise. In fact, it actually becomes much simpler, because it basically just means 'If your Commander leaves play, you may place it in the Command Zone instead.' You don't have to remember which zones are allowed and which are not. I can't say much from the perspective of how well it plays, but just looking at simplicity of rules, it is not a huge change, and arguably makes things simpler. And that's not even considering weird things that could possibly happen with Commanders in hidden zones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I couldn't disagree with you more, on every single point.
1) if you play a card like Hallowed Burial, and your opponents assume you're cheating, stop playing with idiots. The interaction is right on the card, I don't know why anyone would assume there's some rule out there in the aether they've never read that says ALL somehow means 'except this one'.
2) The above reason is exactly why I despise this change. They're extending the rules to create an exception that doesn't exist in the cards. (That, and some commanders get so degenerate a tuck is the best answer for everyone at the table).
3) Tucking was never a loophole. Oblation existed before Commander did, it's not like it was a post-creation precedent. Since the birth of the format, Oblation has been a card, it did what was printed on the card, sometimes it was mean, sometimes it was necessary, but it's existence and other cards like was always known.
4) For the love of God, Wizard's needs to stay the hell away from Commander. Every time they touch it, we get Sylvan Primordial, Kaalia, Narset, Proshh, Nekuzar, Derevi, and a host of bad ideas. They've overblown the power level of legends in Commander almost to the point of ruining it as a casual format. They thought it'd be great to give across-the-board access to powerful (read: broken) commanders in every conceivable color pair. Except, it's not balance when everyone at the table has a rocket launcher. Some of these recent additions are so strong you almost can't help how much of a target you make yourself. Try building a Kaalia deck that doesn't feel broken. Build a Nekusar deck that doesn't make you either bleed everyone at the table in 20 minutes or get you targeted by everyone in the first 5.
It's not data or stats, it's basic game design. If you create a game, or in this case a format, based around the goal of getting people to base a deck around a specific card, you don't also include cards that make it impossible for the person the ever have access to it within your rules. Allowing cards that put it in your library makes the General almost permanently inaccessible and defeats the point of the format. You're arguing from the point of view of what you're used to, and not what is better for the format. Sure, things will have to be adjusted because those cards served to depower certain generals, but I rather have a format concerned about discussing what generals are fair then what cards make ALL generals unplayable.
This move just shows that they know what they need to do to make a better, more successful format as game designers. Making it more fun for the majority of folks who are jumping on board without rose colored glasses. People gripe about these kind of changes all the time and catering to the new players, but guess what? Doing that has made the game BETTER and HEALTHIER.
So are you arguing that tuck cards leave commanders "More easily available than other cards in the deck"? Because I think an objective view makes it clearly the opposite... it makes it the same odds as drawing any other card in your deck, if not worse since many of those effects place it on the bottom.
Blaming the players is a classic example of bad judgement when designing a fun format. If your players naturally feel they should be able to do something that goes against the rules, you should ask why and figure out how to meet their expectations. The expectation of commander is to be able to play their commander, and cards that kill or counter in a way that (essentially) permanently removes it from the game is simply...bad.
You mean like the exceptions that when a commander is destroyed, you can put it in the command zone instead of the graveyard?
You're right that tucking was never a loophole. You're wrong that that is in anyway relevant to the decision made. Which focuses on making the format where you have access to your commander.
Again, irrelevant. If anything, wizards adoption of the format has made it grow. If Commander is going to continue to do well, it will need to refine its rules to ensure the fun of the format, preserving what players expect a format to be about. You know, playing their favorite legend and smacking down with it.
This is the difference between designing to make a good game and designing to satisfy people who want to make it so they don't have to interact with their opponents. The latter kills formats.
Wow. You're treating me like
A) I said that it was impossible to get your general back if tucked (I didn't.)
B) I'm not aware that tucking is still possible (I am aware the rule gives you the option.)
C) Either of those things are really the main point I've made (they aren't.)
Besides, if you consider tucking as still leaving a persons general "Easily" available, you're stretching, not I. It becomes no longer an easier to get creature then any other card in your deck. THAT's objective.
That's thing I think you're bent on. You're looking at the original frame of the format in terms of how it was one of gentlemen agreements on how it should be played. But now that it's a larger supported format that's encouraged beyond the that frame, you can't realistically expect folks to follow your preferred playstyle at FNM and other more public forums. There has to be some core set of rules, and those rules should focus on making the format fun. A format where you general isn't "usually" available would make it unfun for more players than allowing otherwise. It's really that simple. The rules adjustments and repercussions are not as important as steering the format for being more fun when you go out and play it with others.
I agree the WotC makes a lot of mistakes... but less and less so then people tend to give it credit for. The fact is, despite their mistakes WotC know more about the game then any single one of us. I voice my suspicions on a lot of their decisions, but I wait to try them first after trying to understand why they made the changes.
This change is in a direction that promotes encouraging the fun of playing your commander, and as someone with a game development background, It's hard to fault the committee for that.
Fair enough.
Less people have common sense than you think. But hey, within your playgroup, you can still make tucking Mandatory!
Very sad indeed.
I'm not saying that people should intentionally let their commanders go to their libraries and then make them become manifested just for the sake of showing that the rule exists, but whether a person has better things to do to their commander has no impact on whether the situation can arise.
At least these optional zone changes aren't replacement effects. If they were, that'd just add even more rules headaches to this format of seemingly too-confusing rules. ("I have a Rest in Peace out. My commander doesn't get to go to the command zone anymore because I apply the command zone replacement effect first and then the exile replacement effect.")
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
If you're suggesting I'm a liar who edited my post to make you look bad, the fact that my post shows it was last edited before your initial response proves that you're dead wrong. Own up to your mistake.
The tuck rule change had nothing to do with manifest. Just like morph, if your commander is on the battlefield facedown, you are required to inform the other players because it carries the "commanderness" property. So if you manifest it now, you still need to reveal it. The only awkwardness with a general being in the library is the debate on whether the commander can be in a different sleeve if it gets tucked.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Thank you for the apology. I did say that in a format focused on playing a single card, you shouldn't also allow cards that make it impossible to play that single card. I then followed in the next sentence saying that tucking cards make commanders "almost permanently inaccessible." I can understand that being misread as it was somewhat disjointed, especially if you're tired, but as I said I did not say it was impossible to get your general back if tucked. I just feel tucking a general makes the odds of you being able to play it again very low, and that works against the fun of the format. That's the major point I focus on because, as a game, that should be the point. Fun.
Sleep well.
"If your players..." Whose players? Your players? The guys at my LGS never had an issue or question about the 'spirit' of Commander as it related to tucking. Some cards did it. Most didn't. When it happened, it was probably through a Terminus or Oblation. There was no mystery involved. And yes, the expectation is to be able to play your Commander. That expectation is met. Tucking applied to/was needed for Voltron'd up, Hexproof Indestructible Trample Commanders in almost every case where it was relevant, or collateral damage from a Terminus. Please don't make it sound like there's some poor sheep at the table that barely understood the rules of Magic that just 'doesn't get it because it doesn't feel natural'. If my Commander got tucked, there was probably a really good reason for it, and it's not like I didn't know it was a possibility. Hell, half the time I will say out loud to my group 'you guys have to do something about this before it ends the game'.
No, I don't mean like that. It's not cute, it's snide. The command zone had set interactions from the outset of Commander. This is taking a way cards were already played within the format and altering how they function.
Having access to your Commander at all times was never a promise or guarantee of this format. As a matter of fact, the only things the ever put that in check was tucking. As someone who has had to dismantle decks multiple times to maintain the balance of my local meta, I can assure you, there are some Commanders that need a 3 or 4 break turn while you have to dig them back up. I've never once been locked out of a game because my Commander was in the library somewhere. We're playing with the game's most powerful cards...if you don't have draw, tutor, or a backup plan, you're doing it wrong.
Wizards didn't refine the rules, the RC did. Wizards made Sylvan Primordial, RC banned it. That's only irrelevant if you completely ignore they're two separate entities and ignore the remaining parts of my comment. After reading your other replies and the condescending way you come off, this wasn't much of a surprise.
Not tucking Uril is like watching a Solitaire game. Go play against a Kaalia deck with no tucks, please. Tell me you're meaningfully interacting. You really have it backwards.
I can at least verify that if Kaalia dies enough times, and she definitely will, you're better off just hardcasting your creatures. Commander tax can delay a commander enough to basically be the same as tucking, it just needs to grow past the game state. I will concede that Uril is pretty difficult to get rid of otherwise. At least Wizards has been making ways for Hexproof hate easier on people.
I'm kinda glad for simplicity reasons, because I sleeve my commanders in different sleeves from the rest of the deck, so it's problematic shuffling it in there. Otherwise, I didn't really care if the rule sticks or not as I don't don't necessarily need my Commanders for my decks to run, but they do great work when I do use them.
As someone who uses a Kaalia deck, I completely agree with this. Come to think of it, I believe I've only played it against people who use conventional "destroy" and/or "exile" types of removal...and still, there tends to be a point in the game when she becomes so expensive that it becomes pointless to cast her. Even without playing against "tucking," I still found it extremely important to build the deck in a way to not be dependent on her.
Feel free to tell me yours!
The rules change being made official after the introduction of manifest -- and the fact that the post specifically mentioned how FRF's manifest mechanic made them think through again what it meant for a permanent to be a commander, I think it's safe to say that manifest at least partially is responsible for the rules change.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Yes, talking about manifest lead them to revisiting their discussion on tuck, but that doesn't make it a direct correlation. In fact, I had this same conversation with Papa Funk:
Source
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
If you want to look at it that way, I guess. If you looked at the thread I linked you can see that I also interpreted the announcement as "manifest is the reason we can't have tuck", but there was some good discussion with PF which says this wasn't the case.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
On the other hand, I suppose this frees up some slots in my Dakkon Blackblade deck.
I'm just talking game design 101. I'm not looking to create a strawman of "player who doesn't know the rules." I'm looking at what expectations a format like commander creates, which I argue is the ability to attempt to play your commander.
Logical fallacy. Argument of tradition. Just because the destroy rule was from the games inception doesn't mean other rules can't be added to expand on it. The destroy rule was made the way it was so that when your general died you still had access to it, since it was a cornerstone of the format. Allowing the option to put your commander in the command zone when tucked just like when it is destroyed is obviously in the same spectrum of interests. It just didnt get as much attention becuase when the format was first conceived those effects were only on a couple cards, but now are more widely printed, known, and used.
You're arguing balancing the format and I'm arguing the design of the format. We are on two different wavelengths here. The commander format inherently promises that your chosen commander should be "easily available" compared to other cards. Making tucking mandatory works against that, and that's a problem. The repercuations of removing them are a balancing cocern and is better covered by ban list, alternative ways to stop generals (as there are no generals that are all hexproof, indestructible, and exile proof to start) or the gentlemen's agreements among your players that certain generals are not ok.
The RC is now influenced by wizards, and is full of high level judges that support the game. Acting like the design methods and market strategies of wizards has no influence here is ignorant.
Considering the number of post directly refuting your claim here, I'm not the one who has it backwards.
If there are generals that are so powerful that the only way to combat them is by making it so a player isn't allowed to cast them by tucking, that should be a ban list concern, not an card design one. Allowing tucking nerfs other completely fair generals from every being able to be cast as well.
That's the thing though, for a number of people getting your commander tucked beat the fun of the game, because they play it to play with their commander.
We don't agree on what is "easily available", that is true. I do agree with each of your points on the intent of the format, but I feel you're leaving out the picking a general wasn;t just to restrict your deck, but again to have fun playing your general card as a leader. That role has become more and more important as the game has evovled and legends have become more "build around me" cards. Acting like a large portion of the format isn't to use your general as a core aspect of your decks strategy isn't realistic. Tuck cards work against the spirit of playing your general.
Anyway, I'm done debating this point. I'm looking at it as much as a designer as a player, which is not the same standard I can expect of others. If you're unhappy with the change home rule differently, but I fully support it.
I'm a Kaalia player and I don't like the change. My playgroup runs tucks; They're necessary with Prossh, Mikaeus (Unhallowed), Azami, Derevi, Animar, and of course, Kaalia running around. Some Commanders are too oppressive, and tucking them is a nice answer to their seemingly masturbatory playstyle.
It just feels silly; I don't know. "Because losing repeatedly to Food Chain Prossh, MoM Azami, and two-card 'oops I went infinite' Mikaeus is more fun than losing my commander". Meh.
And here is where I feel lies the foundation of the basic disagreements in this thread. You're right in that the people who look at the rules from a design perspective are not arguing on the same wavelengths as those who are concerned about balance issues. And the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to teeter off the fence to the side of fully embracing the change. While I'm still going to be cautiously vigilant of what kind of powers will no longer be placed in check by the tucking mechanic, I feel that this change was long overdue mainly for the sake of consistency, elegance, and making the game more intuitive (as opposed to the belief that it's done to appease the "crybabies" who rely on their commander as someone here has said). And of course, as with any change, there will be people who'd be unhappy on the stance that they're just used to what's been around for awhile. To that, I now say, "Mtg is a game of change and adaptation whether it'd be towards meta-gaming, standard rotations, ban lists, etc. We'll manage." And I'm sure that after this change has been put into place, balance will eventually come into play in the form of new bannings. If a particular commander is OP, I feel that the cards themselves should be put into question rather than have the answer in the form of exploiting an oversight in design.
At least something everyone agrees on in this thread is that within playgroups, rules are just a guideline in casual settings and people can play however they want.
So? I mean, really, I think that'd fall under the purview of "You can't please everybody," doesn't really say anything significant about the subject at hand.
I must say, irrespective of if you agree with those opposed to the rules change or not, you gotta admire the amount of solidarity, union amongst people in their opinions on the matter.
This is the main issue I have with this change, and it's not an argument of tradition. Commander had a bonus replacement effect that said 'If your Commander would be destroyed or exiled, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'. That doesn't change the functionality or the rules text of Oblivion Ring or Doom Blade. It works with the rules of the card as printed. This change adds conditional clauses on every bounce and tuck card that fundamentally changes the wording of those cards. That's not intuitive, it doesn't make sense, and from a design perspective, if you have to explain to someone who hasn't played Commander in years why suddenly a select handful of cards in magic no longer do what's printed on the card because some guys got together and said 'it doesn't work the way it's printed, it instead works this way...' that's not evolution, and it's not good game design.
Also, you can't really use a defense of 'it didn't get much attention because it was only on a couple of cards, now it's on more'. Wizards did that on purpose. They printed more cards that tuck because that particular feature was a relevant option in Commander that they expanded on. Specifically for Commander. To hit a Commander and tuck it. There's no mystery here why there's more, it was designed that way with this format in mind.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
I'm confused about this argument. Nothing is fundamentally changed about any cards. The Commmander replacement effect is simply changing from:
'If your Commander would be put into the graveyard or the exile zone, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'
to:
'If your Commander would be put into the graveyard, exile zone, hand, or library, you may place it in the Command Zone instead'
Which is hardly a large change, rules-wise. In fact, it actually becomes much simpler, because it basically just means 'If your Commander leaves play, you may place it in the Command Zone instead.' You don't have to remember which zones are allowed and which are not. I can't say much from the perspective of how well it plays, but just looking at simplicity of rules, it is not a huge change, and arguably makes things simpler. And that's not even considering weird things that could possibly happen with Commanders in hidden zones.