I'm a big fan of the change. Tuck has always felt like a loophole, like abusing a glitch in a video game if you will. While I do think losing it probably hurts game play at the really "competitive" level, realistically this format has always been designed and managed for casual play (which is the way it should be IMO, as the format is generally terrible for truly competitive play). And in casual play I've seen tuck do far more harm than good in terms of fun. Of course a message board like this, dedicated to the format, is going to have an over-representation of competitive players, but in my experience at the local level they are very much in the minority. So on the whole I think the change does more good than harm.
So "tucking" is a thing, and "hard to deal with" instant "win" is not? Ok, and from the perspective of new or casual player, who will try to play in the local store - what is easier to get lower than 3 bucks copy of Hinder / Spell Crumple / Chaos Warp / Oblation / Terminus or make a truly competitive deck (over 500$) that is killing faster than that guy's Maelstorm Wanderer or many others combo killers. What will be the fun for them? Playing at the kitchen table with commander decks, made of some starter packs, is quite acceptable with these new rules.
I'm a big fan of the change. Tuck has always felt like a loophole, like abusing a glitch in a video game if you will. While I do think losing it probably hurts game play at the really "competitive" level, realistically this format has always been designed and managed for casual play (which is the way it should be IMO, as the format is generally terrible for truly competitive play). And in casual play I've seen tuck do far more harm than good in terms of fun. Of course a message board like this, dedicated to the format, is going to have an over-representation of competitive players, but in my experience at the local level they are very much in the minority. So on the whole I think the change does more good than harm.
So "tucking" is a thing, and "hard to deal with" instant "win" is not? Ok, and from the perspective of new or casual player, who will try to play in the local store - what is easier to get lower than 3 bucks copy of Hinder / Chaos Warp / Oblation / Terminus or make a truly competitive deck (over 500$) that is killing faster than that guy Maelstorm Wanderer or many others. What will be the fun for them? Playing at the kitchen table with commander decks, made of some starter packs, is quite acceptable with these new rules.
That new player isn't going to beat competitive Maelstrom player either way. Having a couple answers isn't going to make the difference in trying to beat truly competitive decks if you are a new and/or casual player.
OTOH if that new player is fortunate enough to find a group of other new/casual players this change does prevent the very feel-bad moment of getting tucked.
The truth is "tuck" is a recognised effect, and has appeared in many cards. It's endorsed by Wizards. Created by Wizards. Played by the thousands.
So was ante, for a hot second.
And overnight, the RC decides to hate it? Are we playing EDH first, or are we playing Magic first? Or are we playing EDH using Magic cards?
Like you said, tuck effects have been around for a while. The RC didn't make some knee-jerk reaction. This is something that they had to consider ever since they created the rules that governed which effects returned the Commander to the Command Zone and which didn't. You obviously have a pretty negative opinion of the RC, but you really can't claim that no thought or deliberation went into this decision at all. Make all the arguments you want against their reasons, but you have to acknowledge that there were reasons.
The rules of a format always outweigh the rules of the game. We're playing a variant format. The fact that Commanders exist means that we're playing EDH and not traditional Magic.
I also find it funny that some Pros poke fun at EDH. "Why are you guys complaining about a casual format", "make your own rules!" It's pretty damning, but those particular words are wrong. Had Wizards own the rights to EDH, people might have a higher regard for it.
I love EDH, and it's the only constructed format I play. But... at the end of the day, it's a variant format. It's probably one of the most popular ones, and one that people take seriously. But really. If people who play constructed Magic basically for a living consider EDH kind of silly, I can't say I blame them. Wizards manages Planechase, and you don't see that getting a load of respect, yeah?
That new player isn't going to beat competitive Maelstrom player either way. Having a couple answers isn't going to make the difference in trying to beat truly competitive decks if you are a new and/or casual player.
OTOH if that new player is fortunate enough to find a group of other new/casual players this change does prevent the very feel-bad moment of getting tucked.
I don't get your point. Even casual players want to have a chance of having a answer
I think I'm just going to start playing commander less now. Tuck was the only reliable answer to the best decks in my local meta. I honestly don't think I can handle them anymore.
Anything to screw over blue some more, huh? First TC banned in Pauper as well as everything else, now this.
What did those of us who bought blue cards DO to you, WotC? Huh? Is our money somehow not as good as other's money?
Last I checked, blue is still over-represented in the eternal formats, and more importantly, Wizards has nothing to do with to with managing Commander.
Yes, can we all seriously address the real issue. I think it's long past time for this to change. Wizards is printing supplementary products for Commander, they should be the ones managing the rules. Nothing is stopping people from making their own house rules (Which has been a thing since the game was made) but having the makers of the game giving out some guidelines for a format rather than some random rules council I know little about would make trust the format a lot more. Sheldon and friends can have their own little group-hug spin-off formats if they want, but it shouldn't be pushed on everyone on a whim - duel commander already exists, so I see little downside.
That new player isn't going to beat competitive Maelstrom player either way. Having a couple answers isn't going to make the difference in trying to beat truly competitive decks if you are a new and/or casual player.
OTOH if that new player is fortunate enough to find a group of other new/casual players this change does prevent the very feel-bad moment of getting tucked.
I don't get your point. Even casual players want to have a chance of having a answer
My point is that the upside of them having a slightly better chance in the matchup against competitive players is more than offset by the downside of them feeling cheated when their own commander gets tucked in a fair/casual game. At least that has been my experience locally, as realistically $500 Maelstrom guy has backup plans or counters for that tuck and will probably win anyway. OTOH new guy doesn't get it when his supposedly unkillable commander, that he built his deck around, gets lost to the library because he made the mistake of casting him into a blue player with 3 mana open.
I like this change because I like reading threads like these. That said, it's poorly-reasoned.
If your commander would go into the library or your hand, you may choose to put it into the command zone. It's as simple as that. Just like with the graveyard, if you want it to go into the library or hand, you're more than welcome to let it. Note that this is a replacement effect, but it can apply multiple times to the same event.
There are four major points in how we arrived at this decision. None of them individually was the silver bullet; the combination of factors got us to where we ended up. In no particular order:
1) We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game.
Eh, I'd say being beat down by the same threat over and over is feel-worse. This rule change makes some existing strategies better or worse, and those that it helps are strategies generally regarded as feel-bad to play against, for example Zur lockdown or Sharuum combo (though I personally enjoy playing against both of these decks). Outside of a couple niche cards like Nevermore, Song of the Dryads, etc., it's now impossible to answer commanders for a significant amount of time. Spot removal and counterspells have always been bad tempo / CA.
2) The presence of tuck encourages players to play more tutors so that in case their commander gets sent to the library, they can get it back - exactly the opposite of what we want (namely, discouraging the over-representation of tutors).
Au contraire! The presence of tuck may encourage tutors, but in fact on average players will tutor more now that their commanders will always be available, simply because the commanders that commonly get tucked are tutors themselves - Zur, Arcum Dagsson, Momir Vig, Yisan, et cetera. Having a tutor sitting in the command zone is powerful enough - now it's unanswerable.
Furthermore, this point presupposes that "over-representing tutors" is bad for the format. Tutors increase consistency and allow decks to pilot the way they want to, the For god's sake, it's a 100-card singleton format. Did anybody seriously think serious players won't still be playing tutors? Tutors allow a deck to be consistent and play each game the way they're designed to play, the same way commanders allow players to play each game the way they like.
While we are keenly aware that tuck is a great weapon against problematic commanders, the tools to do so are available only in blue and white, potentially forcing players into feeling like they need to play those colors in order to survive. We prefer as diverse a field as possible.
The nature of Magic is that some colors have access to tools that other colors do not. Red has no good answer for enchantments, and black has only slightly more. This, of course, is known as the color pie. One may argue that the color pie is all good and fine for necessary abilities, and that players need to be able to tuck commanders to not just lose to those strategies. Of course, one would be digging themselves a hole with this argument, because of course the solution to that isn't to get rid of tucking altogether. I'm not suggesting a better solution here, but maybe if R&D want less blue in the format (White is pretty underplayed) then a banlist update was more appropriate. Ironically, the third-most played tuck spell is red, and Red is the most underplayed color in the format.
4) It clears up some corner case rules awkwardness, mostly dealing with knowing the commander's location in the library (since highly unlikely to actually end up there).
1. If new/inexperienced players want to quit the format or MtG because of losing their commander, then let them. An incident like that should be a learning experience, not an opportunity for childish pouting and rage-quitting.
2. Banning more commanders because of this rule is counterproductive, and I'd like to hear some actual evidence as to why tucking was a bad plan. I found it to be pretty excellent. Further, Condemn has never, ever been the only game in town. Oblation's been around for a while, and few things felt better than a Hallowed Burial hitting all opposing commanders.
4. I know the format is called "Commander" and one's selection of their commander has a lot to do with that, but that in and of itself shouldn't give carte blanche to people's degenerate commanders to constantly run roughshod in every game. I guess I don't like players feeling so entitled to 100% unencumbered access to their commanders.
Generally speaking, I understand people don't like getting their commanders tucked. However, I don't believe it was incredibly pervasive, nor do I believe it warped deckbuilding. People weren't using tutors just to get their commanders back, they used them (and will continue to) because they're remarkable on their own. Moreover, it was a legitimate tactic against potentially problematic and oppressive commanders. Again, I understand why people like it, and we're likely to forever disagree.
Completely agree.
Your first point I think is best. As I mentioned before. This isn't little kid softball where everyone wins. If new players will quit the format because they had their generals tucked, maybe magic isn't for them? It's not like they can shuffle up and play another game or anything. Having a commander tucked makes someone (I know I have) become more keenly aware of it as a valid mechanic. As another game zone it expands the breath of gameplay and mechanics. For example, in one game I found a cool interaction where playing a Vendilion Clique with an Equilibrium out on an opponent's commander lead to a tuck. The people in the game thought it was a pretty cool interaction and while the person who's commander got tucked wasn't thrilled, I think the opportunity to learn about new mechanics and interactions in the game is more valuable than people not being upset over a commander being tucked for one game. Interesting to note, the person who's commander got tucked is still playing EDH after that horrible affair...
I know I have learned more of the format from getting my own commanders tucked. You learn to become more aware of the mechanic and if that one blue player is holding up 1UU, then it's pretty easy to convince other players that attacking the "general-tucking blue mage" is the priority. It's a multiplayer game and politics play a big part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH:ShatterStax, Only The Strong Survive
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
What a joke. My venue will be house-ruling otherwise.
Also, "The presence of tuck encourages players to run more tutors." Um, what? No, people run tutors because they're absolutely absurd in this format, not because they're concerned about their general getting tucked.
The only reason I run Gamble in my mono Red EDH is to get my commander back if/when it gets tucked. Even if I discard it, it goes into the command zone. It only really seems to suit Daretti, Scrap Savant.
On a separate note (not referencing ArchaosTheDarkOne)- if you're tired of someone combing off on turn 3, stop playing with them. If you're all trying to combo off on turn 3, get over not having tuck. French has done away with tucking for some time now. I always feel like I'm hobbling someone if I tuck their commander and try to avoid it. While I'm not above/against a 5 card infinite combo to end a 4+ hour long game, I typically am against tucking someone's commander on turn 4 via Hinder or Spell Crumple before the game even begins. This might finally encourage people to run more spot removal in a wrath heavy format. The biggest problem general for this IMO is Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, but she's been a problem for a while now anyway.
Honestly, Maelstrom Wanderer isn't even that good of an example of a must-tuck commander because by the time you can tuck it, it's already generated so much value that the whole table is probably super behind. Worst-case, he's a three for one, but usually he's like a nine for one or something insane like that because he cascades into more X for ones. Hinder isn't going to prevent you from losing that game anyway. I've found that the most effective way of dealing with problematic commanders is killing their controllers before they can really get online.
I like how you went through and evaluated the decision by discussing each reason given by the RC. I feel like they have some valid point with reason #1. Reasons #2 and 3 are just terrible and contain factual errors. Reason #4 slightly confuses. I'm not sure what they are trying to say there because the wording is poor and they don't give examples. Are they saying that tucking presents issues with EDH rules because some EDH rules depend on always knowing the location of your commander? Are they saying that the knowledge that a commander is on the bottom of a library is problematic? I'm not sure I know what they are getting at there...as a result, I can't say its a good reason.
So, evaluating their reasoning, we have one reason that is somewhat okay. Two terrible reasons that aren't based on facts and a reason that I can't judge (but I'm guessing it isn't a very good reason).
Reason 1 would be a very good reason, and the only reason necessary, if there was evidence that the player pool in EDH was shrinking. However, the sales of the last two precon sets seem to very much imply otherwise. Thus significantly weakening the strength of reason 1.
One of the important nuances is the differences that take place by having a creature I can cast on tap from the command zone. It's what makes the format different from most of the others. The fact that it IS a nuanced interaction makes it intersting. Tucking a commander was a factor I had to account for, consder, design around and mitigate. I'd look for opportunities where Hinder and Spell Crumple opponents were tapped out. I'd keep tabs on who had used a Chaos Warp or an Oblation. Now I won't have to. I'll throw down the commander, if countered I'll just go again next turn. Takes a lot of the decison making out of it. Knowing that the commander will just be back will also mean I can change my deck construciton to a much more linear progression. Just cast 'em and eventually we're off! No need for "what if he gets tucked" scenario planning.
Did I miss the accompanying rule change where commanders no longer cost 2 more to recast each time from the command zone?
I like how you went through and evaluated the decision by discussing each reason given by the RC. I feel like they have some valid point with reason #1. Reasons #2 and 3 are just terrible and contain factual errors. Reason #4 slightly confuses. I'm not sure what they are trying to say there because the wording is poor and they don't give examples. Are they saying that tucking presents issues with EDH rules because some EDH rules depend on always knowing the location of your commander? Are they saying that the knowledge that a commander is on the bottom of a library is problematic? I'm not sure I know what they are getting at there...as a result, I can't say its a good reason.
Guys. There is ONE red tuck spell. (Warp World shouldn't count; you aren't using warp world as an answer to a commander, you are using it as a total board reset/combo setup.) The RC's statement that tuck is only in blue and white can easily be fixed with "the tools to tuck are primarily available only in blue and white, with merely a few non-blue/white options." I'm not saying this reason doesn't have it's problems but let's not get so hung up on the fact that chaos warp exists as the one red tuck spell.
What is the green tuck spell that hits commanders? The green tucks I can think of are Brutalizer Exarch (can't tuck creatures) and the older green cards that could put lands on tops of libraries.
Reason 1 would be a very good reason, and the only reason necessary, if there was evidence that the player pool in EDH was shrinking. However, the sales of the last two precon sets seem to very much imply otherwise. Thus significantly weakening the strength of reason 1.
I don't even think #1 is a good enough reason. It's a slippery slope for the rules committee to be policing what classifies as "feels bad." What's next? Countermagic? Mass land destruction? I know that's hyperbole, but not as much as you'd expect. Not everyone's gonna throw a hissyfit and quit a game because their commander's tucked. Some people actually accept it as a risk of casting their general and move on.
And just so it's clear, I'm completely against this new ruling. It's going to force people to run narrower removal in greater quantities to be able to handle "problem generals" in their meta that benefit from the tuck ban. No longer can I run the generally-useful Hinder to shuffle away Narset: I have to now grab Nevermore or Prison Term or, heck, even Declaration of Naught. All of which suck compared to Hinder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH/Commander
(W/U)(W/U)Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage: The New da Vinci (historic control)
(W/B)(W/B)Teysa Karlov: Death Be Not Kind (aristocrats)
(R/G)(R/G)Hallar, the Firefletcher: Yavimaya Burning (kicker and counters)
(B/G)(G/U)Sidisi, Brood Tyrant: Queen of the Damned (dredge)
Maybe Build
(W/U)(U/B)Aminatou, the Fateshifter: And a Child Shall Lead Them (superfriends)
I posted a thing on Tumblr about this too, but honestly, while I think this was a crappy decision on RC's part, it just means I personally have to change my rules, and now there are a few commanders that I will not play against, Derevi, Zur, Maelstrom Wanderer, and some of the more annoying voltron generals (Bruna, Uril)
My larger gripe with this change is that I feel like it rewards people for building unfun, inflexible, general-centric decks. Yes, your general is a large part of the game, and yes they should be powerful and important, but if you can't survive someone tucking your general, that is your fault, not the fault of the person who wanted to deal with it. Like someone said many, many pages back, those inflexible, can't win without their general decks are the least fun to play against.
I feel like RC unfortunately looks at this format in a way in which they enjoy it when people can just do what they want to do, but don't understand that what some people want to do is broken as *****. Their idea of fun is letting individual people play whatever they want, and unfortunately the problem with that is that they don't take into consideration the larger group as a whole. I dislike it when it seems like the rulings/bannings made essentially "baby" players.
I guess my final feeling on this is that it's in the spirit of the format, but unfortunately not in the format's best interests.
1. If new/inexperienced players want to quit the format or MtG because of losing their commander, then let them. An incident like that should be a learning experience, not an opportunity for childish pouting and rage-quitting.
That is a poor attitude and certainly not one supported by WotC as a whole. They try to remove the worst of the feel-bad elements of the game to emphasize the fun. It doesn't mean that you always win, it just means that you have fun while you are playing. The RC is following a similar trend by removing a feel-bad element from the format, the tucking of a commander. You call losing players "pouting", I call it preventing the format from growing and sustaining like it could.
2. Banning more commanders because of this rule is counterproductive, and I'd like to hear some actual evidence as to why tucking was a bad plan.
Some colours had little or no access to tuck effects, but every deck, supposedly, need to have the ability to deal with problematic commands. If you accept that some commanders are so problematic that you need to deal with them in a way beyond the Commander tax then you have to recognize that the Commander format is unique among the major magic formats that individual players can't just splash to find an answer like in Standard or Legacy.
4. I know the format is called "Commander" and one's selection of their commander has a lot to do with that, but that in and of itself shouldn't give carte blanche to people's degenerate commanders to constantly run roughshod in every game. I guess I don't like players feeling so entitled to 100% unencumbered access to their commanders.
But that's not what is happening either. Players will still have mana problems for expensive commanders or ones that are killed repeatedly. Players can still run cards like Nevermore to shut down strategies for a while.
Generally speaking, I understand people don't like getting their commanders tucked. However, I don't believe it was incredibly pervasive, nor do I believe it warped deckbuilding.
How many experienced deck designers thought about building a Commander-centric synergy deck that didn't win right away and then change their mind because of the possibly of having their commander tucked? As for not being pervasive, as time goes on more and more tuck spells will be made and it will become more and more pervasive. If you look at Commanders as a form of card advantage then tucking a commander almost always makes sense since you deny your opponent card advantage. At a certain point enough good tuck spells will exist that it makes sense to try to tuck every commander in every game and that is not good for the format.
I don't even think #1 is a good enough reason. It's a slippery slope for the rules committee to be policing what classifies as "feels bad." What's next? Countermagic? Mass land destruction? I know that's hyperbole, but not as much as you'd expect. Not everyone's gonna throw a hissyfit and quit a game because their commander's tucked. Some people actually accept it as a risk of casting their general and move on.
And just so it's clear, I'm completely against this new ruling. It's going to force people to run narrower removal in greater quantities to be able to handle "problem generals" in their meta that benefit from the tuck ban. No longer can I run the generally-useful Hinder to shuffle away Narset: I have to now grab Nevermore or Prison Term or, heck, even Declaration of Naught. All of which suck compared to Hinder.
I agree, reason 1 isn't very good. Unless new players are quitting because of tuck and the format is dying. Which does not not appear to be true.
Did I miss the accompanying rule change where commanders no longer cost 2 more to recast each time from the command zone?
Something that doesn't mean much a lot of the time.
/Disagree. This depends on your deck, and it's colors. If I'm playing Talrand, and it costs 10 mana to drop my Commander, I'm not going to blindly play him into removal. The biggest commander you hear complaints about from this is Derevi, and that's because it throws tax out the window.
Your commander should be more than just a color enabler. If your response to someone getting their commander tucked is, "run more good-stuff," that makes decks a lot more commonplace/boring IMO.
When I first read about this change, my thoughts were "What the hell!?"
And then I started to think about my playgroup's meta and the games we've had and realised it isn't all that bad.
Now mind you we don't have a cutthroat meta where everyone has all the best-of cards and also there is no such thing as a turn 3 super combo in my playgroup. Also we don't run that many tutors - which made tucking quite the powerful mechanic.
With that in mind, I now welcome the change. For most decks where tucking was very effective (there is a strong Tajic voltron deck in my playgroup for example) were really gimped when it happened, they pretty much sat there and either had to wait for a tutor or be lucky to get their commander back (like I said, we don't run that many tutors).
And it's not like there's no answer for those decks if you can't tuck the commander anymore. You can still tuck other things if need be and it's usually a combination of cards that was the downfall, not the commander single-handedly - at least not in our playgroup.
It's certainly going to make Derevi even more oppressive. Most Derevi decks run a ton of sac outlets, so the only real thing that will truly counter it is Desertion. Really all this change does is make theft effects better than they were. Well, and make sac outlets better, but you should already be running those.
If people are quitting because of their commander is tucked, they really need to harden up. How are they going to feel when they're facing down a Nevermore or Pithing Needle instead? It's not like Red and Black are flushed with answers (I've seen Gate to Phyrexia played exactly once). It's like dangling a piece of candy in front of a child - they can see it, but not use it. And it seems like the people this rules change is targeting are the kind of people to not run many answer cards to begin with. If we're really heading towards the road where pithing needle and phyrexian revoker become commonplace (I don't think it will), all this rules change is going to do is make the format less fun, especially when we have some of the strongest generals getting even stronger with the change.
Oh, and just for the record, I'm not really the person playing the tuck spells (I play Bant Charm in Roon, that's it), my generals are usually the ones getting hit by them (Rafiq and Zirilan) so it's not like I really have a stake in this. I should be glad my Zirilan can't get tucked now, but I'm not. That should be saying something.
And yeah, killing a commander is effective against some decks, but there is a threshold where you stop playing them - there's only so many times I can play Kangee with a meaningful kicker, and Tariel costs a billion to cast to begin with. On the other hand, killing Azusa does nothing since she conveniently puts in the extra lands you need to cast her, but tuck her, and I have to play slightly fairer.
-edit- I guess all I'm really trying to say is that I think their reasoning for behind their changes are very wrong and don't make any sense when you did deeper into it.
/Disagree. This depends on your deck, and it's colors. If I'm playing Talrand, and it costs 10 mana to drop my Commander, I'm not going to blindly play him into removal. The biggest commander you hear complaints about from this is Derevi, and that's because it throws tax out the window.
If you build your mono-blue deck around your commander and have a hard time keeping him from getting taxed out of the game (especially Talrand, King of 1-2 cmc instants) you have bigger issues than tuck. The commander is by far the most powerful card in any deck simply because it's pre-tutored and really hard to get rid of (despite what people think, tuck is not ~that~ common), and if you want to build a deck that needs your commander, you need to build for that. I build decks that largely disregard the commander except to use it as a grease slot, and I have to build around that.
Your commander should be more than just a color enabler. If your response to someone getting their commander tucked is, "run more good-stuff," that makes decks a lot more commonplace/boring IMO.
That first sentence should not be a claim made with any sense or tone of authority - it's simply not a a universal. My response to someone getting their commander tucked is "good thing you build a diverse enough deck to play the game" because nobody I know expects other people to acquiesce to their style of play or poor deck building. It's a competitive game where every party is trying to win and if we see a potential weakness, we make sure we take advantage of that when we can.
Metagames where people restrict (through rules or social pressure) the power of Answers in order to elevate Threats are not diverse - they tend to be overrun by UGx Goodstuff piles and have high turn over. Getting rid of tuck doesn't add anything to the game and it based on some very narrow and possibly false assumptions about how people play the game.
And since this seems to be a matter of "my way vs. your way" throughout this thread, I think it's worth noting that I built all kinds of decks that rely on their commander from "Main way of winning" all the way to "just there for Color ID and something to do if I don't have a hand anymore." I am not the person people complain about for being a "spike" and understand that this game is primarily a social endeavor. But, within the game there are mechanics we use to balance out other mechanics, and eliminating tuck is a big hit on the solutions every color combination outside of Mono-black uses to address the over powered bull***** their opponents are doing. Every game developer tries to balance threat and control. Every player seeks to create balance between these as well. And, a big part of why people are pissed off about this is that we had a good balance that just got shifted.
So "tucking" is a thing, and "hard to deal with" instant "win" is not? Ok, and from the perspective of new or casual player, who will try to play in the local store - what is easier to get lower than 3 bucks copy of Hinder / Spell Crumple / Chaos Warp / Oblation / Terminus or make a truly competitive deck (over 500$) that is killing faster than that guy's Maelstorm Wanderer or many others combo killers. What will be the fun for them? Playing at the kitchen table with commander decks, made of some starter packs, is quite acceptable with these new rules.
That new player isn't going to beat competitive Maelstrom player either way. Having a couple answers isn't going to make the difference in trying to beat truly competitive decks if you are a new and/or casual player.
OTOH if that new player is fortunate enough to find a group of other new/casual players this change does prevent the very feel-bad moment of getting tucked.
So was ante, for a hot second.
Like you said, tuck effects have been around for a while. The RC didn't make some knee-jerk reaction. This is something that they had to consider ever since they created the rules that governed which effects returned the Commander to the Command Zone and which didn't. You obviously have a pretty negative opinion of the RC, but you really can't claim that no thought or deliberation went into this decision at all. Make all the arguments you want against their reasons, but you have to acknowledge that there were reasons.
The rules of a format always outweigh the rules of the game. We're playing a variant format. The fact that Commanders exist means that we're playing EDH and not traditional Magic.
I love EDH, and it's the only constructed format I play. But... at the end of the day, it's a variant format. It's probably one of the most popular ones, and one that people take seriously. But really. If people who play constructed Magic basically for a living consider EDH kind of silly, I can't say I blame them. Wizards manages Planechase, and you don't see that getting a load of respect, yeah?
Draft my Peasant Cube.
I don't get your point. Even casual players want to have a chance of having a answer
Yes, can we all seriously address the real issue. I think it's long past time for this to change. Wizards is printing supplementary products for Commander, they should be the ones managing the rules. Nothing is stopping people from making their own house rules (Which has been a thing since the game was made) but having the makers of the game giving out some guidelines for a format rather than some random rules council I know little about would make trust the format a lot more. Sheldon and friends can have their own little group-hug spin-off formats if they want, but it shouldn't be pushed on everyone on a whim - duel commander already exists, so I see little downside.
My point is that the upside of them having a slightly better chance in the matchup against competitive players is more than offset by the downside of them feeling cheated when their own commander gets tucked in a fair/casual game. At least that has been my experience locally, as realistically $500 Maelstrom guy has backup plans or counters for that tuck and will probably win anyway. OTOH new guy doesn't get it when his supposedly unkillable commander, that he built his deck around, gets lost to the library because he made the mistake of casting him into a blue player with 3 mana open.
http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/2015/03/24/an-open-letter-to-sheldon/
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
Eh, I'd say being beat down by the same threat over and over is feel-worse. This rule change makes some existing strategies better or worse, and those that it helps are strategies generally regarded as feel-bad to play against, for example Zur lockdown or Sharuum combo (though I personally enjoy playing against both of these decks). Outside of a couple niche cards like Nevermore, Song of the Dryads, etc., it's now impossible to answer commanders for a significant amount of time. Spot removal and counterspells have always been bad tempo / CA.
Au contraire! The presence of tuck may encourage tutors, but in fact on average players will tutor more now that their commanders will always be available, simply because the commanders that commonly get tucked are tutors themselves - Zur, Arcum Dagsson, Momir Vig, Yisan, et cetera. Having a tutor sitting in the command zone is powerful enough - now it's unanswerable.
Furthermore, this point presupposes that "over-representing tutors" is bad for the format. Tutors increase consistency and allow decks to pilot the way they want to, the For god's sake, it's a 100-card singleton format. Did anybody seriously think serious players won't still be playing tutors? Tutors allow a deck to be consistent and play each game the way they're designed to play, the same way commanders allow players to play each game the way they like.
The nature of Magic is that some colors have access to tools that other colors do not. Red has no good answer for enchantments, and black has only slightly more. This, of course, is known as the color pie. One may argue that the color pie is all good and fine for necessary abilities, and that players need to be able to tuck commanders to not just lose to those strategies. Of course, one would be digging themselves a hole with this argument, because of course the solution to that isn't to get rid of tucking altogether. I'm not suggesting a better solution here, but maybe if R&D want less blue in the format (White is pretty underplayed) then a banlist update was more appropriate. Ironically, the third-most played tuck spell is red, and Red is the most underplayed color in the format.
Yeah I'm not gonna lie I like this reason
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
Completely agree.
Your first point I think is best. As I mentioned before. This isn't little kid softball where everyone wins. If new players will quit the format because they had their generals tucked, maybe magic isn't for them? It's not like they can shuffle up and play another game or anything. Having a commander tucked makes someone (I know I have) become more keenly aware of it as a valid mechanic. As another game zone it expands the breath of gameplay and mechanics. For example, in one game I found a cool interaction where playing a Vendilion Clique with an Equilibrium out on an opponent's commander lead to a tuck. The people in the game thought it was a pretty cool interaction and while the person who's commander got tucked wasn't thrilled, I think the opportunity to learn about new mechanics and interactions in the game is more valuable than people not being upset over a commander being tucked for one game. Interesting to note, the person who's commander got tucked is still playing EDH after that horrible affair...
I know I have learned more of the format from getting my own commanders tucked. You learn to become more aware of the mechanic and if that one blue player is holding up 1UU, then it's pretty easy to convince other players that attacking the "general-tucking blue mage" is the priority. It's a multiplayer game and politics play a big part.
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
Modern: Fish, JUND/Junk
--------
RIP Twin
The only reason I run Gamble in my mono Red EDH is to get my commander back if/when it gets tucked. Even if I discard it, it goes into the command zone. It only really seems to suit Daretti, Scrap Savant.
On a separate note (not referencing ArchaosTheDarkOne)- if you're tired of someone combing off on turn 3, stop playing with them. If you're all trying to combo off on turn 3, get over not having tuck. French has done away with tucking for some time now. I always feel like I'm hobbling someone if I tuck their commander and try to avoid it. While I'm not above/against a 5 card infinite combo to end a 4+ hour long game, I typically am against tucking someone's commander on turn 4 via Hinder or Spell Crumple before the game even begins. This might finally encourage people to run more spot removal in a wrath heavy format. The biggest problem general for this IMO is Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, but she's been a problem for a while now anyway.
I like how you went through and evaluated the decision by discussing each reason given by the RC. I feel like they have some valid point with reason #1. Reasons #2 and 3 are just terrible and contain factual errors. Reason #4 slightly confuses. I'm not sure what they are trying to say there because the wording is poor and they don't give examples. Are they saying that tucking presents issues with EDH rules because some EDH rules depend on always knowing the location of your commander? Are they saying that the knowledge that a commander is on the bottom of a library is problematic? I'm not sure I know what they are getting at there...as a result, I can't say its a good reason.
So, evaluating their reasoning, we have one reason that is somewhat okay. Two terrible reasons that aren't based on facts and a reason that I can't judge (but I'm guessing it isn't a very good reason).
Reason 1 would be a very good reason, and the only reason necessary, if there was evidence that the player pool in EDH was shrinking. However, the sales of the last two precon sets seem to very much imply otherwise. Thus significantly weakening the strength of reason 1.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
Did I miss the accompanying rule change where commanders no longer cost 2 more to recast each time from the command zone?
Guys. There is ONE red tuck spell. (Warp World shouldn't count; you aren't using warp world as an answer to a commander, you are using it as a total board reset/combo setup.) The RC's statement that tuck is only in blue and white can easily be fixed with "the tools to tuck are primarily available only in blue and white, with merely a few non-blue/white options." I'm not saying this reason doesn't have it's problems but let's not get so hung up on the fact that chaos warp exists as the one red tuck spell.
What is the green tuck spell that hits commanders? The green tucks I can think of are Brutalizer Exarch (can't tuck creatures) and the older green cards that could put lands on tops of libraries.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I don't even think #1 is a good enough reason. It's a slippery slope for the rules committee to be policing what classifies as "feels bad." What's next? Countermagic? Mass land destruction? I know that's hyperbole, but not as much as you'd expect. Not everyone's gonna throw a hissyfit and quit a game because their commander's tucked. Some people actually accept it as a risk of casting their general and move on.
And just so it's clear, I'm completely against this new ruling. It's going to force people to run narrower removal in greater quantities to be able to handle "problem generals" in their meta that benefit from the tuck ban. No longer can I run the generally-useful Hinder to shuffle away Narset: I have to now grab Nevermore or Prison Term or, heck, even Declaration of Naught. All of which suck compared to Hinder.
I posted a thing on Tumblr about this too, but honestly, while I think this was a crappy decision on RC's part, it just means I personally have to change my rules, and now there are a few commanders that I will not play against, Derevi, Zur, Maelstrom Wanderer, and some of the more annoying voltron generals (Bruna, Uril)
My larger gripe with this change is that I feel like it rewards people for building unfun, inflexible, general-centric decks. Yes, your general is a large part of the game, and yes they should be powerful and important, but if you can't survive someone tucking your general, that is your fault, not the fault of the person who wanted to deal with it. Like someone said many, many pages back, those inflexible, can't win without their general decks are the least fun to play against.
I feel like RC unfortunately looks at this format in a way in which they enjoy it when people can just do what they want to do, but don't understand that what some people want to do is broken as *****. Their idea of fun is letting individual people play whatever they want, and unfortunately the problem with that is that they don't take into consideration the larger group as a whole. I dislike it when it seems like the rulings/bannings made essentially "baby" players.
I guess my final feeling on this is that it's in the spirit of the format, but unfortunately not in the format's best interests.
WUBRGCommander Decklists - PaperWUBRG
CCCCCommander Decklists - TheorycraftCCCC
Sig Credit: Pegasus Bishop
That is a poor attitude and certainly not one supported by WotC as a whole. They try to remove the worst of the feel-bad elements of the game to emphasize the fun. It doesn't mean that you always win, it just means that you have fun while you are playing. The RC is following a similar trend by removing a feel-bad element from the format, the tucking of a commander. You call losing players "pouting", I call it preventing the format from growing and sustaining like it could.
Some colours had little or no access to tuck effects, but every deck, supposedly, need to have the ability to deal with problematic commands. If you accept that some commanders are so problematic that you need to deal with them in a way beyond the Commander tax then you have to recognize that the Commander format is unique among the major magic formats that individual players can't just splash to find an answer like in Standard or Legacy.
But that's not what is happening either. Players will still have mana problems for expensive commanders or ones that are killed repeatedly. Players can still run cards like Nevermore to shut down strategies for a while.
How many experienced deck designers thought about building a Commander-centric synergy deck that didn't win right away and then change their mind because of the possibly of having their commander tucked? As for not being pervasive, as time goes on more and more tuck spells will be made and it will become more and more pervasive. If you look at Commanders as a form of card advantage then tucking a commander almost always makes sense since you deny your opponent card advantage. At a certain point enough good tuck spells will exist that it makes sense to try to tuck every commander in every game and that is not good for the format.
I agree, reason 1 isn't very good. Unless new players are quitting because of tuck and the format is dying. Which does not not appear to be true.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
/Disagree. This depends on your deck, and it's colors. If I'm playing Talrand, and it costs 10 mana to drop my Commander, I'm not going to blindly play him into removal. The biggest commander you hear complaints about from this is Derevi, and that's because it throws tax out the window.
Your commander should be more than just a color enabler. If your response to someone getting their commander tucked is, "run more good-stuff," that makes decks a lot more commonplace/boring IMO.
And then I started to think about my playgroup's meta and the games we've had and realised it isn't all that bad.
Now mind you we don't have a cutthroat meta where everyone has all the best-of cards and also there is no such thing as a turn 3 super combo in my playgroup. Also we don't run that many tutors - which made tucking quite the powerful mechanic.
With that in mind, I now welcome the change. For most decks where tucking was very effective (there is a strong Tajic voltron deck in my playgroup for example) were really gimped when it happened, they pretty much sat there and either had to wait for a tutor or be lucky to get their commander back (like I said, we don't run that many tutors).
And it's not like there's no answer for those decks if you can't tuck the commander anymore. You can still tuck other things if need be and it's usually a combination of cards that was the downfall, not the commander single-handedly - at least not in our playgroup.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Oh, and just for the record, I'm not really the person playing the tuck spells (I play Bant Charm in Roon, that's it), my generals are usually the ones getting hit by them (Rafiq and Zirilan) so it's not like I really have a stake in this. I should be glad my Zirilan can't get tucked now, but I'm not. That should be saying something.
And yeah, killing a commander is effective against some decks, but there is a threshold where you stop playing them - there's only so many times I can play Kangee with a meaningful kicker, and Tariel costs a billion to cast to begin with. On the other hand, killing Azusa does nothing since she conveniently puts in the extra lands you need to cast her, but tuck her, and I have to play slightly fairer.
-edit- I guess all I'm really trying to say is that I think their reasoning for behind their changes are very wrong and don't make any sense when you did deeper into it.
That first sentence should not be a claim made with any sense or tone of authority - it's simply not a a universal. My response to someone getting their commander tucked is "good thing you build a diverse enough deck to play the game" because nobody I know expects other people to acquiesce to their style of play or poor deck building. It's a competitive game where every party is trying to win and if we see a potential weakness, we make sure we take advantage of that when we can.
Metagames where people restrict (through rules or social pressure) the power of Answers in order to elevate Threats are not diverse - they tend to be overrun by UGx Goodstuff piles and have high turn over. Getting rid of tuck doesn't add anything to the game and it based on some very narrow and possibly false assumptions about how people play the game.
And since this seems to be a matter of "my way vs. your way" throughout this thread, I think it's worth noting that I built all kinds of decks that rely on their commander from "Main way of winning" all the way to "just there for Color ID and something to do if I don't have a hand anymore." I am not the person people complain about for being a "spike" and understand that this game is primarily a social endeavor. But, within the game there are mechanics we use to balance out other mechanics, and eliminating tuck is a big hit on the solutions every color combination outside of Mono-black uses to address the over powered bull***** their opponents are doing. Every game developer tries to balance threat and control. Every player seeks to create balance between these as well. And, a big part of why people are pissed off about this is that we had a good balance that just got shifted.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.