Any chance the BG deck will have an Infect/Poison counter theme? Odds? Good, Slim or None? Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Any chance the BG deck will have an Infect/Poison counter theme? Odds? Good, Slim or None? Thoughts?
I think that would be a controversial thing for Wizards to do with a populist product, since how poison counters affect EDH is a bit polarizing. I have never played Infect in EDH (aside from the odd Inkmoth Nexus) but I really think it should be as it is - 10=Dead. I have also encountered people who passionately oppose that idea (which is usually accompanied by thinking that cards that depend on a specific life total should be relative to starting life). I kinda doubt that Wizards would wade into that mire by association.
I would say minimal. Infect is not a particularly favored mechanic in EDH as it subverts the commander damage idea.
As far as reprints go, I am going to lock in my guesses before previews start:
RW: Brion Stoutarm. Obvious giant synergy is obvious.
GB: Savra, Queen of the Golgari. Though Skullbriar is a close second
WB: Vish Kal,Blood Arbiter. Hard to find, powerful to build around.
UR: Nin, The Pain Artist. Similar to Vish, is a lot of fun but being from the original EDH makes it hard to get
UG: Experiment Kraj. Probably the hardest to pick, Momir is my next best guess, with Edric excluded only because of his relatively recent printing in conspiracy.
We already know that the cost to get an exp counter should be about 5 mana, and only arise once per turn until very late in the game. Similarly, we know the benefit should be about 1-2 mana.
I think its much more realistic we see things like:
UR: At the end of your turn, if you control 6 or more artifacts, gain an EXP counter. At the end of each turn, you may untap X artifacts, where X is the number of EXP counters you own.
BG: If 2 or more creatures entered the battlefield from your graveyard this turn, gain an EXP Counter. At the end of your turn, you may sacrifice X creatures and destroy X target creatures, where X is the number of EXP counters you own.
Any chance the BG deck will have an Infect/Poison counter theme? Odds? Good, Slim or None? Thoughts?
I think that would be a controversial thing for Wizards to do with a populist product, since how poison counters affect EDH is a bit polarizing. I have never played Infect in EDH (aside from the odd Inkmoth Nexus) but I really think it should be as it is - 10=Dead. I have also encountered people who passionately oppose that idea (which is usually accompanied by thinking that cards that depend on a specific life total should be relative to starting life). I kinda doubt that Wizards would wade into that mire by association.
What if Wizards would issue a ruling that in Commander that 20 poison counters would need to be accumulated for a player to lose? Just a thought. I feel it is slim to none to see an Infect style Commander deck but I think it would be downright fun if done right. With that said I don't see Wizards rocking the boat too much on this front.
On a side note, Inkmoth Nexus was mentioned by you as a card you have ran before. Any chance we might see it in one of these decks?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
What if Wizards would issue a ruling that in Commander that 20 poison counters would need to be accumulated for a player to lose? Just a thought. I feel it is slim to none to see an Infect style Commander deck but I think it would be downright fun if done right. With that said I don't see Wizards rocking the boat too much on this front.
I would not like that ruling, but the more relevant thing is that Wizards does not make those rulings for EDH.
On a side note, Inkmoth Nexus was mentioned by you as a card you have ran before. Any chance we might see it in one of these decks?
It would weight a deck a bit more than they want, and it would be an example of a card that would cause people who don't play EDH buy up one deck and dump most of the rest. Wizards wants to avoid that if they can.
There aren't enough good poison cards for 10 poison to be a problem, changing it isn't needed, desirable, or helpful. The problems are either the normal 'whatever I lose to is broken' comments we all make at one time or another, or they are caused by a non-infect deck giving a creature infect and killing someone out of the blue.
I am not convinced either is truly a problem, but neither is solved by changing the poison number.
I hope wizards does make an infect deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
What if Wizards would issue a ruling that in Commander that 20 poison counters would need to be accumulated for a player to lose? Just a thought. I feel it is slim to none to see an Infect style Commander deck but I think it would be downright fun if done right. With that said I don't see Wizards rocking the boat too much on this front.
Wizards does not have the capacity to make this ruling. Commander is entirely arbitrated by the rules committee.
There aren't enough good poison cards for 10 poison to be a problem, changing it isn't needed, desirable, or helpful. The problems are either the normal 'whatever I lose to is broken' comments we all make at one time or another, or they are caused by a non-infect deck giving a creature infect and killing someone out of the blue.
The later is much more of a problem that you are giving credit. Most commonly with infect, the player has the ability to outright kill one person, usually very quickly, but rarely has the resources to kill another. So what tends to happen in a four player game turns into a three player game, with one person left to spectate for a long time. There are of course exceptions, you can nickle and dime the table with proliferate and such, but the most common result is one dead and the infect deck neutered while the other two players duke it out.
This leads to feel bads, which is not really what you want in a game of casual magic.
The later is much more of a problem that you are giving credit. Most commonly with infect, the player has the ability to outright kill one person, usually very quickly, but rarely has the resources to kill another. So what tends to happen in a four player game turns into a three player game, with one person left to spectate for a long time. There are of course exceptions, you can nickle and dime the table with proliferate and such, but the most common result is one dead and the infect deck neutered while the other two players duke it out.
This leads to feel bads, which is not really what you want in a game of casual magic.
Though, the problem with upping the poison count is that it increases the chances that the infect player will be unable to finish off anyone else at the table.
Poison is SUPER unlikely because its a "player" counter, and WotC doesn't like to include multiple counter types on the same "permanent" in the same product. Experience counters, which will be in every deck, are already player counters.
I think infect will be left alone. Pretty sure MaRo has said that infect was not very likely at all to make a reappearance.
On another note, infect is a very aggressive win condition in itself, and doesn't tend to lend itself to being very interactive with other players, which if you'll note, is something wizards and the RC tends to try to avoid and move away from.
As for increasing the number of infect counters needed to die, I've tried it with house rules in a number of playgroups, making the kill-point st 20 counters, and it just madd infect very lackluster and weak as a mechanic. Even blightsteel was kind of meh, even in situations where he was brought out really early. Also, commander damage was just more reliable at that point, seeing aa houw infect can painy a target on your back. We tested again with the count at 15, but it still didn't feel right. Even Skytherix just seemed very meh.
I doubt infect will make a reappearance, and I think it would be pointless to up the number of cards that can infect just to be able to bring it back, as it would weaken it as a mechanic (not even getting into, as mentioned before, that a rule change like that isn't wizard's call). Just my two cents
As someone with numerous binders full of format staples, 'hidden gems', niche cards, and otherwise having collected copies of everything I could possibly conceive of seeing myself ever running in a future commander deck that isn't prohibitively expensive, I hope it doesn't make me a bad person if I buy singles of the select new cards I think are good enough to play from my LGS's and from online instead of spending MSRP (5x35 plus tax... yeah no) for each of the decks full of mostly cards I don't need any additional copies of at this point. I'll probably spend less than 100$ grabbing what I expect, based on commander 2014, will be two dozen or so new playable cards out of the total 65 new cards that we'll see here. At this point when I see a new card as an EDH player, I go and think to myself "in what situations or types of decks might I play this card, and if I did, is there a superior option I have that fulfills the potential functions of this card better already?". If it passes that evaluation I'll get it, if not I won't.
Additionally, this severe lack of spoilers is starting to annoy me. I want to know what's coming already to I can plan accordingly! Oh well. Can't say I'm excited about the experience counters thing, just seems bad. (interesting mechanic yes, but strategically mediocre) Hopefully two or three of the new non-experience counter generals (if there are any) will be playable, but I don't expect much of the 5 experience counter-themed ones.
On another note, infect is a very aggressive win condition in itself, and doesn't tend to lend itself to being very interactive with other players, which if you'll note, is something wizards and the RC tends to try to avoid and move away from.
patently untrue, infect is primarily a combat strategy and is VERY interactive.
It is true that the infect player often gets no help from other players and is of no help to those players, but that isn't unusual and isn't avoided by WotC or the RC.
As for increasing the number of infect counters needed to die, I've tried it with house rules in a number of playgroups, making the kill-point st 20 counters, and it just madd infect very lackluster and weak as a mechanic. Even blightsteel was kind of meh, even in situations where he was brought out really early. Also, commander damage was just more reliable at that point, seeing aa houw infect can painy a target on your back. We tested again with the count at 15, but it still didn't feel right. Even Skytherix just seemed very meh.
This is the problem with changing the infect target. 100 card highlander already hurts infect a LOT, no need to further nerf it.
I doubt infect will make a reappearance, and I think it would be pointless to up the number of cards that can infect just to be able to bring it back, as it would weaken it as a mechanic (not even getting into, as mentioned before, that a rule change like that isn't wizard's call). Just my two cents
how does printing more infect cards weaken the mechanic? Infect needs some love and can't get it from a standard legal set...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
On another note, infect is a very aggressive win condition in itself, and doesn't tend to lend itself to being very interactive with other players, which if you'll note, is something wizards and the RC tends to try to avoid and move away from.
patently untrue, infect is primarily a combat strategy and is VERY interactive.
It is true that the infect player often gets no help from other players and is of no help to those players, but that isn't unusual and isn't avoided by WotC or the RC.
"Its not true its not interactive, you just don't interact with other players"
Infect could be in this year's BG deck, just like Stasiscould have been in last year's U deck.
Infect isn't quite as iconically unfun as prison strategies, but it's close enough that I'd be shocked for WotC to encourage it in Commander.
Right, because getting OTK'd by Blightsteel Colossus after your opponent wiped the board is fun.
It is IF you've been playing for 3 hours and just want to call it a night. Infect is fine just as long as you warn the table first, like playing unhinged cards. If your house is fine with it, why not? Rod of Spanking never gets turned down from my group.
do you warn your table when you play combo decks? Do you sit down and say 'I am going to pump my general and smash you all with commander damage', why do you think people need a warning about infect? Unhinged is BANNED so you MUST ask permission, infect is fair and if you have a problem with it most likely you need to stop playing stupid combo decks and start running blockers and removal.
I never understand why people are okay with the combo deck not participating and then 'going off' and killing everyone, that to me is unfun and uninteractive. YMMV but until you ban EVERY SINGLE combo that can win the game without warning infect is downright fair and balanced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
On another note, infect is a very aggressive win condition in itself, and doesn't tend to lend itself to being very interactive with other players, which if you'll note, is something wizards and the RC tends to try to avoid and move away from.
patently untrue, infect is primarily a combat strategy and is VERY interactive.
It is true that the infect player often gets no help from other players and is of no help to those players, but that isn't unusual and isn't avoided by WotC or the RC.
"Its not true its not interactive, you just don't interact with other players"
generate infinite mana, fireball all of you" is a non-interactive strategy, and is frowned on by many, attacking with creatures is interactive. Infect attacking a different life total doesn't make it non-interactive as that term refers to interaction between you and your opponent, not you and your 'allies'. Infect doesn't interact much with your allies, but that isn't what people mean when they talk about a non-interactive strat, and it isn't a problem, it is a weakness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Poison is SUPER unlikely because its a "player" counter, and WotC doesn't like to include multiple counter types on the same "permanent" in the same product. Experience counters, which will be in every deck, are already player counters.
applies to standard, not supplemental. These decks have +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters all the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Infect could be in this year's BG deck, just like Stasiscould have been in last year's U deck.
Infect isn't quite as iconically unfun as prison strategies, but it's close enough that I'd be shocked for WotC to encourage it in Commander.
Right, because getting OTK'd by Blightsteel Colossus after your opponent wiped the board is fun.
It is IF you've been playing for 3 hours and just want to call it a night. Infect is fine just as long as you warn the table first, like playing unhinged cards. If your house is fine with it, why not? Rod of Spanking never gets turned down from my group.
The point of the WotC commander decks is that they are ready to play out of the box allowing new players to learn the format, have fun, and join an existing group of players. If one of the decks was infect oriented, it would immediately become unfun because the new player would be singled out and eliminated as fast as possible, because infect, like Stax and a well made sliver deck, is incredibly unfun to play against. Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the commander decks. >.<
No, B/G will more likely be a recursion/reanimation based deck using the graveyard as a resource.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
And, what I hate even more in Commander is generic rush aggro strategies, and an infect based deck would turn into that. Either it kills you quick or you control it and the deck does nothing interesting whatsoever. To me aggro has no place in multiplayer commander.
All three have their place in all formats, if anything combo should be removed from multiplayer because it gains too much power from having other people fight eachother and give it a little time to build up and go off. Deadeye Navigator is more of a problem then any infect card, so is Kiki Jiki and Niv-Mizzet.
I am much more frustrated when I kill two combo players before they go off and then die to a third as they win the game without contributing then I am by any strategy that involves attacking by non-infinite creatures that were played legitimately (I get a bit frustrated by sneak attack or bribery type decks).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Infect could be in this year's BG deck, just like Stasiscould have been in last year's U deck.
Infect isn't quite as iconically unfun as prison strategies, but it's close enough that I'd be shocked for WotC to encourage it in Commander.
Right, because getting OTK'd by Blightsteel Colossus after your opponent wiped the board is fun.
It is IF you've been playing for 3 hours and just want to call it a night. Infect is fine just as long as you warn the table first, like playing unhinged cards. If your house is fine with it, why not? Rod of Spanking never gets turned down from my group.
The point of the WotC commander decks is that they are ready to play out of the box allowing new players to learn the format, have fun, and join an existing group of players. If one of the decks was infect oriented, it would immediately become unfun because the new player would be singled out and eliminated as fast as possible, because infect, like Stax and a well made sliver deck, is incredibly unfun to play against. Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the commander decks. >.<
No, B/G will more likely be a recursion/reanimation based deck using the graveyard as a resource.
I could not disagree more, Slivers is misrible to play, some jerk ray of commands your general and the uses it to steal itself and all your other dudes...
Stax is however terrible to play against and makes me want to reach over and tear up other people's cards... Totally unfun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Well, Oloro is one of the most unfun commander ever and they did print it along with a very unfun precon 2 years ago.
That being said poison is probably not something they would do without changing the rules. It is not logical to have a higher life total and not an equally better resilience to poison counter if they are supported equally in the precons. They probably do not want to mess with community made rules and that's why they should not bring poison in, at least not explicitly.
It's very possible a simic or a golgari general have some proliferate-like ability that suits infect perfectly though.
It is logical, by playing infect you are limiting your card pool significantly and are thus playing with much worse cards. Get someone to build an infect deck that doesn't use any of the cards that grant infect to other creatures, let them proxy any cards they want and play a few games, play with various infect targets... 10 is the correct target, even in commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Infect could be in this year's BG deck, just like Stasiscould have been in last year's U deck.
Infect isn't quite as iconically unfun as prison strategies, but it's close enough that I'd be shocked for WotC to encourage it in Commander.
Right, because getting OTK'd by Blightsteel Colossus after your opponent wiped the board is fun.
It is IF you've been playing for 3 hours and just want to call it a night. Infect is fine just as long as you warn the table first, like playing unhinged cards. If your house is fine with it, why not? Rod of Spanking never gets turned down from my group.
The point of the WotC commander decks is that they are ready to play out of the box allowing new players to learn the format, have fun, and join an existing group of players. If one of the decks was infect oriented, it would immediately become unfun because the new player would be singled out and eliminated as fast as possible, because infect, like Stax and a well made sliver deck, is incredibly unfun to play against. Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the commander decks. >.<
No, B/G will more likely be a recursion/reanimation based deck using the graveyard as a resource.
I could not disagree more, Slivers is misrible to play, some jerk ray of commands your general and the uses it to steal itself and all your other dudes...
Stax is however terrible to play against and makes me want to reach over and tear up other people's cards... Totally unfun.
If they can steal your sliver commander with itself and ray of command, you're playing it wrong. 1. If you are playing slivers, Sliver Queen should be your commander, no exceptions. 2. Crystalline Sliver.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I think that would be a controversial thing for Wizards to do with a populist product, since how poison counters affect EDH is a bit polarizing. I have never played Infect in EDH (aside from the odd Inkmoth Nexus) but I really think it should be as it is - 10=Dead. I have also encountered people who passionately oppose that idea (which is usually accompanied by thinking that cards that depend on a specific life total should be relative to starting life). I kinda doubt that Wizards would wade into that mire by association.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
As far as reprints go, I am going to lock in my guesses before previews start:
RW: Brion Stoutarm. Obvious giant synergy is obvious.
GB: Savra, Queen of the Golgari. Though Skullbriar is a close second
WB: Vish Kal,Blood Arbiter. Hard to find, powerful to build around.
UR: Nin, The Pain Artist. Similar to Vish, is a lot of fun but being from the original EDH makes it hard to get
UG: Experiment Kraj. Probably the hardest to pick, Momir is my next best guess, with Edric excluded only because of his relatively recent printing in conspiracy.
I think its much more realistic we see things like:
UR: At the end of your turn, if you control 6 or more artifacts, gain an EXP counter. At the end of each turn, you may untap X artifacts, where X is the number of EXP counters you own.
BG: If 2 or more creatures entered the battlefield from your graveyard this turn, gain an EXP Counter. At the end of your turn, you may sacrifice X creatures and destroy X target creatures, where X is the number of EXP counters you own.
What if Wizards would issue a ruling that in Commander that 20 poison counters would need to be accumulated for a player to lose? Just a thought. I feel it is slim to none to see an Infect style Commander deck but I think it would be downright fun if done right. With that said I don't see Wizards rocking the boat too much on this front.
On a side note, Inkmoth Nexus was mentioned by you as a card you have ran before. Any chance we might see it in one of these decks?
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I would not like that ruling, but the more relevant thing is that Wizards does not make those rulings for EDH.
It would weight a deck a bit more than they want, and it would be an example of a card that would cause people who don't play EDH buy up one deck and dump most of the rest. Wizards wants to avoid that if they can.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I am not convinced either is truly a problem, but neither is solved by changing the poison number.
I hope wizards does make an infect deck.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Wizards does not have the capacity to make this ruling. Commander is entirely arbitrated by the rules committee.
The later is much more of a problem that you are giving credit. Most commonly with infect, the player has the ability to outright kill one person, usually very quickly, but rarely has the resources to kill another. So what tends to happen in a four player game turns into a three player game, with one person left to spectate for a long time. There are of course exceptions, you can nickle and dime the table with proliferate and such, but the most common result is one dead and the infect deck neutered while the other two players duke it out.
This leads to feel bads, which is not really what you want in a game of casual magic.
Though, the problem with upping the poison count is that it increases the chances that the infect player will be unable to finish off anyone else at the table.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
On another note, infect is a very aggressive win condition in itself, and doesn't tend to lend itself to being very interactive with other players, which if you'll note, is something wizards and the RC tends to try to avoid and move away from.
As for increasing the number of infect counters needed to die, I've tried it with house rules in a number of playgroups, making the kill-point st 20 counters, and it just madd infect very lackluster and weak as a mechanic. Even blightsteel was kind of meh, even in situations where he was brought out really early. Also, commander damage was just more reliable at that point, seeing aa houw infect can painy a target on your back. We tested again with the count at 15, but it still didn't feel right. Even Skytherix just seemed very meh.
I doubt infect will make a reappearance, and I think it would be pointless to up the number of cards that can infect just to be able to bring it back, as it would weaken it as a mechanic (not even getting into, as mentioned before, that a rule change like that isn't wizard's call). Just my two cents
Infect isn't quite as iconically unfun as prison strategies, but it's close enough that I'd be shocked for WotC to encourage it in Commander.
Additionally, this severe lack of spoilers is starting to annoy me. I want to know what's coming already to I can plan accordingly! Oh well. Can't say I'm excited about the experience counters thing, just seems bad. (interesting mechanic yes, but strategically mediocre) Hopefully two or three of the new non-experience counter generals (if there are any) will be playable, but I don't expect much of the 5 experience counter-themed ones.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Right, because getting OTK'd by Blightsteel Colossus after your opponent wiped the board is fun.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
applies to standard not supplemental.
patently untrue, infect is primarily a combat strategy and is VERY interactive.
It is true that the infect player often gets no help from other players and is of no help to those players, but that isn't unusual and isn't avoided by WotC or the RC.
This is the problem with changing the infect target. 100 card highlander already hurts infect a LOT, no need to further nerf it.
how does printing more infect cards weaken the mechanic? Infect needs some love and can't get it from a standard legal set...
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
"Its not true its not interactive, you just don't interact with other players"
I never understand why people are okay with the combo deck not participating and then 'going off' and killing everyone, that to me is unfun and uninteractive. YMMV but until you ban EVERY SINGLE combo that can win the game without warning infect is downright fair and balanced.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
The point of the WotC commander decks is that they are ready to play out of the box allowing new players to learn the format, have fun, and join an existing group of players. If one of the decks was infect oriented, it would immediately become unfun because the new player would be singled out and eliminated as fast as possible, because infect, like Stax and a well made sliver deck, is incredibly unfun to play against. Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the commander decks. >.<
No, B/G will more likely be a recursion/reanimation based deck using the graveyard as a resource.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
All three have their place in all formats, if anything combo should be removed from multiplayer because it gains too much power from having other people fight eachother and give it a little time to build up and go off. Deadeye Navigator is more of a problem then any infect card, so is Kiki Jiki and Niv-Mizzet.
I am much more frustrated when I kill two combo players before they go off and then die to a third as they win the game without contributing then I am by any strategy that involves attacking by non-infinite creatures that were played legitimately (I get a bit frustrated by sneak attack or bribery type decks).
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Stax is however terrible to play against and makes me want to reach over and tear up other people's cards... Totally unfun.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
If they can steal your sliver commander with itself and ray of command, you're playing it wrong. 1. If you are playing slivers, Sliver Queen should be your commander, no exceptions. 2. Crystalline Sliver.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.