Thanks! I am thinking about changing the mana cost to UBBR just as a throwback to those powerhouse mythic cards of Grixis. Plus it bumps his mana cost up and is a little harder to cast.
No problem! That mana cost feels pretty good. I might still worry a little bit about the power level of the card, as both Kess and the old-school Toshiro Umezawa make a point of exiling the cards they replay. This card forces you to use your own resources to get cards back, but doesn't actually result in any net loss-- all while still easily creating some troublesome loops. (Removal spells and turn spells just churning constantly.) Some variant of making you discard cards as an additional cost when you cast a spell? (Edit: Or self-milling? Hmm.) Fuels the ability, potentially makes the random more random, and limits looping.
If balance is your goal, then this kind of effect in modern magic is typically templated to be either "opponents control" per Glissa, or nontoken creatures you control. Even random, the fact that this transforms a boardwipe into mass recursion of a typically harder to recur card type means it's probably best to make it "you control" so you have to build around other forms of sacrifice and recursion too.
Edit: With the changes, you're definitely treading towards something more kosher- definitely want a higher CMC by at least one given the general difficulty of recuring instants and sorceries. (I.E. comparing him more to Kess than Glissa.)
I've got enough love for the darker side of the color pie to make up for the OP it appears. Also didn't realize how much I liked the Eldrazi before I started pitting them against my other colorless favorites, so that's amusing.
I can definitely see the value in these options, though the value engine offered by Daretti also seems fun. What signature's do you like for Teferi or Aminatou?
Aminatou...probably demonic tutor for blink cat? Boring but effective.
Teferi could run some version of fabricate in the same vein, to fetch his infinite combo. Not sure if that's the best use, though, it is a bit slow. Maybe transmute artifact would get there, with enough big mana rocks I think you can infinite on 6 with that bad boy. You need 6 mana (minus the cost of the sacrificed artifact) to get it into play, and then 4 left over to actually activate it (and then enough big mana rocks left that you can generate enough mana to recast teferi after he dies, which means he's untapping either 6 mana, or 5 mana with a couple extra at the start).
So for example, T2 fellwar, T3 thran dynamo into worn powerstone, T4 play teferi with 4 mana leftover, untap into 11 mana, cast transmute sacrificing the fellwar stone going to 7 mana, activate chain veil going to 3 mana, go infinite. Actually with that nutty start you could get there off fabricate, but I think transmute will get you there in situations that are a little closer, mana-wise.
Not that either of these would be my cup of tea personally, but you asked what the most powerful options are, and those are my guesses.
Doesn't have to be the best option, if you're more into something more "fun" than I'm open to thoughts. (Gods know I'm no spike, which is part of why I'm only buying half-in on the format as it is, since it looks to be about as spiky as Commander spin-off can get.) I find it hard to believe there is much better than Demonic Tutor or The Elderspell for anyone with a black identity, unfortunately. Maybe a ramped out Torment of Hailfire or some cheaty Exhumes?
Smart money would be on either Aminatou or Teferi. Aminatou because she comes down early giving you access to your spell, and has good colors. Teferi because he's already known powerful commander. Although he might lose a lot of luster without some of the fast mana that really sends him over the top.
I can definitely see the value in these options, though the value engine offered by Daretti also seems fun. What signature's do you like for Teferi or Aminatou?
I'm looking to build a flexible Commander deck that I can readily sub out 40 cards for and run as an Oathbreaker deck- this is fully experimental and not expected to necessarily be competitive (in either format) though being able to run "one" deck in both formats is highly appealing to my love for general deck flexibility.
So, there are a couple of questions:
Which legal Planeswalker is "best" (or at least most interesting) and why?
What signature spell is good in the 99 or in the Oathbreaker command zone?
For convenience, the following are the commander-legal Oathbreakers:
Some high CMC batttlecruiser jank sneaks in from my favorites, but otherwise it's a lot of engines and efficiency. I clearly highly value bodies attached to my effects.
Official name, via Card Image Gallery, is Cordial Vampire. Not what I would have expect, tbh. However, good vampire is good, regardless of name
It's actually a subtle pun- being cordial means you're friendly, but a cordial is also a type of warm alcoholic liqueur. So, he's inviting all your vampires in for a drink.
If your deck is heavy on black, Gray Merchant of Asphodel can do some work. Even more work if you have any notable ways to recur or reanimate him. Similarly, if you can loop mid-sized creatures, Siege Rhino is a perfectly fine beatstick that can buffer up your life total. Otherwise, I'm big on all the sacrifice lifegain and the big X spells already mentioned in the thread.
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
It's a tall order because it's absurd. Scooping to deny someone a win that they rightfully earned is bad form, to put it mildly. Why even play at all if you're so willing to change the outcome by ceasing to participate? Are you playing with children, or people whose egos are so fragile that they'd be shattered by losing fair and square? Why do you have to manage other players' feelings?
For our recurring example, Insurrection is an 8-mana spell that needs a certain board state to close a game out, and if someone engineers it, they deserve the win and their effort shouldn't be invalidated by someone taking their ball and going home. What you're talking about isn't meta-politics. No, what you're talking about is kowtowing to whiners with thin skin so you can indulge your self-image of the selfless, fun-preserving martyr of your playgroup. It's all about you, not them.
First, I believe that everyone's feelings are important- it's not about managing them, it's about recognizing them and playing with them in mind. As for ego, everyone's ego is fragile- the thread is full of people who are upset by the very concept of a corner-case of magic rules giving them an L. Otherwise your hypothetical questions are bunk since you know literal nothing of my groups, which is cute, but not particularly helpful for discourse.
As for my personal corner case within a corner case, (Reminder: my board state being the only one that turns an Insurrection into lethal, by taking my own L and removing my permanents the game continues and it isn't my overextension that ends it), it is the very definiton of meta politics: recognizing that the feelings from one game will absolutely bleed into the next. By taking the L I had two players that considering it a sacrifice play and were more inclined to work with me in the next game, and one who was indifferent (though probably would've been out for my blood if not able to re-use his mana on the insurrection turn- but even if that were the table's decision, I'd take two friends and one "enemy" easily). Edit: Though unimportant to the example, the insurrection player did still ultimately win this game, for those concerned with the injustice of it all.
Back to ego, you're of course entirely correct that being the "fun-preserving martyr" is 100% all about me. Preserving the perspective of being the player who is "fun first" in every game is a big part of my identity as a commander player and it's entirely ego- but the good news is that, unlike a lot of other ego-driven magic mentalities, I at least need the input of others to validate it. You're welcome to assume whatever you'd like of the rest of the playgroup, though the continued assumption of the "whiners" they must be from literal one example is hyperbollically entertaining.
You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.
Comes down to the playgroup in question again, doesn't it? It seems like spite scooping is more likely or common among particularly cutthroat groups, where denying a trigger could actually decide a game, so early game combo decks might not even be unwelcome. Such decks don't tend to earn you many friends though, but that's probably not your priority. It's pretty clear that this is an uncommon practice though, so it's mostly in the hypothetical.
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
I imagine your group feels pretty unfun to new players.
An amusing conclusion to come to from all of one (rare) example, but no, we haven't gotten any negative feedback from new players and tend to rotate new people in regularly. In fact, as a general rule, opening up politics and house rules to be as kind as possible to the greatest number of players has resulted in a lot of people leaving the table happily who might otherwise be quite the opposite. Admittedly, being purportedly nice people and having good food and drink does tend to help. Put salt on your food, not into the game! But I am a bit lucky and my good fortune isn't the topic of the thread.
On topic, the feelings taken from one game to the next, even if people try not get "meta" in that regard, are clearly the driving force in the issue. A concession in response feels bad for the player on the receiving end, and results in them carrying over that grudge (whether that's in not playing with the player again, or as likely focusing down that player) while my rare concessions have been driven politically to "save" other players at the table. What I struggle to understand are more generic spite plays. What kind of benefit is there in just denying triggers or other plays that only harm the "offending" player, without offering any kind of benefit to the rest of the table?
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No problem! That mana cost feels pretty good. I might still worry a little bit about the power level of the card, as both Kess and the old-school Toshiro Umezawa make a point of exiling the cards they replay. This card forces you to use your own resources to get cards back, but doesn't actually result in any net loss-- all while still easily creating some troublesome loops. (Removal spells and turn spells just churning constantly.) Some variant of making you discard cards as an additional cost when you cast a spell? (Edit: Or self-milling? Hmm.) Fuels the ability, potentially makes the random more random, and limits looping.
Edit: With the changes, you're definitely treading towards something more kosher- definitely want a higher CMC by at least one given the general difficulty of recuring instants and sorceries. (I.E. comparing him more to Kess than Glissa.)
White:
1. Sun Titan
2. Swords to Plowshares
3. Karmic Guide
4. Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
5. Wrath of God
Blue:
1. Rite of Replication
2. Fact or Fiction
3. Rhystic Study
4. Cyclonic Rift
5. Elder Deep-Fiend
Black:
1. Grave Pact
2. Animate Dead
3. Demonic tutor
4. Korlash, Heir to Blackblade
5. Gray Merchant of Asphodel
Red:
1. Anger
2. Blasphemous Act
3. Dragon Mage
4. Balefire Dragon
5. Neheb, the Eternal
Green:
1. Genesis Wave
2. Cultivate
3. Soul of the Harvest
4. Eternal Witness
5. Sakura-Tribe Elder
Land:
1. Cabal Coffers
2. Bojuka Bog
3. Command Tower
4. Eye of Ugin
5. Scavenger Grounds
Multicolor
1. Karador, Ghost Chieftain
2. Debt to the Deathless
3. Kaervek the Merciless
4. Sedris, the Traitor King
5. Tasigur, the Golden Fang
Colorless
1. Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
2. Ugin, the Spirit Dragon
3. It That Betrays
4. Artisan of Kozilek
5. Conduit of Ruin
Doesn't have to be the best option, if you're more into something more "fun" than I'm open to thoughts. (Gods know I'm no spike, which is part of why I'm only buying half-in on the format as it is, since it looks to be about as spiky as Commander spin-off can get.) I find it hard to believe there is much better than Demonic Tutor or The Elderspell for anyone with a black identity, unfortunately. Maybe a ramped out Torment of Hailfire or some cheaty Exhumes?
Lots of solid feedback all around so far.
I can definitely see the value in these options, though the value engine offered by Daretti also seems fun. What signature's do you like for Teferi or Aminatou?
So, there are a couple of questions:
Which legal Planeswalker is "best" (or at least most interesting) and why?
What signature spell is good in the 99 or in the Oathbreaker command zone?
For convenience, the following are the commander-legal Oathbreakers:
Aminatou, the Fateshifter
Daretti, Scrap Savant
Estrid, the Masked
Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury
Lord Windgrace
Nahiri, the Lithomancer
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Rowan Kenrith x Will Kenrith
Saheeli, the GiftedTeferi, Temporal Archmage
Ramp & Fixing: Sakura-Tribe Elder, Solemn Simulacrum, Signets
Removal: Toxic Deluge, Swords to Plowshares, Ashen Rider
Tutors: Demonic Tutor, Rune-Scarred Demon, Sidisi, Undead Vizier
Card Draw: Rhystic Study, Greater Good, Skullclamp
Graveyard Hate: Bojuka Bog, Scavenger Grounds, Relic of Progenitus
Recursion:Karador, Ghost Chieftain, Eternal Witness, Sun Titan
Some high CMC batttlecruiser jank sneaks in from my favorites, but otherwise it's a lot of engines and efficiency. I clearly highly value bodies attached to my effects.
It's actually a subtle pun- being cordial means you're friendly, but a cordial is also a type of warm alcoholic liqueur. So, he's inviting all your vampires in for a drink.
First, I believe that everyone's feelings are important- it's not about managing them, it's about recognizing them and playing with them in mind. As for ego, everyone's ego is fragile- the thread is full of people who are upset by the very concept of a corner-case of magic rules giving them an L. Otherwise your hypothetical questions are bunk since you know literal nothing of my groups, which is cute, but not particularly helpful for discourse.
As for my personal corner case within a corner case, (Reminder: my board state being the only one that turns an Insurrection into lethal, by taking my own L and removing my permanents the game continues and it isn't my overextension that ends it), it is the very definiton of meta politics: recognizing that the feelings from one game will absolutely bleed into the next. By taking the L I had two players that considering it a sacrifice play and were more inclined to work with me in the next game, and one who was indifferent (though probably would've been out for my blood if not able to re-use his mana on the insurrection turn- but even if that were the table's decision, I'd take two friends and one "enemy" easily). Edit: Though unimportant to the example, the insurrection player did still ultimately win this game, for those concerned with the injustice of it all.
Back to ego, you're of course entirely correct that being the "fun-preserving martyr" is 100% all about me. Preserving the perspective of being the player who is "fun first" in every game is a big part of my identity as a commander player and it's entirely ego- but the good news is that, unlike a lot of other ego-driven magic mentalities, I at least need the input of others to validate it. You're welcome to assume whatever you'd like of the rest of the playgroup, though the continued assumption of the "whiners" they must be from literal one example is hyperbollically entertaining.
Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.
Comes down to the playgroup in question again, doesn't it? It seems like spite scooping is more likely or common among particularly cutthroat groups, where denying a trigger could actually decide a game, so early game combo decks might not even be unwelcome. Such decks don't tend to earn you many friends though, but that's probably not your priority. It's pretty clear that this is an uncommon practice though, so it's mostly in the hypothetical.
An amusing conclusion to come to from all of one (rare) example, but no, we haven't gotten any negative feedback from new players and tend to rotate new people in regularly. In fact, as a general rule, opening up politics and house rules to be as kind as possible to the greatest number of players has resulted in a lot of people leaving the table happily who might otherwise be quite the opposite. Admittedly, being purportedly nice people and having good food and drink does tend to help. Put salt on your food, not into the game! But I am a bit lucky and my good fortune isn't the topic of the thread.
On topic, the feelings taken from one game to the next, even if people try not get "meta" in that regard, are clearly the driving force in the issue. A concession in response feels bad for the player on the receiving end, and results in them carrying over that grudge (whether that's in not playing with the player again, or as likely focusing down that player) while my rare concessions have been driven politically to "save" other players at the table. What I struggle to understand are more generic spite plays. What kind of benefit is there in just denying triggers or other plays that only harm the "offending" player, without offering any kind of benefit to the rest of the table?
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.