they may not add anything, but they don't detract either and its something A LOT of players want.
[citation needed]
This very thread shows that, at least among MTGS users, it's not wanted.
mtgs is some kind of weird bubble that does not represent even a fraction of the magic community
sure, the poll shows that its not wanted, but how many magic players DON'T use mtg:s? its far more than the number that do, but we forget that because we live here.
So, you're saying most MTGS users don't want it and ...what? All non-MTGS users also don't want it even more fervently? You haven't submitted any evidence that the wide world of non-MTGS users disagree with MTGS users. Maybe a lot of players do want it, but I dare say a lot more don't want it. Or they wouldn't want it after playing a few games that way.
they may not add anything, but they don't detract either and its something A LOT of players want.
[citation needed]
This very thread shows that, at least among MTGS users, it's not wanted.
mtgs is some kind of weird bubble that does not represent even a fraction of the magic community
sure, the poll shows that its not wanted, but how many magic players DON'T use mtg:s? its far more than the number that do, but we forget that because we live here.
So, you're saying most MTGS users don't want it and ...what? All non-MTGS users also don't want it even more fervently? You haven't submitted any evidence that the wide world of non-MTGS users disagree with MTGS users. Maybe a lot of players do want it, but I dare say a lot more don't want it. Or they wouldn't want it after playing a few games that way.
don't forget you're using a forum to discuss mtg, that by its very nature makes its users more competitive than the kitchen table players who don't use it and can't participate in this poll.
we discuss it every week at our edh event, and there's only 1 person that consistently doesn't like the idea.
of that group maybe 3 of us use forums to discuss magic
the poll is inherently flawed and can't be taken as an absolute representation of the magic community.
Hehe. "This poll doesn't possess the proper level of scientific rigor! Not when my contrasting evidence is that I claim some guys that I know totally agree with me!"
There's never going to be an academic study on this issue. I, for one, certainly hope that the people with the proper credentials to conduct one have much, much better things to do with their time. We'll just have to make do with the best tools that we have, which are polls on large community websites and the opinion of the Rules Committee. Both of those seem to be pretty firmly against introducing non-creature commanders.
But for real, simple solution time: if your play group wants to have planeswalkers as commanders, then house-rule it so that you can. Everyone wins.
the poll is inherently flawed and can't be taken as an absolute representation of the magic community.
Absolutely agreed, but you can't in the same breath claim your playgroup is. Hence 'citation needed', which we are still waiting for.
Don't forget a citation of the method used to determine the sample size
I voted no because its a ban list size issue, some would need to be added (or risk serious unbalance) and I want to keep the list as short as possible.
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.
I, for one, certainly hope that the people with the proper credentials to conduct one have much, much better things to do with their time.
I disagree with this. People with the proper "tools" to conduct a market survey like this are simply hired by companies like WotC. And even if the Rules Committee has not shown much interest in this idea at the moment, WotC has the money and the reach to conduct a survey of this nature to determine whether this is a good idea or not. They already know how popular or not popular their current roster of planeswalkers are among the public and knowing whether this idea is popular or not could be valuable for them.
The last time they released planeswalkers as commanders was with relatively unknown people, but imagine if they wanted to do a new set that did the same thing but with the Gatewatch at the helm, knowing whether this would be popular or not would be important to them. Once you are thinking along these lines, it is not a huge leap between a second set of planeswalkers that can be Commanders and a rule change that would allow all planeswalkers to be commanders.
The last time they released planeswalkers as commanders was with relatively unknown people
With the exception of Daretti (who hails from Fiora, the plane where the Conspiracy sets take place), the planeswalker-commanders all played important roles in at least one pre-existing Magic storyline.
Nahiri is the lithomancer who, together with Sorin and Ugin, sealed the Eldrazi on Zendikar the first time (before the original Zendikar block storyline occurred)
Teferi helped train mages at Tolaria to defend Dominaria against the upcoming Phyrexian invasion, as well as being a major player in the Mirage Wars. He also destroyed one of Phyrexia's portals, and used the energy to remove part of Jamuraa and part of Shiv from the time stream, and after returning, he helped close rifts from the Time Spiral (giving up his spark to seal the rift over Shiv).
Ob Nixilis took the Chain Veil to Zendikar to attempt to use the plane's mana to lift the curse, and lost his spark in the attempt; Nahiri used a hedron to strip him of most of the rest of his power. Eventually, he tricked Jace into removing the hedron.
Freyalise helped the elves of Fyndhorn and Llanowar survive the Ice Age, and was partly responsible for ending the Ice Age. She used the same spell that ended the Ice Age to break the Shard of the Twelve Worlds, opening Dominaria, Shandalar, and 10 other planes to the rest of the multiverse. She was one of the Nine Titans fighting against Phyrexia, and she sacrificed her life to seal the time rift over Skyshroud.
I, for one, certainly hope that the people with the proper credentials to conduct one have much, much better things to do with their time.
I disagree with this. People with the proper "tools" to conduct a market survey like this are simply hired by companies like WotC. And even if the Rules Committee has not shown much interest in this idea at the moment, WotC has the money and the reach to conduct a survey of this nature to determine whether this is a good idea or not. They already know how popular or not popular their current roster of planeswalkers are among the public and knowing whether this idea is popular or not could be valuable for them.
This is a good example of why context is important. Here, I'll quote my entire paragraph below for you.
There's never going to be an academic study on this issue. I, for one, certainly hope that the people with the proper credentials to conduct one have much, much better things to do with their time. We'll just have to make do with the best tools that we have, which are polls on large community websites and the opinion of the Rules Committee. Both of those seem to be pretty firmly against introducing non-creature commanders.
Bolding added for emphasis.
You'll notice that the sentence before the one you cherry-picked specifically refers to "an academic study." That is not a perfect synonym for marketing research. Although definitions vary, an academic study is generally peer-reviewed, published, and objective. They usually(but not always, hence my "hope") are done on matters of importance to society, either directly or indirectly. Generally, when academic studies are funded by large corporate interests,such as pro-tobacco research, they are inherently biased (which was Xcric's criticism of the poll cited in the first place) and their results are often not able to be reproduced.
"Published" is the most important aspect of an academic study in this particular case, as you'll notice the next sentence after the one you cherry-picked uses a first-person plural pronoun. I do not work for the WoTC marketing team and I'm assuming (incorrectly? if so I apologize) that no one else on this thread does. That's why, when I refer to the "best tools that we have," I do not include proprietary information gathered by WoTC and likely protected by NDAs. I am pretty clearly referring to the people participating in this debate and the available tools that they and I have to make our cases. Whatever marketing research Wizards may or may not have done, as you can see, is pretty immaterial to my argument unless they decide to release it to the public.
Anyway, none of this is really relevant to the case of using planeswalkers as commanders. I would dispute your contention that the previously-used planeswalkers were "relatively unknown" (excluding his PW version, there are twenty-nine cards that reference Teferi in the flavor text, thirteen that include "Teferi" in their name, and one of those is a legendary creature from Time Spiral block with an infamous hard-lock combo that was literally just reprinted in a set called 'Iconic Masters'), but Lithl seems to have done that pretty well already.
If you are building around silas's weak effect you are making a weak deck. He is used for his colors in partner, not for what he does when cast. From a deckbuilding perspective, he is shallow as a puddle.
"ONLY THE MOST CUTTHROAT EDH ARTIFACT DECKS ARE FUN!"
aka
"NO ITEMS! FOX ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION!"
EDH is something different to everyone, but I think you're kinda missing the point of the format. Especially when you denounce other mill generals than Phenax (who has a very specific mill effect, even if it's the best one; it lends itself to different decks) and are somehow annoyed that Sygg, a 2-mana-cost creature, only draws an additional card for each player's turn when played correctly. I mean how bad can you be at evaluating cards in a casual format? Mind you, UB is one of the worst color pairs in regards to general selection due to the amount of mill, but that doesn't mean we have to open the floodgates to all creatures. You basically sound like a Johnny-Spike archetype, who only plays build-around-me commanders that are the most powerful, and that's fine, but don't force it on other people, hm?
If you're that bored with the format, bring a pauper commander deck to your next playgroup game (commons only, except your commander which is an uncommon creature). They'll probably accept playing against it due to your deckbuilding restrictions, and you'll have 2981 commanders to choose from. Even if many are crappy duds, there are a bunch of hidden gems that should inspire your deckbuilding.
If you are building around silas's weak effect you are making a weak deck. He is used for his colors in partner, not for what he does when cast. From a deckbuilding perspective, he is shallow as a puddle.
"ONLY THE MOST CUTTHROAT EDH ARTIFACT DECKS ARE FUN!"
aka
"NO ITEMS! FOX ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION!"
EDH is something different to everyone, but I think you're kinda missing the point of the format. Especially when you denounce other mill generals than Phenax (who has a very specific mill effect, even if it's the best one; it lends itself to different decks) and are somehow annoyed that Sygg, a 2-mana-cost creature, only draws an additional card for each player's turn when played correctly. I mean how bad can you be at evaluating cards in a casual format? Mind you, UB is one of the worst color pairs in regards to general selection due to the amount of mill, but that doesn't mean we have to open the floodgates to all creatures. You basically sound like a Johnny-Spike archetype, who only plays build-around-me commanders that are the most powerful, and that's fine, but don't force it on other people, hm?
If you're that bored with the format, bring a pauper commander deck to your next playgroup game (commons only, except your commander which is an uncommon creature). They'll probably accept playing against it due to your deckbuilding restrictions, and you'll have 2981 commanders to choose from. Even if many are crappy duds, there are a bunch of hidden gems that should inspire your deckbuilding.
You can't come in here and say the format is different for everyone and then hate on me for posting from my perspective because it is different from yours.
If I show up with a weak deck to the regular group I play with, it won't do anything. The decks at this group are strong all around. You don't get the luxury of making joke decks.
If I show up with a weak deck to the regular group I play with, it won't do anything. The decks at this group are strong all around. You don't get the luxury of making joke decks.
We're still pretty firm on our stance about PWs as Commanders and from this poll it looks like we have solid support. For the folks who voted yes, I'm curious. What problem do you see getting solved by making all PWs commanders? Is there a need not getting addressed (other than "We'd like PWs to be commanders")?
For the long term health of the format, making changes needs to have purpose; the bigger the change, the greater the purpose.
We're still pretty firm on our stance about PWs as Commanders and from this poll it looks like we have solid support. For the folks who voted yes, I'm curious. What problem do you see getting solved by making all PWs commanders? Is there a need not getting addressed (other than "We'd like PWs to be commanders")?
For the long term health of the format, making changes needs to have purpose; the bigger the change, the greater the purpose.
The problem of the game being stale.
The problem of not being able to use my iconic characters as generals because they are planeswalkers instead of creatures, despite being substantially weaker than all the existing strong generals.
Carthage, fair enough. What in your view is stale about the format that making PWs commanders would change (again, other than "it'd be different"). I suppose the question is what's the source of the staleness and does PW->C solve that?
Carthage, fair enough. What in your view is stale about the format that making PWs commanders would change (again, other than "it'd be different"). I suppose the question is what's the source of the staleness and does PW->C solve that?
It is a band-aid fix, but the sudden availability of dozens of new generals to build around would allow for some more interesting deck construction.
We're still pretty firm on our stance about PWs as Commanders and from this poll it looks like we have solid support. For the folks who voted yes, I'm curious. What problem do you see getting solved by making all PWs commanders? Is there a need not getting addressed (other than "We'd like PWs to be commanders")?
For the long term health of the format, making changes needs to have purpose; the bigger the change, the greater the purpose.
For me I voted yes but it's qualified (by some kind of fix to the counter rules, or several more years of planeswalker removal in all colors). Wizards has been printing a lot of removal that hits PWs but I'm not sure critical mass is there yet. Similar with Pithing needle effects.
The thing that appeals to me the most is pretty narrow, but I think several Planeswalkers would add some dimension to the gameplay of less used color combinations, particularly those with White and Red as key components. Rakdos and Boros in particular have serious issues with playable commanders (them usually being kinda narrow).
Being able to package somewhat generic card advantage in the command zone enables some different styles of play for colors that historically lack it.
Anyway I realize that's a somewhat narrow viewpoint but in general I think it'd wind up adding more than it takes away. Especially if Wizards put in a rules bandaid to fix the Planeswalker counter nonsense.
The additional novelty of a larger pool of cards to build from is fun too.
I voted I Don't Care. Personally, it opens up a lot more deck design space that I think many players would enjoy. But at the same time, I don't look forward to seeing creatureless control/wrath decks. I also recognize that planeswalkers are fan favorites and legalizing all of them would probably come with at least a handful of bans for otherwise perfectly acceptable cards. I think people would be a lot more on board with this idea if the BaaC returned, but since it is gone, we should just direct our efforts at getting Wizards to make more.
We're still pretty firm on our stance about PWs as Commanders and from this poll it looks like we have solid support. For the folks who voted yes, I'm curious. What problem do you see getting solved by making all PWs commanders? Is there a need not getting addressed (other than "We'd like PWs to be commanders")?
For the long term health of the format, making changes needs to have purpose; the bigger the change, the greater the purpose.
The problem of the game being stale.
I mean, we get around 10-15 new legendary creatures each new set. Dominaria gave us 44. Plus the Commander product each year, which gives us as many new commanders as an entire set. Sure, if we suddenly allowed all PWs as commanders that would be 127 new commanders instantly, but it's not like we're stuck with the same pool of commanders for years on end.
I voted No. Mostly because I don't trust people to use them responsibly without resorting to degeneracy with Doubling Season, Rings of Brighthearth and The Chain Veil, among other things. Aside from this, it'd be interesting design space to explore so I'm not fully against it EVER happening. I assume it would require BaaC to return, which I'm not opposed to, but it does make rules a bit more weird and convoluted than they need to be.
It is a band-aid fix, but the sudden availability of dozens of new generals to build around would allow for some more interesting deck construction.
I understand the desire for fresh recruits, but this isn't a strong argument for walkers as generals. It's an argument, sure, but it seems like you're arguing for their inclusion as a stopgap measure to give you some new territory to cover. As far as I'm concerned, the best argument is to give new design space for the format to discover. I'm not convinced that would happen, but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, provided there's measures in place to make sure I never face down Ugin, OG Tezz or OG Sorin. Among others, there's ult's out there that I just don't want to see repeatedly.
We all go through stale patches in creativity and need inspiration here and there. This seems to be more a problem for you than Commander as a format. It sounds more like your deckbuilding criteria is more hamstrung by your meta than any inherent problem with the format. Maybe you should try something a little outside of your comfort zone and test your deckbuilding skills? From your previous list, I'd definitely encourage a reassessment of Dralnu. I've been wrecking face with him for the last year and he's a lot of fun to play around with. The first ability gives an element of danger as well, keeps things interesting. I absolutely mean no offense saying any of this either, it just seems like this argument is a means to your end, that's all.
My favorite argument for allowing walkers is that a few will open up deck building space for underserved color combos, like RW. Unfortunately, it's still a bad argument, because it can be solved more easily by wizards printing legendary creatures that do that. Adding more commanders is a bad argument, because we get a solid number every year already, and some sets deliver a lot.
The worst argument though is the one that confuses what the player thinks the format is with what it actually is. Commander is about having a legendary creature serve as your commander. The flavor behind summoning creatures is that you have full control over them. You have either created them from aether or summoned the actual creature, depending on what you subscribe to, and they are bound to you. The flavor of planeswalkers is that they are the actual planeswalker, helping you as an ally, who leaves when they run out of loyalty. Wizards has muddled that for gameplay reasons, but it's still the flavor they run with. The flavor of your commander is that they are always there, even if they've been dealt with, and that works if it's a spell that summons a creature that you've basically learned as a dnd cantrip, but not when it's a planeswalker that you are, flavor wise, asking for help, and who is supposed to leave when they run out of patience.
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 voted no, and I maintain no. As much as it opens up interesting design space, for the most part I find it would centralize the game around commmanders trying to ultimate, since most ultimates win the game.
The existing PWs made as commanders for the most part do not win the game with their ultimates. They also have somewhat weak abilities.
As a trial, I think the RC should make a controlled experiment. Either through MTGO or in select stores or something, to have people play with PW as commanders and see where the meta goes.
I don't honestly think it will change that much if I am honest so I don't really care.
Arguably IMO the strongest Planeswalkers as Commanders are already available to be used in that slot so opening up the field does really nothing for that. Like if people are worried about degenerative things coming out of a Planeswalker in the Command Zone just look to some that already exist.
NuKarn would be a really cool Colorless Commander to build around.
I don't honestly think it will change that much if I am honest so I don't really care.
Arguably IMO the strongest Planeswalkers as Commanders are already available to be used in that slot so opening up the field does really nothing for that. Like if people are worried about degenerative things coming out of a Planeswalker in the Command Zone just look to some that already exist.
NuKarn would be a really cool Colorless Commander to build around.
The strongest PW as commanders cards are already available? Please, give me an example.
Teferi
Estrid
Aminatou
Will & sometimes Rowan
Daretti
I was not saying that all the available walkers are strong just that out of available Walkers if you gave me choice to make a deck it would probably be one of these or some dumb thing with NuKarn
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
don't forget you're using a forum to discuss mtg, that by its very nature makes its users more competitive than the kitchen table players who don't use it and can't participate in this poll.
we discuss it every week at our edh event, and there's only 1 person that consistently doesn't like the idea.
of that group maybe 3 of us use forums to discuss magic
the poll is inherently flawed and can't be taken as an absolute representation of the magic community.
There's never going to be an academic study on this issue. I, for one, certainly hope that the people with the proper credentials to conduct one have much, much better things to do with their time. We'll just have to make do with the best tools that we have, which are polls on large community websites and the opinion of the Rules Committee. Both of those seem to be pretty firmly against introducing non-creature commanders.
But for real, simple solution time: if your play group wants to have planeswalkers as commanders, then house-rule it so that you can. Everyone wins.
Don't forget a citation of the method used to determine the sample size
I voted no because its a ban list size issue, some would need to be added (or risk serious unbalance) and I want to keep the list as short as possible.
I disagree with this. People with the proper "tools" to conduct a market survey like this are simply hired by companies like WotC. And even if the Rules Committee has not shown much interest in this idea at the moment, WotC has the money and the reach to conduct a survey of this nature to determine whether this is a good idea or not. They already know how popular or not popular their current roster of planeswalkers are among the public and knowing whether this idea is popular or not could be valuable for them.
The last time they released planeswalkers as commanders was with relatively unknown people, but imagine if they wanted to do a new set that did the same thing but with the Gatewatch at the helm, knowing whether this would be popular or not would be important to them. Once you are thinking along these lines, it is not a huge leap between a second set of planeswalkers that can be Commanders and a rule change that would allow all planeswalkers to be commanders.
Nahiri is the lithomancer who, together with Sorin and Ugin, sealed the Eldrazi on Zendikar the first time (before the original Zendikar block storyline occurred)
Teferi helped train mages at Tolaria to defend Dominaria against the upcoming Phyrexian invasion, as well as being a major player in the Mirage Wars. He also destroyed one of Phyrexia's portals, and used the energy to remove part of Jamuraa and part of Shiv from the time stream, and after returning, he helped close rifts from the Time Spiral (giving up his spark to seal the rift over Shiv).
Ob Nixilis took the Chain Veil to Zendikar to attempt to use the plane's mana to lift the curse, and lost his spark in the attempt; Nahiri used a hedron to strip him of most of the rest of his power. Eventually, he tricked Jace into removing the hedron.
Freyalise helped the elves of Fyndhorn and Llanowar survive the Ice Age, and was partly responsible for ending the Ice Age. She used the same spell that ended the Ice Age to break the Shard of the Twelve Worlds, opening Dominaria, Shandalar, and 10 other planes to the rest of the multiverse. She was one of the Nine Titans fighting against Phyrexia, and she sacrificed her life to seal the time rift over Skyshroud.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This is a good example of why context is important. Here, I'll quote my entire paragraph below for you.
Bolding added for emphasis.
You'll notice that the sentence before the one you cherry-picked specifically refers to "an academic study." That is not a perfect synonym for marketing research. Although definitions vary, an academic study is generally peer-reviewed, published, and objective. They usually(but not always, hence my "hope") are done on matters of importance to society, either directly or indirectly. Generally, when academic studies are funded by large corporate interests,such as pro-tobacco research, they are inherently biased (which was Xcric's criticism of the poll cited in the first place) and their results are often not able to be reproduced.
"Published" is the most important aspect of an academic study in this particular case, as you'll notice the next sentence after the one you cherry-picked uses a first-person plural pronoun. I do not work for the WoTC marketing team and I'm assuming (incorrectly? if so I apologize) that no one else on this thread does. That's why, when I refer to the "best tools that we have," I do not include proprietary information gathered by WoTC and likely protected by NDAs. I am pretty clearly referring to the people participating in this debate and the available tools that they and I have to make our cases. Whatever marketing research Wizards may or may not have done, as you can see, is pretty immaterial to my argument unless they decide to release it to the public.
Anyway, none of this is really relevant to the case of using planeswalkers as commanders. I would dispute your contention that the previously-used planeswalkers were "relatively unknown" (excluding his PW version, there are twenty-nine cards that reference Teferi in the flavor text, thirteen that include "Teferi" in their name, and one of those is a legendary creature from Time Spiral block with an infamous hard-lock combo that was literally just reprinted in a set called 'Iconic Masters'), but Lithl seems to have done that pretty well already.
"ONLY THE MOST CUTTHROAT EDH ARTIFACT DECKS ARE FUN!"
aka
"NO ITEMS! FOX ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION!"
EDH is something different to everyone, but I think you're kinda missing the point of the format. Especially when you denounce other mill generals than Phenax (who has a very specific mill effect, even if it's the best one; it lends itself to different decks) and are somehow annoyed that Sygg, a 2-mana-cost creature, only draws an additional card for each player's turn when played correctly. I mean how bad can you be at evaluating cards in a casual format? Mind you, UB is one of the worst color pairs in regards to general selection due to the amount of mill, but that doesn't mean we have to open the floodgates to all creatures. You basically sound like a Johnny-Spike archetype, who only plays build-around-me commanders that are the most powerful, and that's fine, but don't force it on other people, hm?
If you're that bored with the format, bring a pauper commander deck to your next playgroup game (commons only, except your commander which is an uncommon creature). They'll probably accept playing against it due to your deckbuilding restrictions, and you'll have 2981 commanders to choose from. Even if many are crappy duds, there are a bunch of hidden gems that should inspire your deckbuilding.
You can't come in here and say the format is different for everyone and then hate on me for posting from my perspective because it is different from yours.
If I show up with a weak deck to the regular group I play with, it won't do anything. The decks at this group are strong all around. You don't get the luxury of making joke decks.
That makes me sad
For the long term health of the format, making changes needs to have purpose; the bigger the change, the greater the purpose.
The problem of the game being stale.
The problem of not being able to use my iconic characters as generals because they are planeswalkers instead of creatures, despite being substantially weaker than all the existing strong generals.
It is a band-aid fix, but the sudden availability of dozens of new generals to build around would allow for some more interesting deck construction.
For me I voted yes but it's qualified (by some kind of fix to the counter rules, or several more years of planeswalker removal in all colors). Wizards has been printing a lot of removal that hits PWs but I'm not sure critical mass is there yet. Similar with Pithing needle effects.
The thing that appeals to me the most is pretty narrow, but I think several Planeswalkers would add some dimension to the gameplay of less used color combinations, particularly those with White and Red as key components. Rakdos and Boros in particular have serious issues with playable commanders (them usually being kinda narrow).
Nahiri, the Harbinger and Daretti, Ingenious Iconoclast are the two that jump out at me as enabling some brand new kinds of decks, but there're a few really fun ones in Selesnya and Orzhov as well.
Being able to package somewhat generic card advantage in the command zone enables some different styles of play for colors that historically lack it.
Anyway I realize that's a somewhat narrow viewpoint but in general I think it'd wind up adding more than it takes away. Especially if Wizards put in a rules bandaid to fix the Planeswalker counter nonsense.
The additional novelty of a larger pool of cards to build from is fun too.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I understand the desire for fresh recruits, but this isn't a strong argument for walkers as generals. It's an argument, sure, but it seems like you're arguing for their inclusion as a stopgap measure to give you some new territory to cover. As far as I'm concerned, the best argument is to give new design space for the format to discover. I'm not convinced that would happen, but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, provided there's measures in place to make sure I never face down Ugin, OG Tezz or OG Sorin. Among others, there's ult's out there that I just don't want to see repeatedly.
We all go through stale patches in creativity and need inspiration here and there. This seems to be more a problem for you than Commander as a format. It sounds more like your deckbuilding criteria is more hamstrung by your meta than any inherent problem with the format. Maybe you should try something a little outside of your comfort zone and test your deckbuilding skills? From your previous list, I'd definitely encourage a reassessment of Dralnu. I've been wrecking face with him for the last year and he's a lot of fun to play around with. The first ability gives an element of danger as well, keeps things interesting. I absolutely mean no offense saying any of this either, it just seems like this argument is a means to your end, that's all.
The worst argument though is the one that confuses what the player thinks the format is with what it actually is. Commander is about having a legendary creature serve as your commander. The flavor behind summoning creatures is that you have full control over them. You have either created them from aether or summoned the actual creature, depending on what you subscribe to, and they are bound to you. The flavor of planeswalkers is that they are the actual planeswalker, helping you as an ally, who leaves when they run out of loyalty. Wizards has muddled that for gameplay reasons, but it's still the flavor they run with. The flavor of your commander is that they are always there, even if they've been dealt with, and that works if it's a spell that summons a creature that you've basically learned as a dnd cantrip, but not when it's a planeswalker that you are, flavor wise, asking for help, and who is supposed to leave when they run out of patience.
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!
The existing PWs made as commanders for the most part do not win the game with their ultimates. They also have somewhat weak abilities.
As a trial, I think the RC should make a controlled experiment. Either through MTGO or in select stores or something, to have people play with PW as commanders and see where the meta goes.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Arguably IMO the strongest Planeswalkers as Commanders are already available to be used in that slot so opening up the field does really nothing for that. Like if people are worried about degenerative things coming out of a Planeswalker in the Command Zone just look to some that already exist.
NuKarn would be a really cool Colorless Commander to build around.
The strongest PW as commanders cards are already available? Please, give me an example.
I run Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath and it is a bad PW. I literally just make Demons with it. Ob Nixilis, Reignited would be much stronger. Or how about Liliana, the Last Hope? How do you beat these emblems?
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
My add to that though is that it's very likely Tezzeret, the Seeker is a bit of an upgrade there.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Estrid
Aminatou
Will & sometimes Rowan
Daretti
I was not saying that all the available walkers are strong just that out of available Walkers if you gave me choice to make a deck it would probably be one of these or some dumb thing with NuKarn