As long as there is not a sincere thread titled "why can't That Which Was Taken be my commander" it is a hyperbolic meaningless distraction within this thread so in reality it is.
"This argument that makes a valid point about the inherit weakness of my argument is inconvenient because I have no answer for it, so I'm going to dismiss it out of hand and act as if it is invalid."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I would agree with you if I felt your argument came in good faith, which is the post you are responding to right there.
Again, it's not a convenient argument so you look for ways to dismiss it. Talking about legendary lands was hyperbole, but people have definitely wanted to play interesting non legendary creatures, as well as non creature legendary spells before. What about Elbrus, the Binding Blade? What about the land that flips into a legendary demon? Neither can be your commander because they aren't legendary creatures, but they clearly represent legendary creatures. How about the kamigawa flip legends that start off as non legendary creatures?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I have played in games with someone playing Skysovereign, Consul Flagship as their Commander my issue with this strain of the conversation is not the idea of it which has been made pretty clear from my posts on the last couple pages, and it is doing exactly what I was worried it was going to do.
It isn't an argument for this topic, and I think to continue bringing up like it is legitimate for this thread is in bad faith and meant as diversionary.
Again, the pro planeswalker crowd seems to.miss that this is a format based around legendary creatures, so any argument for allowing walkers as commanders has to not only show that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but do so significantly enough to warrant major change to the rules of the format. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this, and most people still feel that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Again, the pro planeswalker crowd seems to.miss that this is a format based around legendary creatures, so any argument for allowing walkers as commanders has to not only show that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but do so significantly enough to warrant major change to the rules of the format. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this, and most people still feel that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Edh originally only had 5 legal commanders.
Was it originally Elder DRAGON Highlander?
So shouldn't we only play with Dragons as generals?
I have played in games with someone playing Skysovereign, Consul Flagship as their Commander my issue with this strain of the conversation is not the idea of it which has been made pretty clear from my posts on the last couple pages, and it is doing exactly what I was worried it was going to do.
It isn't an argument for this topic, and I think to continue bringing up like it is legitimate for this thread is in bad faith and meant as diversionary.
Not being convenient for you doesn't mean it's bad faith and diversionary. It's a valid reason to be against allowing planeswalkers as commanders. It's cool that you've played against a westherlight deck, seems like it got house ruled in, just like, oh my gosh, can be done for planeswalker commanders like, oh my gosh, I've been saying for months. The issue isn't whether people should be able to house rule these things, it's whether these changes should be officially made for everyone. House rules, and encouraging house rules exist specifically so playgroups can customize the format to their whims.
Are you honestly suggesting that legendary artifacts be allowed as commanders? Because if you aren't, your example of having one time played against a house ruled Westherlight deck IS an actual example of a bad faith argument. You bring it up solely to dismiss the point I was making without addressing it (similarly to how you misused the term whataboutism).
Pointing out that changing a defining aspect of the format should be justified, and actually expecting the side arguing for the change to be able to do so, is not arguing in bad faith. Pointing out that a specific change could be more broadly applied and expecting the side in favor of the change to make a substantial argument as to how the change could be both narrowly yet consistently applied is not arguing in bad faith. The arguments made in favor of making all planeswalkers legal commanders could be used for other legendary permanent types and non legendary creatures. If the RC decided to allow planeswalkers as commanders, why shouldn't they allow legendary enchantments or artifacts or Tamanoa? This isn't a diversion, it's a legitimate question that cuts to the core of the pro planeswalker argument that you have not been able to answer, and rather than attempt to you dismissively claim that I, and others, are arguing in bad faith.
And thanks, Illakunsa, for the history lesson devoid of any context. Yes, originally EDH only allowed the elder dragons as generals. This was changed to allowing any legendary creature because, get this, making that substantive change to the rules added significant positive value to the format that severely outweighed whatever negative it brought (annoying commanders let's say). It allowed for mono color, two color, five color, and 3 color wedge decks, as well as build around commanders, and staying at only five commanders would lead to format stagnation. Those are excellent arguments in favor of making that change, and arguments for the status quo could not hope to match them. Allowing pws does none of these things. It add a handful of potentially interesting commanders, which is something that we get every year anyway. Ok, well allowing non legendary creatures would do that far more effectively, and allowing any legendary permanent would do so about as effectively. People want to build around walkers. Well, people want to build around some non legendary creatures and legendary non creatures as well. There's no reason why, if you are going to change the rules to allow planeswalkers, you shouldn't also change the rules to allow these other, equivalent things. I mean, legendary enchantments actually have almost as much precedent as pws being used as commanders, once you take into account flip walkers and Theros gods.
Here's the thing, the argument for allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is actually a lot better, in my eyes, when you expand it to include all legendary permanents and non legendary creatures. Doing so actually adds enough to the format to make the change worth it and is far less arbitrary than just allowing planeswalkers. Sure, you'd have to bring back BaaC to avoid a lot of bannings, but if all these new options were added it would be worth it to bring back the rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I would agree with you if I felt your argument came in good faith, which is the post you are responding to right there.
Again, it's not a convenient argument so you look for ways to dismiss it. Talking about legendary lands was hyperbole, but people have definitely wanted to play interesting non legendary creatures, as well as non creature legendary spells before. What about Elbrus, the Binding Blade? What about the land that flips into a legendary demon? Neither can be your commander because they aren't legendary creatures, but they clearly represent legendary creatures. How about the kamigawa flip legends that start off as non legendary creatures?
I asked my playgroup years ago if I could try Genju of the Realm as my commander, and I've played against Nephilim decks. This is exactly what house rules are for. I would in no way ever want the RC to change the rules to mainstream these decks, just as I would never want to see the commander slot opened up to all planeswalkers.
I'm with Onering and toctheyounger77 here.
And I want to reiterate - Commander is about leading an army with a legendary creature, not a legendary whatever. No one takes arguments seriously that favor legalizing legendary lands, legendary enchantments, legendary artifacts, or legendary sorceries as a commander, and they shouldn't because these are really bad ideas. They are, in fact, equally as bad as legalizing legendary planeswalkers, which is why it makes such a great comparison and why you can't just dismiss it out of hand as a counterpoint.
Yes, somecards have extra text saying "this can be your commander." Yes, individual cards can trump normal rules. No, we shouldn't ever treat the exception as the rule.
Its been said before and it will be said again: The reason plaenswalkers are more of a topic than a legendary land, legendary enchantment, legendary artifact, legendary sorcery, or legendary instant is because of that extra bit of rules text like on Teferi, Temporal Archmage. That text alone gives them something that other suggestions lack: A foot in the door.
If the RC was fully against planeswalkers being commanders, they should ban the ones with that rules text that allows them to be a commander in order to send a message to Wizards. Not doing so has created this messy gray zone. Yet the issue now is banning those commanderwalkers is putting eleven whole cards on the banlist and the RC wants to be hands off. Sure at your friend's house you can have your houserule ban on them, but that bird doesn't fly within sanctioned environments.
Whether you love them or hate them or are just indifferent, you got to admit this is pretty much why this is happening.
[quote from="Taleran »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/779507-poll-planeswalkers-as-playable-generals?comment=330"]I would agree with you if I felt your argument came in good faith, which is the post you are responding to right there.
Commander is about leading an army with a legendary creature, not a legendary whatever. No one takes arguments seriously that favor legalizing legendary lands, legendary enchantments, legendary artifacts, or legendary sorceries as a commander, and they shouldn't because these are really bad ideas. They are, in fact, equally as bad as legalizing legendary planeswalkers, which is why it makes such a great comparison and why you can't just dismiss it out of hand as a counterpoint.
Yes, somecards have extra text saying "this can be your commander." Yes, individual cards can trump normal rules. No, we shouldn't ever treat the exception as the rule
So a legendary creature can lead an army, but legendary Planeswalker can't?
What kind of logic is that?
And by the way, the one sentence says otherwise, there are already PW's leading the armies.
Yes, the sentence is only on a few PW's. But it is. With the current trend, the amount of PW's with the rule will grow, so you will end up with an increasing pool of PW's as playable generals.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
You cannot just pretend this is not an issue, will just vanish or is something that won't be questioned in upcomming years, because the pool of playable PW's will grow and grow.
As said before, only reason why Wizz did not include the specific sentence onto the current standard walkers is because it would confuse standard players. Otherwise it would be there...
[quote from="Taleran »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/779507-poll-planeswalkers-as-playable-generals?comment=330"]I would agree with you if I felt your argument came in good faith, which is the post you are responding to right there.
Commander is about leading an army with a legendary creature, not a legendary whatever. No one takes arguments seriously that favor legalizing legendary lands, legendary enchantments, legendary artifacts, or legendary sorceries as a commander, and they shouldn't because these are really bad ideas. They are, in fact, equally as bad as legalizing legendary planeswalkers, which is why it makes such a great comparison and why you can't just dismiss it out of hand as a counterpoint.
Yes, somecards have extra text saying "this can be your commander." Yes, individual cards can trump normal rules. No, we shouldn't ever treat the exception as the rule
So a legendary creature can lead an army, but legendary Planeswalker can't?
What kind of logic is that?
And by the way, the one sentence says otherwise, there are already PW's leading the armies.
Yes, the sentence is only on a few PW's. But it is. With the current trend, the amount of PW's with the rule will grow, so you will end up with an increasing pool of PW's as playable generals.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
You cannot just pretend this is not an issue, will just vanish or is something that won't be questioned in upcomming years, because the pool of playable PW's will grow and grow.
As said before, only reason why Wizz did not include the specific sentence onto the current standard walkers is because it would confuse standard players. Otherwise it would be there...
This as well.
To wizards, the message the RC and playerbase have sent to them when regarding commandwalkers is "this is fine and we want mind more". It may make some of the people revolt against that notion, but people voted with their wallet and the RC voted with their banlist, this voting as I put it to be in favor of the commandwalkers.
They can pick apart arguments all day if they want, but that is not going to change the goals of wizards at the end of the day. As I suspect that wizards has been playing the long game all of this time. What with the seeding of commandwalkers into the format, changing planeswalkers into legendary permanents, creating a mini version of what they want with the Brawl standard format to test the waters in a more controlled environment.
After all, they struck gold with planeswalkers, they are a powerful marketing tool that has helped grow their playerbase exponentially over the past decade and strengthened the brand recognition behind it. What better way, besides lore requested cards and interesting legendary creatures, to help grow this format. To drive-up interest and sales for it. Wizards can love and appreciate the format while doing this, but they still also want it to be more marketable to the average player.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
So, why not just ride it out and wait for the list of “can be your commander” PW’s to grow?
If anything, this proves that bringing all PW into the fold as playable generals isn’t the right move, because the list of legal ones will inevitably grow, and you won’t have to worry about poor format interactions or bans out of the gate.
So, yeah. Pretty poor point to try and make your argument.
I’d also like to add that, so far, there have been a lot of spoiled ‘walkers that are going to be problematic with their static abilities, and that list will also inevitably grow. Powerful, enchantment-like, abilities in the command zone are not good for the format, period. Forcing WOTC to take an additional format into consideration when designing their “flagship” cards is poor business sense. People who don’t understand business economics really shouldn’t try and bring them up in their arguments. But what do I know, I mean, I’m debating this point with people who think, and agree, that 36% is a majority...
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
So, why not just ride it out and wait for the list of “can be your commander” PW’s to grow?
If anything, this proves that bringing all PW into the fold as playable generals isn’t the right move, because the list of legal ones will inevitably grow, and you won’t have to worry about poor format interactions or bans out of the gate.
So, yeah. Pretty poor point to try and make your argument.
I’d also like to add that, so far, there have been a lot of spoiled ‘walkers that are going to be problematic with their static abilities, and that list will also inevitably grow. Powerful, enchantment-like, abilities in the command zone are not good for the format, period. Forcing WOTC to take an additional format into consideration when designing their “flagship” cards is poor business sense. People who don’t understand business economics really shouldn’t try and bring them up in their arguments. But what do I know, I mean, I’m debating this point with people who think, and agree, that 36% is a majority...
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
There is a lot of poor interactions even now, so that's a bad argument.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right?
Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
Please, enlighten us how WOTC who with printing Commander products found a gold mine is forced into poor business sense.
Obviously you have PhD from the business economics so maybe you could teach us a thing or two here and explain it to us how does it work.
I am really curious for that.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
You can argue that 49.9 is minority. Because it's less than 50.1.
The minority in the poll is the 7.5% of undecided people. I wouldn't call the 36.8% a minority.
But if this is what bothers you and what you point out is playing with words, say it beforehand.
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
Then ban all cards that workaround the rules. Shadowborne Apostle and Relentless Rats. This is kind of a nonsensical argument. Pretty clear that the defining characteristic of a PW that can your general is that it requires the text that says so.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right? Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
To the highlighted bit.
No, it’s not. Those are creatures. And yes, hey have powerful static abilities, so your answer is to introduce more of those effects on cards that are inherently harder to interact with? Looks like your argument is the one falling apart here.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
Stop. Take a break. Do something else, but please stop posting this BS. This isn’t cute, and it most certainly harms any credibility you may think you have. You want to question my business “PHD”, yet, you post ignorant garbage like this. I mean, send me 55.7% of your stuff, and burn the other 7.6%, let me know how that leaves you with the majority of your stuff.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
So, why not just ride it out and wait for the list of “can be your commander” PW’s to grow?
If anything, this proves that bringing all PW into the fold as playable generals isn’t the right move, because the list of legal ones will inevitably grow, and you won’t have to worry about poor format interactions or bans out of the gate.
So, yeah. Pretty poor point to try and make your argument.
I’d also like to add that, so far, there have been a lot of spoiled ‘walkers that are going to be problematic with their static abilities, and that list will also inevitably grow. Powerful, enchantment-like, abilities in the command zone are not good for the format, period. Forcing WOTC to take an additional format into consideration when designing their “flagship” cards is poor business sense. People who don’t understand business economics really shouldn’t try and bring them up in their arguments. But what do I know, I mean, I’m debating this point with people who think, and agree, that 36% is a majority...
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
There is a lot of poor interactions even now, so that's a bad argument.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right?
Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
Please, enlighten us how WOTC who with printing Commander products found a gold mine is forced into poor business sense.
Obviously you have PhD from the business economics so maybe you could teach us a thing or two here and explain it to us how does it work.
I am really curious for that.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
You can argue that 49.9 is minority. Because it's less than 50.1.
The minority in the poll is the 7.5% of undecided people. I wouldn't call the 36.8% a minority.
But if this is what bothers you and what you point out is playing with words, say it beforehand.
You need to go back to school. The pro planeswalker side is the textbook definition of a minority. Its significantly less than half. It's barely over a third. Yes, undecided is smaller, which makes it an even smaller minority. And the opposing side represents an actual majority, and not even just a bare one. When judging mechanics and planes to see if they should be brought back, those kind of numbers translate into probably not.
Allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is an unpopular opinion that would require a fundamental change to the rules and nature of the format, would add little of value to the format while adding an equivalent amount of negatives, and is broadly hypocritical in it's approach. "So legendary creatures can lead armies, why not legendary planeswalkers?" Lol, why not non legendary creatures? Hell, it's especially goofy when you consider that there are many non legendary creatures that are straight up military leaders. It's a flavor argument true, but once you examine it it becomes apparent how weak it is. There are no benefits to just expanding the eligible commanders to planeswalkers instead of further, and the pro walker crowd is consistently incapable of addressing this. Neither would be particularly good for the format, but the latter would actually add a hell of a lot more to the format than just allowing walkers.
And yeah, Brawl was an attempt to get people used to allowing walkers as commanders. It failed badly. The format, despite being heavily promoted early on, failed to catch on and died on the first rotation. People just weren't into 60 limited card pool commander, and getting to use planeswalkers wasn't much of a draw. The planeswalker headed precons didn't exactly outpace the ones that only had legendary creatures either. This isn't something most people are clamoring for, but are willing to tolerate so long as it's limited as a way to throw a bone to the people who want it.
Also, wizards says they aren't printing the line of text in standard to prevent confusing newbs, but thats because they would only add it to certain cards rather than all of them. If they wanted to make them all legal as commanders, they would try to do so in a sweeping manner. They don't for reasons they have explained previously as well as reasons they don't like to talk about. They have previously talked about how difficult it is to design planeswalkers, especially when trying to design for multiple formats, so designing edh only pw commanders let's them focus just on the format and hopefully make fewer mistakes, rather than trying to balance between standard and edh. What they don't talk about is that, with the exception of precons themselves, every time they try to mess with commander it blows up in their face. Brawl, the mtgo only banlist targeted to competitive play, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Quote from ForgottenPlaneswalker »
Whether you love them or hate them or are just indifferent, you got to admit this is pretty much why this is happening.
This is 100% false. This discussion was being had before any PW had that line of text.
As well as this, it's the statement itself, not the existence of planeswalkers, that dictates legality for commander status. Whatever side of the debate you're on, currently the statement 'x can be your commander' is the only thing making walkers commander feasible, and they could stick that on anything - and that's a point against, not for. The fact that it got stuck on walkers is a small concession, yes, but it's also an indication that there's no indication of a blanket rule change. We can only assume the reasons why or why not that might be, but it's easy enough to extrapolate for our format. Most of it boils down to 'íf it ain't broke, why fix it?'and 'why create more problems for yourself than you need to?', with a healthy dose of 'there's no benefit to doing this'.
Quote from ForgottenPlaneswalker »
Whether you love them or hate them or are just indifferent, you got to admit this is pretty much why this is happening.
This is 100% false. This discussion was being had before any PW had that line of text.
As well as this, it's the statement itself, not the existence of planeswalkers, that dictates legality for commander status. Whatever side of the debate you're on, currently the statement 'x can be your commander' is the only thing making walkers commander feasible, and they could stick that on anything - and that's a point against, not for. The fact that it got stuck on walkers is a small concession, yes, but it's also an indication that there's no indication of a blanket rule change. We can only assume the reasons why or why not that might be, but it's easy enough to extrapolate for our format. Most of it boils down to 'íf it ain't broke, why fix it?'and 'why create more problems for yourself than you need to?', with a healthy dose of 'there's no benefit to doing this'.
And I literally could see that phrase being stuck on an artifact or enchantment that flips to a creature. Elbrus, for instance, was a really cool idea that could be revisited. Hell, a Living Weapon commander or a Vehicle commander would make sense (living weapon moreso).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Yawg, the tombstone in Urborg
legendary artifact land
Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other land types.
Yawg may be your commander
I really doubt wizards would do things like add the writer that "this PW may be your commander" for every single PW printed without the ok from the RC. The 2 groups work together (loosely, i imagine), so one wouldn't do some sweeping change to the rule/card templating without the ok from the other. As soon as this happens, I imagine that there's going to be a pretty severe schism that's going to happen, and it might end up splitting the format into 2 separate formats (which is not what anyone wants).
Honestly though, if people are really worked up about this own PW as a general, just ask their local play group if it's cool. 99% of the time, they're probably going to be ok. I play with tolarian academy, karakas, painter's servant in the same deck. My mates have things like recurring nightmare in them too. And its fine, 'cuz we're all ok with it. if our playgroup can figure stuff like that out, i'm sure all other groups can find space to let specific PWs loose (until, obviously, they break something).
With the addition of all these new static effect planeswalkers I continue to be sad that they are not legal commanders.
The most iconic story figures in the game and you cannot build a deck around them legally in the most popular casual format.
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Not "Elder DRAGON Highlander"; "ELDER DRAGON Highlander".
Of course, 10 more Elder Dragons have been printed since then.
I seems to recall Sheldon once saying when he took the game from Alaska and started to make it more than just a homebrew variant with a solitary playground one of the first things he did was allow any legendary creature. So they didn't really suddenly decide to expand who could be in the command zone.
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
As someone who doesn't follow the story, I literally have no idea who any of these planeswalkers are and barely know anything about even the Lorwyn five. They mean as much to me as every other legendary creature.
Not "Elder DRAGON Highlander"; "ELDER DRAGON Highlander".
Of course, 10 more Elder Dragons have been printed since then.
I seems to recall Sheldon once saying when he took the game from Alaska and started to make it more than just a homebrew variant with a solitary playground one of the first things he did was allow any legendary creature. So they didn't really suddenly decide to expand who could be in the command zone.
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
As someone who doesn't follow the story, I literally have no idea who any of these planeswalkers are and barely know anything about even the Lorwyn five. They mean as much to me as every other legendary creature.
"This argument that makes a valid point about the inherit weakness of my argument is inconvenient because I have no answer for it, so I'm going to dismiss it out of hand and act as if it is invalid."
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Again, it's not a convenient argument so you look for ways to dismiss it. Talking about legendary lands was hyperbole, but people have definitely wanted to play interesting non legendary creatures, as well as non creature legendary spells before. What about Elbrus, the Binding Blade? What about the land that flips into a legendary demon? Neither can be your commander because they aren't legendary creatures, but they clearly represent legendary creatures. How about the kamigawa flip legends that start off as non legendary creatures?
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It isn't an argument for this topic, and I think to continue bringing up like it is legitimate for this thread is in bad faith and meant as diversionary.
Edh originally only had 5 legal commanders.
Was it originally Elder DRAGON Highlander?
So shouldn't we only play with Dragons as generals?
Not being convenient for you doesn't mean it's bad faith and diversionary. It's a valid reason to be against allowing planeswalkers as commanders. It's cool that you've played against a westherlight deck, seems like it got house ruled in, just like, oh my gosh, can be done for planeswalker commanders like, oh my gosh, I've been saying for months. The issue isn't whether people should be able to house rule these things, it's whether these changes should be officially made for everyone. House rules, and encouraging house rules exist specifically so playgroups can customize the format to their whims.
Are you honestly suggesting that legendary artifacts be allowed as commanders? Because if you aren't, your example of having one time played against a house ruled Westherlight deck IS an actual example of a bad faith argument. You bring it up solely to dismiss the point I was making without addressing it (similarly to how you misused the term whataboutism).
Pointing out that changing a defining aspect of the format should be justified, and actually expecting the side arguing for the change to be able to do so, is not arguing in bad faith. Pointing out that a specific change could be more broadly applied and expecting the side in favor of the change to make a substantial argument as to how the change could be both narrowly yet consistently applied is not arguing in bad faith. The arguments made in favor of making all planeswalkers legal commanders could be used for other legendary permanent types and non legendary creatures. If the RC decided to allow planeswalkers as commanders, why shouldn't they allow legendary enchantments or artifacts or Tamanoa? This isn't a diversion, it's a legitimate question that cuts to the core of the pro planeswalker argument that you have not been able to answer, and rather than attempt to you dismissively claim that I, and others, are arguing in bad faith.
And thanks, Illakunsa, for the history lesson devoid of any context. Yes, originally EDH only allowed the elder dragons as generals. This was changed to allowing any legendary creature because, get this, making that substantive change to the rules added significant positive value to the format that severely outweighed whatever negative it brought (annoying commanders let's say). It allowed for mono color, two color, five color, and 3 color wedge decks, as well as build around commanders, and staying at only five commanders would lead to format stagnation. Those are excellent arguments in favor of making that change, and arguments for the status quo could not hope to match them. Allowing pws does none of these things. It add a handful of potentially interesting commanders, which is something that we get every year anyway. Ok, well allowing non legendary creatures would do that far more effectively, and allowing any legendary permanent would do so about as effectively. People want to build around walkers. Well, people want to build around some non legendary creatures and legendary non creatures as well. There's no reason why, if you are going to change the rules to allow planeswalkers, you shouldn't also change the rules to allow these other, equivalent things. I mean, legendary enchantments actually have almost as much precedent as pws being used as commanders, once you take into account flip walkers and Theros gods.
Here's the thing, the argument for allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is actually a lot better, in my eyes, when you expand it to include all legendary permanents and non legendary creatures. Doing so actually adds enough to the format to make the change worth it and is far less arbitrary than just allowing planeswalkers. Sure, you'd have to bring back BaaC to avoid a lot of bannings, but if all these new options were added it would be worth it to bring back the rule.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm with Onering and toctheyounger77 here.
And I want to reiterate - Commander is about leading an army with a legendary creature, not a legendary whatever. No one takes arguments seriously that favor legalizing legendary lands, legendary enchantments, legendary artifacts, or legendary sorceries as a commander, and they shouldn't because these are really bad ideas. They are, in fact, equally as bad as legalizing legendary planeswalkers, which is why it makes such a great comparison and why you can't just dismiss it out of hand as a counterpoint.
Yes, somecards have extra text saying "this can be your commander." Yes, individual cards can trump normal rules. No, we shouldn't ever treat the exception as the rule.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
If the RC was fully against planeswalkers being commanders, they should ban the ones with that rules text that allows them to be a commander in order to send a message to Wizards. Not doing so has created this messy gray zone. Yet the issue now is banning those commanderwalkers is putting eleven whole cards on the banlist and the RC wants to be hands off. Sure at your friend's house you can have your houserule ban on them, but that bird doesn't fly within sanctioned environments.
Whether you love them or hate them or are just indifferent, you got to admit this is pretty much why this is happening.
So a legendary creature can lead an army, but legendary Planeswalker can't?
What kind of logic is that?
And by the way, the one sentence says otherwise, there are already PW's leading the armies.
Yes, the sentence is only on a few PW's. But it is. With the current trend, the amount of PW's with the rule will grow, so you will end up with an increasing pool of PW's as playable generals.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
You cannot just pretend this is not an issue, will just vanish or is something that won't be questioned in upcomming years, because the pool of playable PW's will grow and grow.
As said before, only reason why Wizz did not include the specific sentence onto the current standard walkers is because it would confuse standard players. Otherwise it would be there...
To wizards, the message the RC and playerbase have sent to them when regarding commandwalkers is "this is fine and we want mind more". It may make some of the people revolt against that notion, but people voted with their wallet and the RC voted with their banlist, this voting as I put it to be in favor of the commandwalkers.
They can pick apart arguments all day if they want, but that is not going to change the goals of wizards at the end of the day. As I suspect that wizards has been playing the long game all of this time. What with the seeding of commandwalkers into the format, changing planeswalkers into legendary permanents, creating a mini version of what they want with the Brawl standard format to test the waters in a more controlled environment.
After all, they struck gold with planeswalkers, they are a powerful marketing tool that has helped grow their playerbase exponentially over the past decade and strengthened the brand recognition behind it. What better way, besides lore requested cards and interesting legendary creatures, to help grow this format. To drive-up interest and sales for it. Wizards can love and appreciate the format while doing this, but they still also want it to be more marketable to the average player.
So, why not just ride it out and wait for the list of “can be your commander” PW’s to grow?
If anything, this proves that bringing all PW into the fold as playable generals isn’t the right move, because the list of legal ones will inevitably grow, and you won’t have to worry about poor format interactions or bans out of the gate.
So, yeah. Pretty poor point to try and make your argument.
I’d also like to add that, so far, there have been a lot of spoiled ‘walkers that are going to be problematic with their static abilities, and that list will also inevitably grow. Powerful, enchantment-like, abilities in the command zone are not good for the format, period. Forcing WOTC to take an additional format into consideration when designing their “flagship” cards is poor business sense. People who don’t understand business economics really shouldn’t try and bring them up in their arguments. But what do I know, I mean, I’m debating this point with people who think, and agree, that 36% is a majority...
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
There is a lot of poor interactions even now, so that's a bad argument.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right?
Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
Please, enlighten us how WOTC who with printing Commander products found a gold mine is forced into poor business sense.
Obviously you have PhD from the business economics so maybe you could teach us a thing or two here and explain it to us how does it work.
I am really curious for that.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
You can argue that 49.9 is minority. Because it's less than 50.1.
The minority in the poll is the 7.5% of undecided people. I wouldn't call the 36.8% a minority.
But if this is what bothers you and what you point out is playing with words, say it beforehand.
Then ban all cards that workaround the rules. Shadowborne Apostle and Relentless Rats. This is kind of a nonsensical argument. Pretty clear that the defining characteristic of a PW that can your general is that it requires the text that says so.
To the highlighted bit.
No, it’s not. Those are creatures. And yes, hey have powerful static abilities, so your answer is to introduce more of those effects on cards that are inherently harder to interact with? Looks like your argument is the one falling apart here.
Stop. Take a break. Do something else, but please stop posting this BS. This isn’t cute, and it most certainly harms any credibility you may think you have. You want to question my business “PHD”, yet, you post ignorant garbage like this. I mean, send me 55.7% of your stuff, and burn the other 7.6%, let me know how that leaves you with the majority of your stuff.
You need to go back to school. The pro planeswalker side is the textbook definition of a minority. Its significantly less than half. It's barely over a third. Yes, undecided is smaller, which makes it an even smaller minority. And the opposing side represents an actual majority, and not even just a bare one. When judging mechanics and planes to see if they should be brought back, those kind of numbers translate into probably not.
Allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is an unpopular opinion that would require a fundamental change to the rules and nature of the format, would add little of value to the format while adding an equivalent amount of negatives, and is broadly hypocritical in it's approach. "So legendary creatures can lead armies, why not legendary planeswalkers?" Lol, why not non legendary creatures? Hell, it's especially goofy when you consider that there are many non legendary creatures that are straight up military leaders. It's a flavor argument true, but once you examine it it becomes apparent how weak it is. There are no benefits to just expanding the eligible commanders to planeswalkers instead of further, and the pro walker crowd is consistently incapable of addressing this. Neither would be particularly good for the format, but the latter would actually add a hell of a lot more to the format than just allowing walkers.
And yeah, Brawl was an attempt to get people used to allowing walkers as commanders. It failed badly. The format, despite being heavily promoted early on, failed to catch on and died on the first rotation. People just weren't into 60 limited card pool commander, and getting to use planeswalkers wasn't much of a draw. The planeswalker headed precons didn't exactly outpace the ones that only had legendary creatures either. This isn't something most people are clamoring for, but are willing to tolerate so long as it's limited as a way to throw a bone to the people who want it.
Also, wizards says they aren't printing the line of text in standard to prevent confusing newbs, but thats because they would only add it to certain cards rather than all of them. If they wanted to make them all legal as commanders, they would try to do so in a sweeping manner. They don't for reasons they have explained previously as well as reasons they don't like to talk about. They have previously talked about how difficult it is to design planeswalkers, especially when trying to design for multiple formats, so designing edh only pw commanders let's them focus just on the format and hopefully make fewer mistakes, rather than trying to balance between standard and edh. What they don't talk about is that, with the exception of precons themselves, every time they try to mess with commander it blows up in their face. Brawl, the mtgo only banlist targeted to competitive play, etc.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
As well as this, it's the statement itself, not the existence of planeswalkers, that dictates legality for commander status. Whatever side of the debate you're on, currently the statement 'x can be your commander' is the only thing making walkers commander feasible, and they could stick that on anything - and that's a point against, not for. The fact that it got stuck on walkers is a small concession, yes, but it's also an indication that there's no indication of a blanket rule change. We can only assume the reasons why or why not that might be, but it's easy enough to extrapolate for our format. Most of it boils down to 'íf it ain't broke, why fix it?'and 'why create more problems for yourself than you need to?', with a healthy dose of 'there's no benefit to doing this'.
And I literally could see that phrase being stuck on an artifact or enchantment that flips to a creature. Elbrus, for instance, was a really cool idea that could be revisited. Hell, a Living Weapon commander or a Vehicle commander would make sense (living weapon moreso).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Yawg, the tombstone in Urborg
legendary artifact land
Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other land types.
Yawg may be your commander
I really doubt wizards would do things like add the writer that "this PW may be your commander" for every single PW printed without the ok from the RC. The 2 groups work together (loosely, i imagine), so one wouldn't do some sweeping change to the rule/card templating without the ok from the other. As soon as this happens, I imagine that there's going to be a pretty severe schism that's going to happen, and it might end up splitting the format into 2 separate formats (which is not what anyone wants).
Honestly though, if people are really worked up about this own PW as a general, just ask their local play group if it's cool. 99% of the time, they're probably going to be ok. I play with tolarian academy, karakas, painter's servant in the same deck. My mates have things like recurring nightmare in them too. And its fine, 'cuz we're all ok with it. if our playgroup can figure stuff like that out, i'm sure all other groups can find space to let specific PWs loose (until, obviously, they break something).
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
The most iconic story figures in the game and you cannot build a deck around them legally in the most popular casual format.
Of course, 10 more Elder Dragons have been printed since then.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I seems to recall Sheldon once saying when he took the game from Alaska and started to make it more than just a homebrew variant with a solitary playground one of the first things he did was allow any legendary creature. So they didn't really suddenly decide to expand who could be in the command zone.
As someone who doesn't follow the story, I literally have no idea who any of these planeswalkers are and barely know anything about even the Lorwyn five. They mean as much to me as every other legendary creature.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I seems to recall Sheldon once saying when he took the game from Alaska and started to make it more than just a homebrew variant with a solitary playground one of the first things he did was allow any legendary creature. So they didn't really suddenly decide to expand who could be in the command zone.
As someone who doesn't follow the story, I literally have no idea who any of these planeswalkers are and barely know anything about even the Lorwyn five. They mean as much to me as every other legendary creature.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg