I've advocated our playgroup try this out since I heard about it being that way in Duel commander (well, less the bounce replacement). Know lots of people who check out of a game completely when their commander gets tucked.
Then they're doing it wrong. Your decks should be able to function adequately without the commander, or there should be plenty of ways to get them back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
I am kinda 50-50 on the change... I built a deck for the sole purpose of tucking commanders.. that is literally its major game plan... so thats gone. however I did just get Dragonlord Ojutai which will allow me to rebuild the deck from stratch.
But I also play Deveri whoo hoo, you can't stop the beatdown.... and importantly Zirilian whoes deck basically couldn't function without him making hinder a constant concern... might allow me to cut REB and Pyroblast.. maybe.
I am really scared about Purphoros though.. he is a nightmare to deal with. I think the amount of spot removal is just going to have to go up.
I am going to give it a chance but if it becomes clear that it makes things much worse. we will just not play with it. I am a little scare about what some generals will do.
Do you think this speeds up the format?
If it leads to Deveri being banned though.. then I'll be super pissed because my deck is frigging bird tribal that plays 2 mana 1/1s but it really doesn't work without him.
Total side note but I like how people are discussing running this over itself.
Well, it has to be said that Kolaghan is clearly better than Kolaghan. Considering what BR decks usually want and how stiff the competition in this guild is, there is no way that I would run Kolaghan over Kolaghan! Kolaghan might make it in as the sixth guild card or so. Kolaghan on the other hand ranks several places below that.
It was so funny to me when they described this as a downgrade to the original Zurgo during the Pax East panel. I was thinking if this is a downgrade, they should really "downgrade" all legendary creatures. Haha.
My deck designing is quite concise at this point:
1. Come up with deck idea
2. Realize this idea is somehow fundamentally similar to another deck I have or that is commonly played in my group
3. Decide I don't want to disassemble one of my existing decks
4. Give up and do nothing
I don't see the point of this new shroud mechanic. It's strictly worse than Hexproof. Threshold is pretty bad too, Delirium is a much better mechanic and probably easier to activate.
Otherwise this card is a pretty neat guy. Dodges removal and grows into a Primal Huntbeast. 3/5
Looking at the other side of this I can see why some people are worried that not having tuck available will allow certain "must answer" commanders to run rampant, but unless you were actively tutoring up your tuck effects each and every game in order to stop a degenerate commander then I don't see this actually being a problem. Tuck wasn't a sure-fire way to completely get rid of certain commanders anyway because of how much tutoring they ran so it will often just come out to the same thing in the end.
Overall, I think the extent of how this affects the format is grossly overstated.
So your biggest pro for it is "eh its not that big of a deal?"
Pretty much. I don't think it was something that really needed to be changed, but I'm not going to cry, rail on the RC, or quit Magic because of it.
I think the only place where I actually care about something like this is when I'm facing down an Indestructible commander like Purphoros, God of the Forge that is difficult to get rid of anyway, but its not like there aren't answers to that I can run instead of running tuck effects.
In the end, its not like there are going to be many "pros" for something like this; it just is what it is. If this was the rule when the format was created then I don't think anyone would say anything about it. And its not like people didn't complain that their commander could be tucked; this thread has several discussions on the subject. Ultimately I think the format is just as good no matter which way the rule goes so it really doesn't matter.
I have no issue with the change, but the reasons they cite are bogus. People play blue because it's blue, not for the tucking. Folks play white because they want the sweepers or the sweet utility, not because of tucks. And I have never heard of anyone cite "it finds my commander" as a reason to play a tutor. It's a sweet side effect, but we play tutors because at heart, we all know that commander isn't really played as a singleton format, there's a suite of spells that you definitely built your deck with in mind. And it is certainly no great hardship to unsleeve a basic when your commander is tucked, to maintain sleeve uniformity..
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH W/U Lavinia of the Tenth G/W Selvala, Explorer Returned B Mono-black random General R/G Xenagos, God of Revels U/B Wydwen the BIting Gale
I was loosely brainstorming a shapeshifter deck which would feature stuff like Mercenary Enforcer and ways to turn other creatures into Rebels. Guess I won't be doing that anymore.
We already had a house-rule in our meta that was essentially this. For those saying it "rewards bad deck builders," that's true. But I would say that for ~50% of my playgroup the whole reason they enjoy the format is building a deck around a commander. The remaining 50% just like slamming together crappy old-border cards with terrible Legends Commanders, so they weren't playing any of the tuck spells anyway.
Now, we were perfectly happy having a house rule (obviously now we don't have to), so I wouldn't say we were clamoring for any changes. But I do understand their point in that it feels like a loophole in the "point" of having a commander, and I'm not surprised the change happened. How it will effect uber-competitive spikey EDH metas, I am not qualified to answer.
Looking at the other side of this I can see why some people are worried that not having tuck available will allow certain "must answer" commanders to run rampant, but unless you were actively tutoring up your tuck effects each and every game in order to stop a degenerate commander then I don't see this actually being a problem. Tuck wasn't a sure-fire way to completely get rid of certain commanders anyway because of how much tutoring they ran so it will often just come out to the same thing in the end.
Overall, I think the extent of how this affects the format is grossly overstated.
So your biggest pro for it is "eh its not that big of a deal?"
Pretty much. I don't think it was something that really needed to be changed, but I'm not going to cry, rail on the RC, or quit Magic because of it.
I think the only place where I actually care about something like this is when I'm facing down an Indestructible commander like Purphoros, God of the Forge that is difficult to get rid of anyway, but its not like there aren't answers to that I can run instead of running tuck effects.
In the end, its not like there are going to be many "pros" for something like this; it just is what it is. If this was the rule when the format was created then I don't think anyone would say anything about it. And its not like people didn't complain that their commander could be tucked; this thread has several discussions on the subject. Ultimately I think the format is just as good no matter which way the rule goes so it really doesn't matter.
Because unnecessary change out of seemingly left field doesn't inspire much confidence in the RC. The rules change is less problematic than being basically out of nowhere is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
I've advocated our playgroup try this out since I heard about it being that way in Duel commander (well, less the bounce replacement). Know lots of people who check out of a game completely when their commander gets tucked.
Then they're doing it wrong. Your decks should be able to function adequately without the commander, or there should be plenty of ways to get them back.
I disagree, and that's a difference of philosophy. That said, even if a deck will function well without the commander it doesn't mean it's doing what you enjoy about it. Further, jamming a bunch of tutors to get it back - well, certainly an option I guess, but not super fun way to play magic in my opinion.
Further, "doing it wrong" is a pretty questionable way of expressing what is a clearly an opinion (that you haven't bothered to back up with reasons). I know the internet loves a pithy post and all, but if you're going to make rather snide absolute statements you should support them - or at least attempt to, since I don't think your position is particularly supportable given the nature of EDH.
With the new ruling, the things that interact with commanders favorably have answers other than tutors (which are only available in some colors) -- removal is available in most colors, so getting rid of a control magic or a helm of possession is achievable. Not every color has ways to get their commander back from tucking.
I disagree, and that's a difference of philosophy. That said, even if a deck will function well without the commander it doesn't mean it's doing what you enjoy about it. Further, jamming a bunch of tutors to get it back - well, certainly an option I guess, but not super fun way to play magic in my opinion.
Further, "doing it wrong" is a pretty questionable way of expressing what is a clearly an opinion (that you haven't bothered to back up with reasons). I know the internet loves a pithy post and all, but if you're going to make rather snide absolute statements you should support them - or at least attempt to, since I don't think your position is particularly supportable given the nature of EDH.
Ok, take a random "build-around-me" general, say, Uril. The deck is absolutely focused around him, and making him super big with auras. But oh crap he died cuz I had to sac him and then he got countered and I don't have nine mana to replay him. Now you do one of two things: you scoop, or you play another threat. You're running lots of auras, so Enchantress is on theme, right? You've got Rabid Wombat, the enchantress which gets bigger for enchantments, some new card which just came out, and other beatsticks. There are plenty of ways to make options that aren't your commander enjoyable and on-theme to run.
And jamming your deck with tutors should only be done when they are good tutors. If you run Worldly Tutor and the only creature in your deck is your commander, it's bad deck building. Any tutor which can only tutor up a couple of cards in your deck is probably better served by being replaced with a more flexible card (unless you're building a one trick pony combo deck).
Was there any demand for such a change? It's weird rulings like this that really give the RC the illusion of being completely out of touch.
The fact that the most positive reactions you see is a luke warm "meh its not a huge deal." Is startling.
Historically, people that support a change will never be as vocal as those who did not support it.
I've seen the exact opposite. The RC has some very vocal supporters in this thread who to me seem about as likely to cut off an arm as to admit that sometimes the RC makes mistakes or didn't make an optimum decision. I imagine that's why you had to make this containment thread. Because honestly there's no reasoning with the other side (no matter which side you're on).
I've seen the exact opposite. The RC has some very vocal supporters in this thread who to me seem about as likely to cut off an arm as to admit that sometimes the RC makes mistakes or didn't make an optimum decision. I imagine that's why you had to make this containment thread. Because honestly there's no reasoning with the other side (no matter which side you're on).
No, we made this thread because otherwise we would end up with people creating a new thread every time they wanted to know why a card was banned or wanted one banned. Having one thread keeps the main forum area cleaner.
Ok, take a random "build-around-me" general, say, Uril. The deck is absolutely focused around him, and making him super big with auras. But oh crap he died cuz I had to sac him and then he got countered and I don't have nine mana to replay him. Now you do one of two things: you scoop, or you play another threat. You're running lots of auras, so Enchantress is on theme, right? You've got Rabid Wombat, the enchantress which gets bigger for enchantments, some new card which just came out, and other beatsticks. There are plenty of ways to make options that aren't your commander enjoyable and on-theme to run.
And jamming your deck with tutors should only be done when they are good tutors. If you run Worldly Tutor and the only creature in your deck is your commander, it's bad deck building. Any tutor which can only tutor up a couple of cards in your deck is probably better served by being replaced with a more flexible card (unless you're building a one trick pony combo deck).
Eh, or you play graveyard recursion or more ramp so you can recast him and rebuild, because that's what you find fun about the deck - suiting up and swinging with Uril. Maybe you play Tajuru Preserver or Sigarda, Host of Herons to prevent sac effects. Or you play those goofy white counterspells or whatever.
This just opens up more avenues of play while reinforcing what a lot of people find fun about the format. You can still play Good Stuff deck, but now commander centric decks are just a little more viable, and I dig that. If the pendulum swings away from Good Stuff toward commander-centric decks, I'm not sure that's bad for the game.
*** For the record, I think the removal of "banned as a commander" is dumb as a box of hammers, and I'm about as far from a cheerleader for the RC as it gets I just like seeing people's commanders and more synergistic decks over good stuff decks. This change encourages both of those things. It also encourages more color combinations, which is a super sweet side effect. Boros and Rakdos, I'm lookin' at you.
I guess we'll get more clarification on what it means to be a commander next month then,cuz reading over the update it's just about Tuck. At least as far as I can tell.
I've advocated our playgroup try this out since I heard about it being that way in Duel commander (well, less the bounce replacement). Know lots of people who check out of a game completely when their commander gets tucked.
Then they're doing it wrong. Your decks should be able to function adequately without the commander, or there should be plenty of ways to get them back.
I disagree, and that's a difference of philosophy. That said, even if a deck will function well without the commander it doesn't mean it's doing what you enjoy about it. Further, jamming a bunch of tutors to get it back - well, certainly an option I guess, but not super fun way to play magic in my opinion.
Further, "doing it wrong" is a pretty questionable way of expressing what is a clearly an opinion (that you haven't bothered to back up with reasons). I know the internet loves a pithy post and all, but if you're going to make rather snide absolute statements you should support them - or at least attempt to, since I don't think your position is particularly supportable given the nature of EDH.
With the new ruling, the things that interact with commanders favorably have answers other than tutors (which are only available in some colors) -- removal is available in most colors, so getting rid of a control magic or a helm of possession is achievable. Not every color has ways to get their commander back from tucking.
Cryogen said it pretty well, but the point is, ultimately, that this change deprives players of another strategic avenue to deal with commanders and other creatures that are tough to deal with. And yes, "doing it wrong" is something I stand by. What if your general gets hit with an Arrest or a Treachery? Does your deck just roll over and die? If it does, does that not give you pause as to how the deck is built? Should we ban the aforementioned auras just because red can't deal with enchantments?
The nature of the format, as I understood it before today's announcement, is in keeping with this idea. Commander, among other things, is about resource management and threat assessment. The inability of some to accomplish the former gave rise to this ban. In the RC's own words, was partially due to "feel-bads," which is a laughable reason to ban something, even in this format. The RC doesn't need to hold my hand despite its increasing insistence upon doing so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
Eh, or you play graveyard recursion or more ramp so you can recast him and rebuild, because that's what you find fun about the deck - suiting up and swinging with Uril. Maybe you play Tajuru Preserver or Sigarda, Host of Herons to prevent sac effects. Or you play those goofy white counterspells or whatever.
This just opens up more avenues of play while reinforcing what a lot of people find fun about the format. You can still play Good Stuff deck, but now commander centric decks are just a little more viable, and I dig that. If the pendulum swings away from Good Stuff toward commander-centric decks, I'm not sure that's bad for the game.
As a blue mage I have often relied on using those cards as general killers. I've utterly crushed opponents by removing their generals, I've slowed them down, and I've even had to let Terminus get collateral damage. I get that it isn't fun when your general gets tucked. I get that when you build a deck around your general, you want it to be around your general. But this is a game which is about checks and balances. If you over-extend, I should be able to wrath you. Tuck was just another check against the slew of uninteractive generals. If Wizards is going to keep printing indestructible generals, hexproof generals, ones that are often just enchantments, and various cards that grant those abilities, then we need a way to interact. The RC says that tucking wasn't good because it made you play blue and white, but if you use a god as your general, my black/red deck is going to have no way to interact with it so long as you keep your deovotion low enough. This change takes away another set of checks against strong generals which are otherwise hard to slow down.
Arrest and Treachery have answers that you should be packing anyway. Not every color has creature tutors, but every color can get rid of enchantments or play homeward path. While Red has a hard time with Enchantment removal, it has no issue removing creatures and can pack Disk, O Stone, and All is Dust.
Tucking was a whole different class of "strategery" that relegated most commander-centric decks without access to blue or green to second fiddle at best.
Playing some removal as a requirement in the format - that I can accept just fine.
Having to have ways to either sacrifice or tutor your commander out in order to play a commander focused deck, or be playing blue with loads of counterspells? I found that, personally, to be pretty distasteful. It's hard enough to try to protect your general from spot removal, mass removal, control magic, theft effects, and dealing with all the other BS. Tucking really forced a lot of goofy deck construction if you wanted to play a deck that synergizes with your commander.
Just this man's opinion of course, and you can think it's valid or not.
Arrest and Treachery have answers that you should be packing anyway. Not every color has creature tutors, but every color can get rid of enchantments or play homeward path. While Red has a hard time with Enchantment removal, it has no issue removing creatures and can pack Disk, O Stone, and All is Dust.
Tucking was a whole different class of "strategery" that relegated most commander-centric decks without access to blue or green to second fiddle at best.
Playing some removal as a requirement in the format - that I can accept just fine.
Having to have ways to either sacrifice or tutor your commander out in order to play a commander focused deck, or be playing blue with loads of counterspells? I found that, personally, to be pretty distasteful. It's hard enough to try to protect your general from spot removal, mass removal, control magic, theft effects, and dealing with all the other BS. Tucking really forced a lot of goofy deck construction if you wanted to play a deck that synergizes with your commander.
Just this man's opinion of course, and you can think it's valid or not.
Tutors are good no matter what. And sometimes sac outlets are good as protection against someone trying to Swords one of your creatures and you'd rather it die to get reanimated later. I can't think of any time i ever ran those effects "just in case my commander got tucked". I would rather use those slots for more synergistic cards that helped my overall strategy.
As a blue mage I have often relied on using those cards as general killers. I've utterly crushed opponents by removing their generals, I've slowed them down, and I've even had to let Terminus get collateral damage. I get that it isn't fun when your general gets tucked. I get that when you build a deck around your general, you want it to be around your general. But this is a game which is about checks and balances. If you over-extend, I should be able to wrath you. Tuck was just another check against the slew of uninteractive generals. If Wizards is going to keep printing indestructible generals, hexproof generals, ones that are often just enchantments, and various cards that grant those abilities, then we need a way to interact. The RC says that tucking wasn't good because it made you play blue and white, but if you use a god as your general, my black/red deck is going to have no way to interact with it so long as you keep your deovotion low enough. This change takes away another set of checks against strong generals which are otherwise hard to slow down.
This! I really just don't get this change. Changes like this are making it clear to me that there are some meta's that would shock the RC to see the strength of certain decks. Checks and balances are an important part of a properly balanced format. This attempt to make the game more "fun" for more table top style meta's really just makes no sense when balanced against what this format has become. Their explanations make even less sense. I think they are out of their depth and over thought a rather simple problem.
Well, anyway, my playgroup has decided to test the change out, but there is a good chance we will ignore this rule change for the simple fact it unbalances the local meta. After all, the RC themselves has in fact admitted on more than one occasion they have no real power...only the power people and playgroups choose to invest in them. The only shame is that I fear what the effects of rules stratification will do to the format as a whole.
This! I really just don't get this change. Changes like this are making it clear to me that there are some meta's that would shock the RC to see the strength of certain decks. Checks and balances are an important part of a properly balanced format. This attempt to make the game more "fun" for more table top style meta's really just makes no sense. Their explanations make even less sense. I think they over thought a rather simple problem.
Well, anyway, my playgroup has decided to test the change out, but there is a good chance we will ignore this rule change for the simple fact it unbalances the local meta. After all, the RC themselves has in fact admitted on more than one occasion they have no real power...only the power people and playgroups choose to invest in them.
Well they do have power in the sense that Wizards trusts them to manage the format. So they basically have the backing of WotC, which is only helped by Wizards admitting that they don't really have the time or resources to properly manage it. All in all, I don't think that this change will have as big an impact as everyone is making it sound. Much like removing the BaaC list, the legendary rule change, etc., there will be an uproar at first, and then after a while and seeing how the change actually affects games, people will settle in with the new rule or simply houserule to the old rules. I will miss having the option to tuck a general, but I'm sure I'll manage.
Then they're doing it wrong. Your decks should be able to function adequately without the commander, or there should be plenty of ways to get them back.
My 720 Peasant Cube
But I also play Deveri whoo hoo, you can't stop the beatdown.... and importantly Zirilian whoes deck basically couldn't function without him making hinder a constant concern... might allow me to cut REB and Pyroblast.. maybe.
I am really scared about Purphoros though.. he is a nightmare to deal with. I think the amount of spot removal is just going to have to go up.
I am going to give it a chance but if it becomes clear that it makes things much worse. we will just not play with it. I am a little scare about what some generals will do.
Do you think this speeds up the format?
If it leads to Deveri being banned though.. then I'll be super pissed because my deck is frigging bird tribal that plays 2 mana 1/1s but it really doesn't work without him.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
New Meta
Pretty much. I don't think it was something that really needed to be changed, but I'm not going to cry, rail on the RC, or quit Magic because of it.
I think the only place where I actually care about something like this is when I'm facing down an Indestructible commander like Purphoros, God of the Forge that is difficult to get rid of anyway, but its not like there aren't answers to that I can run instead of running tuck effects.
In the end, its not like there are going to be many "pros" for something like this; it just is what it is. If this was the rule when the format was created then I don't think anyone would say anything about it. And its not like people didn't complain that their commander could be tucked; this thread has several discussions on the subject. Ultimately I think the format is just as good no matter which way the rule goes so it really doesn't matter.
W/U Lavinia of the Tenth
G/W Selvala, Explorer Returned
B Mono-black random General
R/G Xenagos, God of Revels
U/B Wydwen the BIting Gale
I was loosely brainstorming a shapeshifter deck which would feature stuff like Mercenary Enforcer and ways to turn other creatures into Rebels. Guess I won't be doing that anymore.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
shoot,it finally won one game today lol
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
We already had a house-rule in our meta that was essentially this. For those saying it "rewards bad deck builders," that's true. But I would say that for ~50% of my playgroup the whole reason they enjoy the format is building a deck around a commander. The remaining 50% just like slamming together crappy old-border cards with terrible Legends Commanders, so they weren't playing any of the tuck spells anyway.
Now, we were perfectly happy having a house rule (obviously now we don't have to), so I wouldn't say we were clamoring for any changes. But I do understand their point in that it feels like a loophole in the "point" of having a commander, and I'm not surprised the change happened. How it will effect uber-competitive spikey EDH metas, I am not qualified to answer.
Because unnecessary change out of seemingly left field doesn't inspire much confidence in the RC. The rules change is less problematic than being basically out of nowhere is.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I disagree, and that's a difference of philosophy. That said, even if a deck will function well without the commander it doesn't mean it's doing what you enjoy about it. Further, jamming a bunch of tutors to get it back - well, certainly an option I guess, but not super fun way to play magic in my opinion.
Further, "doing it wrong" is a pretty questionable way of expressing what is a clearly an opinion (that you haven't bothered to back up with reasons). I know the internet loves a pithy post and all, but if you're going to make rather snide absolute statements you should support them - or at least attempt to, since I don't think your position is particularly supportable given the nature of EDH.
With the new ruling, the things that interact with commanders favorably have answers other than tutors (which are only available in some colors) -- removal is available in most colors, so getting rid of a control magic or a helm of possession is achievable. Not every color has ways to get their commander back from tucking.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Ok, take a random "build-around-me" general, say, Uril. The deck is absolutely focused around him, and making him super big with auras. But oh crap he died cuz I had to sac him and then he got countered and I don't have nine mana to replay him. Now you do one of two things: you scoop, or you play another threat. You're running lots of auras, so Enchantress is on theme, right? You've got Rabid Wombat, the enchantress which gets bigger for enchantments, some new card which just came out, and other beatsticks. There are plenty of ways to make options that aren't your commander enjoyable and on-theme to run.
And jamming your deck with tutors should only be done when they are good tutors. If you run Worldly Tutor and the only creature in your deck is your commander, it's bad deck building. Any tutor which can only tutor up a couple of cards in your deck is probably better served by being replaced with a more flexible card (unless you're building a one trick pony combo deck).
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I've seen the exact opposite. The RC has some very vocal supporters in this thread who to me seem about as likely to cut off an arm as to admit that sometimes the RC makes mistakes or didn't make an optimum decision. I imagine that's why you had to make this containment thread. Because honestly there's no reasoning with the other side (no matter which side you're on).
No, we made this thread because otherwise we would end up with people creating a new thread every time they wanted to know why a card was banned or wanted one banned. Having one thread keeps the main forum area cleaner.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Eh, or you play graveyard recursion or more ramp so you can recast him and rebuild, because that's what you find fun about the deck - suiting up and swinging with Uril. Maybe you play Tajuru Preserver or Sigarda, Host of Herons to prevent sac effects. Or you play those goofy white counterspells or whatever.
This just opens up more avenues of play while reinforcing what a lot of people find fun about the format. You can still play Good Stuff deck, but now commander centric decks are just a little more viable, and I dig that. If the pendulum swings away from Good Stuff toward commander-centric decks, I'm not sure that's bad for the game.
*** For the record, I think the removal of "banned as a commander" is dumb as a box of hammers, and I'm about as far from a cheerleader for the RC as it gets
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Cryogen said it pretty well, but the point is, ultimately, that this change deprives players of another strategic avenue to deal with commanders and other creatures that are tough to deal with. And yes, "doing it wrong" is something I stand by. What if your general gets hit with an Arrest or a Treachery? Does your deck just roll over and die? If it does, does that not give you pause as to how the deck is built? Should we ban the aforementioned auras just because red can't deal with enchantments?
The nature of the format, as I understood it before today's announcement, is in keeping with this idea. Commander, among other things, is about resource management and threat assessment. The inability of some to accomplish the former gave rise to this ban. In the RC's own words, was partially due to "feel-bads," which is a laughable reason to ban something, even in this format. The RC doesn't need to hold my hand despite its increasing insistence upon doing so.
My 720 Peasant Cube
As a blue mage I have often relied on using those cards as general killers. I've utterly crushed opponents by removing their generals, I've slowed them down, and I've even had to let Terminus get collateral damage. I get that it isn't fun when your general gets tucked. I get that when you build a deck around your general, you want it to be around your general. But this is a game which is about checks and balances. If you over-extend, I should be able to wrath you. Tuck was just another check against the slew of uninteractive generals. If Wizards is going to keep printing indestructible generals, hexproof generals, ones that are often just enchantments, and various cards that grant those abilities, then we need a way to interact. The RC says that tucking wasn't good because it made you play blue and white, but if you use a god as your general, my black/red deck is going to have no way to interact with it so long as you keep your deovotion low enough. This change takes away another set of checks against strong generals which are otherwise hard to slow down.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Tucking was a whole different class of "strategery" that relegated most commander-centric decks without access to blue or green to second fiddle at best.
Playing some removal as a requirement in the format - that I can accept just fine.
Having to have ways to either sacrifice or tutor your commander out in order to play a commander focused deck, or be playing blue with loads of counterspells? I found that, personally, to be pretty distasteful. It's hard enough to try to protect your general from spot removal, mass removal, control magic, theft effects, and dealing with all the other BS. Tucking really forced a lot of goofy deck construction if you wanted to play a deck that synergizes with your commander.
Just this man's opinion of course, and you can think it's valid or not.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Tutors are good no matter what. And sometimes sac outlets are good as protection against someone trying to Swords one of your creatures and you'd rather it die to get reanimated later. I can't think of any time i ever ran those effects "just in case my commander got tucked". I would rather use those slots for more synergistic cards that helped my overall strategy.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
This! I really just don't get this change. Changes like this are making it clear to me that there are some meta's that would shock the RC to see the strength of certain decks. Checks and balances are an important part of a properly balanced format. This attempt to make the game more "fun" for more table top style meta's really just makes no sense when balanced against what this format has become. Their explanations make even less sense. I think they are out of their depth and over thought a rather simple problem.
Well, anyway, my playgroup has decided to test the change out, but there is a good chance we will ignore this rule change for the simple fact it unbalances the local meta. After all, the RC themselves has in fact admitted on more than one occasion they have no real power...only the power people and playgroups choose to invest in them. The only shame is that I fear what the effects of rules stratification will do to the format as a whole.
Well they do have power in the sense that Wizards trusts them to manage the format. So they basically have the backing of WotC, which is only helped by Wizards admitting that they don't really have the time or resources to properly manage it. All in all, I don't think that this change will have as big an impact as everyone is making it sound. Much like removing the BaaC list, the legendary rule change, etc., there will be an uproar at first, and then after a while and seeing how the change actually affects games, people will settle in with the new rule or simply houserule to the old rules. I will miss having the option to tuck a general, but I'm sure I'll manage.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg