I won’t play vs decks that have phoebe, x, or baron von count at the helm. If people insist on that nonsense, I will be forced to respond in kind and make something degenerate enough to make them regret it.
Why do you think they are degenerate?
Mir13's post doesn't say that Phoebe, X, and the Baron are degenerate, only that he/she doesn't like them and would build something degenerate in response to people playing them.
So that sound like an over exageration over people just wanting to play silver boarded commanders.
No, I don't want to play against THOSE generals. They can play the killbot lady or the reanimate gal all they want. Or the ones from the previous sets. Those 3 though, it's a definite no.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G UG Tishana, Voice of Thunder GU UBW Sen Triplets WBU WUBGAtraxa, Praetors' Voice GBUW WUBRGJodah, Archmage Eternal GRBUW GWR Mayael the Anima RWG RWB Edgar Markov BWR WG Gaddok Teeg GW W Oketra the True W
--- My Decklist Folder
And you have people clamouring for WotC to take over. Well done RC this talk is gonna escalate.
Can't wait when Commander goes under WotC's hands.
Because Wizards has never screwed anything up. Clearly, they never had cards that need instant-errata before they were even released (Hostage Taker, Ordinary Pony - in the two most recent sets alone). They've never had to ban mass quantities of cards that unbalance Standard or make a twocard infinite combo in the same block.
And they've certainly never made a decision that some people disagree with. [/sarcasm]
Face it - you can't please all of the people all of the time. If you hate the RC so much, you must really hate the format they created. Or not? I wonder if the RC ever gets tired of so many armchair/keyboard warriors second-guessing their every move.
I don't see Wizards doing any better of a job, and frankly, I think they might do far worse. Do I agree with every decision from the RC? Nope (looking at you, Iona). But I love the format, and I feel the RC has a much better track record than WOTC.
Trust me, they don't need you white knighting for them. Anyone so much as critiques them, they risk suspension.
And yes, I trust the company that made the game, and has had it run fairly smoothly for 26 years over a group of highly insulated individuals with zero oversight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Trust me, they don't need you white knighting for them. Anyone so much as critiques them, they risk suspension.
And yes, I trust the company that made the game, and has had it run fairly smoothly for 26 years over a group of highly insulated individuals with zero oversight.
If there true then Bolas would have been banned long ago, as for trusting WotC..I only trust them when it comes to gearing towards a more competitive mindset, which imo isn't what commander is about and I fear that it would be just another sanctioned competitive format if they took over all together instead of them just taking over the 1v1 on MTGO more or less.
Trust me, they don't need you white knighting for them. Anyone so much as critiques them, they risk suspension.
And yes, I trust the company that made the game, and has had it run fairly smoothly for 26 years over a group of highly insulated individuals with zero oversight.
If there true then Bolas would have been banned long ago, as for trusting WotC..I only trust them when it comes to gearing towards a more competitive mindset, which imo isn't what commander is about and I fear that it would be just another sanctioned competitive format if they took over all together instead of them just taking over the 1v1 on MTGO more or less.
The issue is that "House Rules" only work for set groups. Official rules are the default, and I trust Wizards to make solid official rules more than I trust the RC.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
And you have people clamouring for WotC to take over. Well done RC this talk is gonna escalate.
Can't wait when Commander goes under WotC's hands.
Because Wizards has never screwed anything up. Clearly, they never had cards that need instant-errata before they were even released (Hostage Taker, Ordinary Pony - in the two most recent sets alone). They've never had to ban mass quantities of cards that unbalance Standard or make a twocard infinite combo in the same block.
And they've certainly never made a decision that some people disagree with. [/sarcasm]
Face it - you can't please all of the people all of the time. If you hate the RC so much, you must really hate the format they created. Or not? I wonder if the RC ever gets tired of so many armchair/keyboard warriors second-guessing their every move.
I don't see Wizards doing any better of a job, and frankly, I think they might do far worse. Do I agree with every decision from the RC? Nope (looking at you, Iona). But I love the format, and I feel the RC has a much better track record than WOTC.
Trust me, they don't need you white knighting for them. Anyone so much as critiques them, they risk suspension.
And yes, I trust the company that made the game, and has had it run fairly smoothly for 26 years over a group of highly insulated individuals with zero oversight.
I wouldn't call what I'm doing white knighting - more like Knight of the Hokey Pokey-ing. Seriously, am I not allowed to express my opinion? Is it a crime to like something that you don't?
I feel that the RC has a better track record than Wizards. And honestly, if they have "zero oversight," isn't the same true for Wizards? Who is Wizards responsible to? I would say the players, but the same could be said of the RC. If you mean internal oversight, again, just look at the list of recent gaffs mentioned in my sarcastic rant - clearly Wizards could benefit from more oversight, which I will readily acknowledge that they have announced a plan to deal with.
One of the things I love about EDH/Commander is that they aim for a minimal banlist and let the format balance itself out for the most part. They push the social aspect of the game. That's not really Wizards' thing. They push competitive and tweak and meddle with bannings when they don't like how things are going. I prefer the less heavy handed approach and fear it would go away if Wizards took over.
What specifically do you think Wizards would do better than the RC?
This is the best thing the rules committee has ever done. I'm glad it makes EDH tourneys harder. Competitive edh is excruciating and ruins the whole concept of the format.
I would be more sympathetic about the whole degenerate silver bordered thing, except I'm not a greenhorn to commander. I know black bordered gets very degenerate as well if the social contract isn't in effect.
I wouldn't mind UNCommander sticking around, it would definitely need to be its own category though like what we have for Duel Commander or Multiplayer Commander.
Wait so I have a question about this... After the 45 days silver is all banned from Commander right? Does that mean that Spike can after the 45 days pull ANY silverbordered card in my casual fun group (that allows silver cards) ?
And you have people clamouring for WotC to take over. Well done RC this talk is gonna escalate.
Can't wait when Commander goes under WotC's hands.
Because Wizards has never screwed anything up. Clearly, they never had cards that need instant-errata before they were even released (Hostage Taker, Ordinary Pony - in the two most recent sets alone). They've never had to ban mass quantities of cards that unbalance Standard or make a twocard infinite combo in the same block.
And they've certainly never made a decision that some people disagree with. [/sarcasm]
Face it - you can't please all of the people all of the time. If you hate the RC so much, you must really hate the format they created. Or not? I wonder if the RC ever gets tired of so many armchair/keyboard warriors second-guessing their every move.
I don't see Wizards doing any better of a job, and frankly, I think they might do far worse. Do I agree with every decision from the RC? Nope (looking at you, Iona). But I love the format, and I feel the RC has a much better track record than WOTC.
Trust me, they don't need you white knighting for them. Anyone so much as critiques them, they risk suspension.
And yes, I trust the company that made the game, and has had it run fairly smoothly for 26 years over a group of highly insulated individuals with zero oversight.
I wouldn't call what I'm doing white knighting - more like Knight of the Hokey Pokey-ing. Seriously, am I not allowed to express my opinion? Is it a crime to like something that you don't?
I feel that the RC has a better track record than Wizards. And honestly, if they have "zero oversight," isn't the same true for Wizards? Who is Wizards responsible to? I would say the players, but the same could be said of the RC. If you mean internal oversight, again, just look at the list of recent gaffs mentioned in my sarcastic rant - clearly Wizards could benefit from more oversight, which I will readily acknowledge that they have announced a plan to deal with.
One of the things I love about EDH/Commander is that they aim for a minimal banlist and let the format balance itself out for the most part. They push the social aspect of the game. That's not really Wizards' thing. They push competitive and tweak and meddle with bannings when they don't like how things are going. I prefer the less heavy handed approach and fear it would go away if Wizards took over.
What specifically do you think Wizards would do better than the RC?
Wizards has run the game for 26 years. Yes, they've made mistakes. But there's a reason that they've stayed this long: because those mistakes have been fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile, the RC has been around for 5-7 years, give or take. During that time, they've made a couple mistakes, but nothing costly.
Overall, I trust a format run by an actual banlist, because that applies to ALL players. House Rules (and the RC's insistence of that being used to iron out problems) only work for a portion of players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
The LGS's EDH night is tomorrow. The store owner and I are great friends and he trusts me enough to close up the store so we can stay there much later into the night. Not saying I have some power with store rules, but I push for 1) spirit of EDH (ex no dick scooping) and 2) use the normal rules current set forth (ex banlist, sideboards, mulligans) unless players before the game agree. There are no set play groups but some of the guys come in groups of 2-3. And each are of different power levels.
I don't want to be 'that' guy tomorrow but I really don't want to play with silver bordered cards. I already know a few guys are going to abuse it and get as much fun out of it - regardless if it sucks the fun from other players. But there are going to be those with casual/fair deck people that might onlyadd a cool card or none at all.
Trying to think of a way to approach it. Plus there might be a max of two games (6-8 people)...so it might be hard to dodge those they want to play with them. It is the only night I get to play magic during the week.
Look at me, I'm R&D + Mana Screw = unlimited mana. I could see that potentially being a problem in commander considering that that R&D is only 3 mana and after that screw would be free.
The LGS's EDH night is tomorrow. The store owner and I are great friends and he trusts me enough to close up the store so we can stay there much later into the night. Not saying I have some power with store rules, but I push for 1) spirit of EDH (ex no dick scooping) and 2) use the normal rules current set forth (ex banlist, sideboards, mulligans) unless players before the game agree. There are no set play groups but some of the guys come in groups of 2-3. And each are of different power levels.
I don't want to be 'that' guy tomorrow but I really don't want to play with silver bordered cards. I already know a few guys are going to abuse it and get as much fun out of it - regardless if it sucks the fun from other players. But there are going to be those with casual/fair deck people that might onlyadd a cool card or none at all.
Trying to think of a way to approach it. Plus there might be a max of two games (6-8 people)...so it might be hard to dodge those they want to play with them. It is the only night I get to play magic during the week.
Legit though
The kind of person who abuses the silver border stuff for degenerate combos were probably never fun to play with to begin with
The LGS's EDH night is tomorrow. The store owner and I are great friends and he trusts me enough to close up the store so we can stay there much later into the night. Not saying I have some power with store rules, but I push for 1) spirit of EDH (ex no dick scooping) and 2) use the normal rules current set forth (ex banlist, sideboards, mulligans) unless players before the game agree. There are no set play groups but some of the guys come in groups of 2-3. And each are of different power levels.
I don't want to be 'that' guy tomorrow but I really don't want to play with silver bordered cards. I already know a few guys are going to abuse it and get as much fun out of it - regardless if it sucks the fun from other players. But there are going to be those with casual/fair deck people that might onlyadd a cool card or none at all.
Trying to think of a way to approach it. Plus there might be a max of two games (6-8 people)...so it might be hard to dodge those they want to play with them. It is the only night I get to play magic during the week.
Legit though
The kind of person who abuses the silver border stuff for degenerate combos were probably never fun to play with to begin with
Right on point. I've already have gotten into disagreements on how to play and how to deck build correctly. I have a value town ETB bant deck (see sig) that doesn't have a combo, but they always say you're wrong if you can't end the game on the spot later in the game rather than grinding it out (gets annoying when they sit there, constantly scrying and tapping their foot with sighs). Or they will say "oh you play this and that card, if you can't win with them, then you built wrong (ie Flash + Protean Hulk).
People fear these silver-bordered cards as if black-bordered cards weren't beyond broken themselves. Necropotence on its own is practically broken. And it's legal. Hermit Druid on its own is practically broken. And it's legal. There are plenty of ways to win turn1 or turn2 in black-bordered commander to use that kind of argument, honestly. The problem with some silver-bordered cards is the ridiculousness of some of them because the cards that should be banned are outright banned from the get-go. Complaining about 2-card infinite combos in silverborder is no different from complaining about 2-card infinite combos in blackborder. Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker goes infinite with so many cards as a 2-card combo and isn't banned. The list of 2-card combos that end the game are practically endless. By that same logic with silver-bordered cards, should all those cards also be banned? Because if the problem is "combining these cards together to get such a degenerate and broken effect" is no different than combining Sanguine Bond with Exquisite Blood, for example.
It would be better if people were more consistent with their reasoning. My reasoning for disliking some silver-bordered cards is because they're simply too annoying or wacky for my tastes. If it's too ridiculous I don't like it. Then again I don't like certain black-bordered cards that people use. But they're legal. I've played with groups that beforehand block out infinite combos or mass land destruction. It's not really a "house rule" more than some etiquette that they expect people in their pod to follow because it's frowned upon. Nowhere in the rules are infinite combos or cards like Jokulhaups banned. Since silver-bordered cards are legal, it's better as a group to say "no silver cards" in a similar fashion to "no infinite combos" because both are legal and you simply don't want people using those kinds of things. Similarly, people only play casually so they expect their pod to not use degenerate commander like Derevi, Uril, Zur, Kaalia, etc.
Using the tournament logic, people play to win. So going to a commander tournament with a casual deck and then getting creamed is no different from going to a modern tournament and getting creamed as well. If you go to a competitive setting chances are that people are going to use competitive decks. That's hilarious to me if someone goes to a competitive setting and actually wins using silver-bordered cards. I think that would be awesome. Because the spirit of the commander format was to always be friendly and casual. So I guess it's more a matter of respect than anything.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Okay, so here's a question that I hope has been answered somewhere or at least someone knows the answer to: what gives with the alternate cards with the same name? How will that work in a singleton format? Would I have to choose one of the alternatives? Can I run all of the alternatives since they're different cards? Or will it be similar to games like Pokémon where the card name is what matters regardless of the expansion or rules text?
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
So WotC wanted to ultimately have this set be used in conjuction with other formats as un-formats but limit what can be done in commander by making different cards with the same name? Awesome...
Oh, and they haven’t even updated Oracle or Gatherer yet.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
No, I don't want to play against THOSE generals. They can play the killbot lady or the reanimate gal all they want. Or the ones from the previous sets. Those 3 though, it's a definite no.
UG Tishana, Voice of Thunder GU
UBW Sen Triplets WBU
WUBGAtraxa, Praetors' Voice GBUW
WUBRGJodah, Archmage Eternal GRBUW
GWR Mayael the Anima RWG
RWB Edgar Markov BWR
WG Gaddok Teeg GW
W Oketra the True W
---
My Decklist Folder
Trust me, they don't need you white knighting for them. Anyone so much as critiques them, they risk suspension.
And yes, I trust the company that made the game, and has had it run fairly smoothly for 26 years over a group of highly insulated individuals with zero oversight.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
If there true then Bolas would have been banned long ago, as for trusting WotC..I only trust them when it comes to gearing towards a more competitive mindset, which imo isn't what commander is about and I fear that it would be just another sanctioned competitive format if they took over all together instead of them just taking over the 1v1 on MTGO more or less.
The issue is that "House Rules" only work for set groups. Official rules are the default, and I trust Wizards to make solid official rules more than I trust the RC.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I feel that the RC has a better track record than Wizards. And honestly, if they have "zero oversight," isn't the same true for Wizards? Who is Wizards responsible to? I would say the players, but the same could be said of the RC. If you mean internal oversight, again, just look at the list of recent gaffs mentioned in my sarcastic rant - clearly Wizards could benefit from more oversight, which I will readily acknowledge that they have announced a plan to deal with.
One of the things I love about EDH/Commander is that they aim for a minimal banlist and let the format balance itself out for the most part. They push the social aspect of the game. That's not really Wizards' thing. They push competitive and tweak and meddle with bannings when they don't like how things are going. I prefer the less heavy handed approach and fear it would go away if Wizards took over.
What specifically do you think Wizards would do better than the RC?
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I wouldn't mind UNCommander sticking around, it would definitely need to be its own category though like what we have for Duel Commander or Multiplayer Commander.
Wizards has run the game for 26 years. Yes, they've made mistakes. But there's a reason that they've stayed this long: because those mistakes have been fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile, the RC has been around for 5-7 years, give or take. During that time, they've made a couple mistakes, but nothing costly.
Overall, I trust a format run by an actual banlist, because that applies to ALL players. House Rules (and the RC's insistence of that being used to iron out problems) only work for a portion of players.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I don't want to be 'that' guy tomorrow but I really don't want to play with silver bordered cards. I already know a few guys are going to abuse it and get as much fun out of it - regardless if it sucks the fun from other players. But there are going to be those with casual/fair deck people that might onlyadd a cool card or none at all.
Trying to think of a way to approach it. Plus there might be a max of two games (6-8 people)...so it might be hard to dodge those they want to play with them. It is the only night I get to play magic during the week.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Legit though
The kind of person who abuses the silver border stuff for degenerate combos were probably never fun to play with to begin with
Right on point. I've already have gotten into disagreements on how to play and how to deck build correctly. I have a value town ETB bant deck (see sig) that doesn't have a combo, but they always say you're wrong if you can't end the game on the spot later in the game rather than grinding it out (gets annoying when they sit there, constantly scrying and tapping their foot with sighs). Or they will say "oh you play this and that card, if you can't win with them, then you built wrong (ie Flash + Protean Hulk).
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
It would be better if people were more consistent with their reasoning. My reasoning for disliking some silver-bordered cards is because they're simply too annoying or wacky for my tastes. If it's too ridiculous I don't like it. Then again I don't like certain black-bordered cards that people use. But they're legal. I've played with groups that beforehand block out infinite combos or mass land destruction. It's not really a "house rule" more than some etiquette that they expect people in their pod to follow because it's frowned upon. Nowhere in the rules are infinite combos or cards like Jokulhaups banned. Since silver-bordered cards are legal, it's better as a group to say "no silver cards" in a similar fashion to "no infinite combos" because both are legal and you simply don't want people using those kinds of things. Similarly, people only play casually so they expect their pod to not use degenerate commander like Derevi, Uril, Zur, Kaalia, etc.
Using the tournament logic, people play to win. So going to a commander tournament with a casual deck and then getting creamed is no different from going to a modern tournament and getting creamed as well. If you go to a competitive setting chances are that people are going to use competitive decks. That's hilarious to me if someone goes to a competitive setting and actually wins using silver-bordered cards. I think that would be awesome. Because the spirit of the commander format was to always be friendly and casual. So I guess it's more a matter of respect than anything.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
i.e. you can't have every everythingamajig
- Rabid Wombat
Oh, and they haven’t even updated Oracle or Gatherer yet.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Since I'm limited to only one VCC, can I take multiple ones and cut them up and splice them into the four modes I want?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Weird. I wonder what it was we were doing in those eight years prior to that during RC meetings.
Getting drunk on Sheldon's wine, obviously. Otherwise you would remember what you were doing.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg