Hmm, why has noone answered my question yet? Why should one form of removal be more favorable than others? Whats the reason for that?
There has always been removal that is more favorable than others. 99 percent of the time I would rather exile someone's creature in normal 60 card than destroy it. The only time I would rather send it to the yard is in highly specific situations like me wanting to reanimate from their yard. The reason why one form of removal is more favorable is because magic's history has always had that.
But I don't want to have to play those cards. You're making me play cards I don't want to play just to play my commander. That gives me feel-bads.
You see, your argument is coming down to: build a better deck that can either deal with the issue or, what did you say, "go over the top". Those same arguments apply to tucking. There's no anti tuck argument presented so far that will not apply to nevermore and mass land d other than the consistency argument. So, my advice: just stick to that talking point. The others have no merit while "you can't play card x" and mass land d exist.
You're misinterpreting my argument.
There are a bunch of things you can play to effectively answer enchantments and creatures in various colors, but the same is not the case for tuck effects - the answers to tuck effects are often niche, hard to find, or just unplayable garbage.
It's not about me (or the RC) telling you what to play, it's about what your options are.
Hmm, why has noone answered my question yet? Why should one form of removal be more favorable than others? Whats the reason for that?
There has always been removal that is more favorable than others. 99 percent of the time I would rather exile someone's creature in normal 60 card than destroy it. The only time I would rather send it to the yard is in highly specific situations like me wanting to reanimate from their yard. The reason why one form of removal is more favorable is because magic's history has always had that.
I can't entirely speak for ElAzar, but I have a similar point of view. Exile is intended to be the most permanent form of removal (besides ante ;]) and it is in all other formats. Destroy and tuck in 60 card are arguably more or less powerful depending on what format and deck you're playing. Why then should tuck be the most powerful in Commander, and exile and destroy equally powerful, and bounce maybe in the middle or something? There were basically 3 options:
- Keep it the same, and have tuck unflavorfully and inexplicably more powerful than exile for balance sake;
- Not allow your commander to ever return to the command zone, making all forms of removal as powerful as they were intended / are in other formats; or
- Allow your commander to return to the command zone instead of any other zone, making all forms of removal equal on Commanders
It's a tough choice to be sure. Which do we value the highest: balancing hexproof/indestructible commanders, consistency with design intention and other formats, or access to your Commander and consistency of the rules?
Hmm, why has noone answered my question yet? Why should one form of removal be more favorable than others? Whats the reason for that?
There has always been removal that is more favorable than others. 99 percent of the time I would rather exile someone's creature in normal 60 card than destroy it. The only time I would rather send it to the yard is in highly specific situations like me wanting to reanimate from their yard. The reason why one form of removal is more favorable is because magic's history has always had that.
I can't entirely speak for ElAzar, but I have a similar point of view. Exile is intended to be the most permanent form of removal (besides ante ;]) and it is in all other formats. Destroy and tuck in 60 card are arguably more or less powerful depending on what format and deck you're playing. Why then should tuck be the most powerful in Commander, and exile and destroy equally powerful, and bounce maybe in the middle or something? There were basically 3 options:
- Keep it the same, and have tuck unflavorfully and inexplicably more powerful than exile for balance sake;
- Not allow your commander to ever return to the command zone, making all forms of removal as powerful as they were intended / are in other formats; or
- Allow your commander to return to the command zone instead of any other zone, making all forms of removal equal on Commanders
It's a tough choice to be sure. Which do we value the highest: balancing hexproof/indestructible commanders, consistency with design intention and other formats, or access to your Commander and consistency of the rules?
Exile isn't. There have been several cards printed that interact with the exile zone.
But the reason that tuck is stronger in EDH than in normal magic is because the nature of the rules. It's the same reason why Lightning Bolt is a solid card in other formats, where in EDH it's laughably bad. There shouldn't be an equality among all forms of removal. It would blur the color pie and boil down magic into a bland stew. Tuck was a silver bullet that I think should've remained a silver bullet.
Exile isn't. There have been several cards printed that interact with the exile zone.
But the reason that tuck is stronger in EDH than in normal magic is because the nature of the rules. It's the same reason why Lightning Bolt is a solid card in other formats, where in EDH it's laughably bad. There shouldn't be an equality among all forms of removal. It would blur the color pie and boil down magic into a bland stew. Tuck was a silver bullet that I think should've remained a silver bullet.
Being removed from the game isn't intended to be the most permanent form of removal? Huh. I'd be interested in hearing what you think is (besides AWOL). There are only 2 cards that fetch from the exile zone while there are... however many cards that are tutors that get from library, however many reanimations that get from grave.
Also, Lightning Bolt = Doom Blade in this discussion, because they both send to the grave. There are 4 zones where permanents can go from the battlefield: graveyard, hand, library, and exile. If it would go to any of these, it may instead go to the Command Zone. This makes all zone movement equal. Before, zone movement was arbitrarily in favor of library movement.
For the people saying that "not every color is good at tutoring back out tucked stuff", keep in mind that...
1) The colors that are not very good at it (white and red, blue to an extent) are also the colors that have tuck effects (even if red's only real tuck is chaos warp)
2) White and red, being the two worst colors in EDH, will often provide weaker generals than the other three colors, and thus are the target of tuck effects less often, because when they're in play there are usually better targets to go after anyway.
You can't look at things in a void. Context matters.
Hmm, why has noone answered my question yet? Why should one form of removal be more favorable than others? Whats the reason for that?
There has always been removal that is more favorable than others. 99 percent of the time I would rather exile someone's creature in normal 60 card than destroy it. The only time I would rather send it to the yard is in highly specific situations like me wanting to reanimate from their yard. The reason why one form of removal is more favorable is because magic's history has always had that.
I can't entirely speak for ElAzar, but I have a similar point of view. Exile is intended to be the most permanent form of removal (besides ante ;]) and it is in all other formats. Destroy and tuck in 60 card are arguably more or less powerful depending on what format and deck you're playing. Why then should tuck be the most powerful in Commander, and exile and destroy equally powerful, and bounce maybe in the middle or something? There were basically 3 options:
- Keep it the same, and have tuck unflavorfully and inexplicably more powerful than exile for balance sake;
- Not allow your commander to ever return to the command zone, making all forms of removal as powerful as they were intended / are in other formats; or
- Allow your commander to return to the command zone instead of any other zone, making all forms of removal equal on Commanders
It's a tough choice to be sure. Which do we value the highest: balancing hexproof/indestructible commanders, consistency with design intention and other formats, or access to your Commander and consistency of the rules?
Exile isn't. There have been several cards printed that interact with the exile zone.
But the reason that tuck is stronger in EDH than in normal magic is because the nature of the rules. It's the same reason why Lightning Bolt is a solid card in other formats, where in EDH it's laughably bad. There shouldn't be an equality among all forms of removal. It would blur the color pie and boil down magic into a bland stew. Tuck was a silver bullet that I think should've remained a silver bullet.
Except that it was more like a nuke than a silver bullet. When one of the best removal spells in the format regardless of the commander tuck rule also happened to be able to irrevocably screw someone because of a rules loophole, it starts to become a problem.
Exile isn't. There have been several cards printed that interact with the exile zone.
But the reason that tuck is stronger in EDH than in normal magic is because the nature of the rules. It's the same reason why Lightning Bolt is a solid card in other formats, where in EDH it's laughably bad. There shouldn't be an equality among all forms of removal. It would blur the color pie and boil down magic into a bland stew. Tuck was a silver bullet that I think should've remained a silver bullet.
Being removed from the game isn't intended to be the most permanent form of removal? Huh. I'd be interested in hearing what you think is (besides AWOL). There are only 2 cards that fetch from the exile zone while there are... however many cards that are tutors that get from library, however many reanimations that get from grave.
Also, Lightning Bolt = Doom Blade in this discussion, because they both send to the grave. There are 4 zones where permanents can go from the battlefield: graveyard, hand, library, and exile. If it would go to any of these, it may instead go to the Command Zone. This makes all zone movement equal. Before, zone movement was arbitrarily in favor of library movement.
You're missing my point entirely. I was illustrating how certain cards become better because of the nature of the format.
Except that it was more like a nuke than a silver bullet. When one of the best removal spells in the format regardless of the commander tuck rule also happened to be able to irrevocably screw someone because of a rules loophole, it starts to become a problem.
That's your opinion I guess, but I'd consider losing all my lands, all my creatures, or my whole hand a "nuke". I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say in the second sentence. You think the tucks are the best removal spells in the format? And that even now they're still the best?
also "screwing someone because of a rules loophole" is so loaded I won't even start.
1) discuss the power level of the game before hand and tell the table u r not using an ultra cut-throat commander, so maybe they could switch for a more interactive game
2) play ur own cut-throat commander
3) team up with players 3 and 4 to repeatedly send them back to command zone i.e. U swords them, player 3 counters him next time, player 4 chaos warps him after that
Let me ask the people who are pro-tuck nerf a question. What's your gameplan versus broken generals like Prossh, Derevi, or Zur without tuck?
None of those generals are broken, and my gameplan is to play better than them like it is against every other general.
If you have an actual problem with Derevi in multiplayer I highly suggest readjusting your approach to the game, or just getting a different playgroup.
I think people are really divided on this. I haven't see anything convincing enough to make me change my mind that this is a good change, even after reading the additional statement on SCG. Some people will thing this is bad and the reasons given weren't good enough, and others will be happy with it. I do lean towards "having lands blown up", "prison-deck lockouts", "UR random shenanigans" and "infinite combos" being more feel-bad than my commander being shuffled away.
Tuck can be solved with deck construction. And I'm not just talking about adding tutors that can find your general or adding sac outlets or making your general uncounterable. I'm talking about building your deck so the entire thing doesn't fold like a house of cards when your general isn't available.
Skyship Weatherlight becomes less playable as it was a colorless option to tutor back generals into the command zone when they hit exile. Other than that I see this as a positive change. Threats are threats and hopefully people take them more seriously when the tuck crutch isn't around.
Skyship Weatherlight becomes less playable as it was a colorless option to tutor back generals into the command zone when they hit exile. Other than that I see this as a positive change. Threats are threats and hopefully people take them more seriously when the tuck crutch isn't around.
The decks people think the absence of tuck will make viable won't be. The ones tuck kept in check, will be even better. The Alesha deck I'm building, not anymore competitive without tuck. The Zur i regularly play against, a much bigger PITA.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Skyship Weatherlight becomes less playable as it was a colorless option to tutor back generals into the command zone when they hit exile. Other than that I see this as a positive change. Threats are threats and hopefully people take them more seriously when the tuck crutch isn't around.
The decks people think the absence of tuck will make viable won't be. The ones tuck kept in check, will be even better. The Alesha deck I'm building, not anymore competitive without tuck. The Zur i regularly play against, a much bigger PITA.
true.... Except my Alesha deck likes to end games on turn 4.
Either I get into my own lockout using creatures to forever exile stuff, or I kill on turn 3-4 with a Filth, Buried Alive, Master of Cruelties.
Yeah... So tuck isn't a thing anymore, so Krenko becomes a problem nobody can deal with properly...
Let me ask the people who are pro-tuck nerf a question. What's your gameplan versus broken generals like Prossh, Derevi, or Zur without tuck?
I'm not necessarily on the "pro-nerf" side, but I'll bite:
Broken decks have never really been a problem in my playgroup because we all have a solid understanding of what we all want our metagame to be. Sure there are some ridiculous decks floating around, but we never run into the problem of someone blatantly building the most broken, OP pile of 100 possible with zero regard for what the rest of the table is playing.
Tuck can be solved with deck construction. And I'm not just talking about adding tutors that can find your general or adding sac outlets or making your general uncounterable. I'm talking about building your deck so the entire thing doesn't fold like a house of cards when your general isn't available.
If thats the intention, why play commander over highlander?
Even if you sometimes lose access to your commander, they're different formats. Even if you sometimes lose access to your commander, you usually don't. Still, your deck shouldn't fail simply due to the loss of a single card, even if that card is your commander. And I am of the opinion that it should, in fact, be possible to lose that access. Removing tuck means that the only means to remove that access are complicated combos (not very viable), Mindslaver effects, Meddling Mage effects (not long-term), and stacking up the general tax (completely ineffective against Derevi and very difficult against some other generals).
I'm certainly leaning towards the pro-tuck side, but I understand what the RC is trying to do. One of my decks could care less if the commander gets tucked, the other one it's pretty sucky and much more difficult to win, but it's still possible. I was aware of "tuck" being in the format before I actually began playing commander, and as such planned accordingly. I find the deckbuilding process challenging and fun, and after getting my Kaalia of the Vast tucked a few times, (and getting utterly annihilated) I learned to adapt, and built my deck around not just one angle of attack but multiple angles, incorporating a small reanimation theme as well as putting in stuff like Sneak Attack (expensive as **** but worth it). So I understand where people are coming from on that front, I think having tuck around promotes better deckbuilding, more strategic balance and subsequently makes players better overall.
I think this is mainly to benefit newer players, to try and clean up inconsistencies with the format and make it easier to understand, which I didn't think was necessary, but the RC saw fit to change it anyway.
I know my playgroup is going to try this new rule out, and I'm going into it with an open mind, and I hope all of you at least try some games with the new rule before you completely dismiss it.
Just wanted to add that most of my group appreciates the change. We play pretty "fair" EDH, with decks ranging from precon caliber to semi-competitive, but most players doing a great job of self-policing away from the really dumb stuff (as we know and agree with Sheldon that the format is easily broken and there isn't much long term fun in doing so or getting into that kind of arms race). To us tuck has always felt like a cheesy inconsistent loophole, and having it randomly demolish your plans is definitely feel bad. And yes, there are definitely those among us who have felt pressure to run tutors solely due to tuck existing.
But if thats your argument, why favor tuck? if a commander dies, he could still stand in a graveyard, if he is exiled, he could still stay exiled.
Why favor one method of removal over others?
It's not about favoring one method of removal over the others, removal is removal no matter how you slice it. It's simply the THREAT of tucking that gives players pause and makes you have to account for it not only during the games themselves but the entire deckbuilding process as well. It adds more wrinkles to gameplay that make it more interesting and interactive (at least to me). And if you can still win a game, or put up a decent fight and lose even with your commander tucked it seems like a more rewarding experience; it almost forces you to have a good 99 card deck as opposed to having 1 card dictate the entire course of the game. You have to remember that your commander can't do it alone.
But if thats your argument, why favor tuck? if a commander dies, he could still stand in a graveyard, if he is exiled, he could still stay exiled.
Why favor one method of removal over others?
It's a balancing act. You want the general to be available most of the time, but (at least in my opinion) not all of the time. There are a lot of ways to send a creature to the graveyard or exile, and relatively few ways to send a creature to the library. At the same time, there are few ways to retrieve a creature from exile and many ways to retrieve a creature from the graveyard or library.
The tipping point needs to be placed somewhere, and I feel that allowing tuck is a good place to put that balance.
So, last night my friends and I drafted my cube. I havent updated it since Khans came out, so there are still plenty of tuck spells in there. I ended up drafting an Oloro heavy control deck, and the guy to my left had an aggro Zurgo deck. Turns out Zurgo is pretty hard to deal with, and in each game I had Condemn and Hinder with mana open when I could have used either to tuck Zurgo. In each game Condemn was used (once just as a regular removal spell on Zurgo, and once on a large creature). Anyway, I definitely noticed the impact of the change, but despite being "nerfed", I still won both games.
Let me ask the people who are pro-tuck nerf a question. What's your gameplan versus broken generals like Prossh, Derevi, or Zur without tuck?
I'm not pro-change, but I'm going to do exactly the same thing I did when I didn't have a tuck spell in the deck or in my hand. Fight my opponents every stet of the way and try to win.
There has always been removal that is more favorable than others. 99 percent of the time I would rather exile someone's creature in normal 60 card than destroy it. The only time I would rather send it to the yard is in highly specific situations like me wanting to reanimate from their yard. The reason why one form of removal is more favorable is because magic's history has always had that.
You're misinterpreting my argument.
There are a bunch of things you can play to effectively answer enchantments and creatures in various colors, but the same is not the case for tuck effects - the answers to tuck effects are often niche, hard to find, or just unplayable garbage.
It's not about me (or the RC) telling you what to play, it's about what your options are.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
- Keep it the same, and have tuck unflavorfully and inexplicably more powerful than exile for balance sake;
- Not allow your commander to ever return to the command zone, making all forms of removal as powerful as they were intended / are in other formats; or
- Allow your commander to return to the command zone instead of any other zone, making all forms of removal equal on Commanders
It's a tough choice to be sure. Which do we value the highest: balancing hexproof/indestructible commanders, consistency with design intention and other formats, or access to your Commander and consistency of the rules?
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
Exile isn't. There have been several cards printed that interact with the exile zone.
But the reason that tuck is stronger in EDH than in normal magic is because the nature of the rules. It's the same reason why Lightning Bolt is a solid card in other formats, where in EDH it's laughably bad. There shouldn't be an equality among all forms of removal. It would blur the color pie and boil down magic into a bland stew. Tuck was a silver bullet that I think should've remained a silver bullet.
Also, Lightning Bolt = Doom Blade in this discussion, because they both send to the grave. There are 4 zones where permanents can go from the battlefield: graveyard, hand, library, and exile. If it would go to any of these, it may instead go to the Command Zone. This makes all zone movement equal. Before, zone movement was arbitrarily in favor of library movement.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
1) The colors that are not very good at it (white and red, blue to an extent) are also the colors that have tuck effects (even if red's only real tuck is chaos warp)
2) White and red, being the two worst colors in EDH, will often provide weaker generals than the other three colors, and thus are the target of tuck effects less often, because when they're in play there are usually better targets to go after anyway.
You can't look at things in a void. Context matters.
WUBRGProgenitus
URGMaelstrom Wanderer
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic
WURZedruu, the Greathearted
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher ($100)
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician ($100)
UGKruphix, God of Horizons ($100)(retired)UTalrand, Sky Summoner (French 1v1, $100)
Except that it was more like a nuke than a silver bullet. When one of the best removal spells in the format regardless of the commander tuck rule also happened to be able to irrevocably screw someone because of a rules loophole, it starts to become a problem.
You're missing my point entirely. I was illustrating how certain cards become better because of the nature of the format.
That's your opinion I guess, but I'd consider losing all my lands, all my creatures, or my whole hand a "nuke". I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say in the second sentence. You think the tucks are the best removal spells in the format? And that even now they're still the best?
also "screwing someone because of a rules loophole" is so loaded I won't even start.
WUBRGProgenitus
URGMaelstrom Wanderer
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic
WURZedruu, the Greathearted
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher ($100)
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician ($100)
UGKruphix, God of Horizons ($100)(retired)UTalrand, Sky Summoner (French 1v1, $100)
1) discuss the power level of the game before hand and tell the table u r not using an ultra cut-throat commander, so maybe they could switch for a more interactive game
2) play ur own cut-throat commander
3) team up with players 3 and 4 to repeatedly send them back to command zone i.e. U swords them, player 3 counters him next time, player 4 chaos warps him after that
None of those generals are broken, and my gameplan is to play better than them like it is against every other general.
If you have an actual problem with Derevi in multiplayer I highly suggest readjusting your approach to the game, or just getting a different playgroup.
Same as it's always been kill the table turn 3-5
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
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The decks people think the absence of tuck will make viable won't be. The ones tuck kept in check, will be even better. The Alesha deck I'm building, not anymore competitive without tuck. The Zur i regularly play against, a much bigger PITA.
true.... Except my Alesha deck likes to end games on turn 4.
Either I get into my own lockout using creatures to forever exile stuff, or I kill on turn 3-4 with a Filth, Buried Alive, Master of Cruelties.
Yeah... So tuck isn't a thing anymore, so Krenko becomes a problem nobody can deal with properly...
I'm not necessarily on the "pro-nerf" side, but I'll bite:
Broken decks have never really been a problem in my playgroup because we all have a solid understanding of what we all want our metagame to be. Sure there are some ridiculous decks floating around, but we never run into the problem of someone blatantly building the most broken, OP pile of 100 possible with zero regard for what the rest of the table is playing.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I think this is mainly to benefit newer players, to try and clean up inconsistencies with the format and make it easier to understand, which I didn't think was necessary, but the RC saw fit to change it anyway.
I know my playgroup is going to try this new rule out, and I'm going into it with an open mind, and I hope all of you at least try some games with the new rule before you completely dismiss it.
It's not about favoring one method of removal over the others, removal is removal no matter how you slice it. It's simply the THREAT of tucking that gives players pause and makes you have to account for it not only during the games themselves but the entire deckbuilding process as well. It adds more wrinkles to gameplay that make it more interesting and interactive (at least to me). And if you can still win a game, or put up a decent fight and lose even with your commander tucked it seems like a more rewarding experience; it almost forces you to have a good 99 card deck as opposed to having 1 card dictate the entire course of the game. You have to remember that your commander can't do it alone.
The tipping point needs to be placed somewhere, and I feel that allowing tuck is a good place to put that balance.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm not pro-change, but I'm going to do exactly the same thing I did when I didn't have a tuck spell in the deck or in my hand. Fight my opponents every stet of the way and try to win.
Tabernacle, Aether Flash, Tainted Aether, Elesh Norn, Moat...
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg