I ran into a Yarok deck for the first time yesterday. Yes, it was powerful, but no moreso than any number of decks I faced yesterday. It ended up not winning, with, of all things. a Grunn the Lonely King big stompy deck piloted by a guy who has only been playing Commander for a couple of weeks crunching into Yarok's player for a disgusting amount of trample damage.
This sounds like a terrible option for Commander, on every level.
I think the target audience for Commander, the ones who don't play tuned decks and focus more on the experience of the game over winning it, will like this mulligan better because it makes it more likely that they get an opening hand they can keep and not necessarily because they are trying to sculpt a nut draw.
I expect it will encourage people to build decks poorly (not enough lands) and make it take longer to start games. Though not having to shuffle is an advantage in the second case, I suppose.
Yeah, last year's decks were a mess. Windgrace didn't have lands to support what was supposed to be a big part of the theme. The "top of the deck matters" didn't have topdeck manipulation cards that would have made it function, even though they would have been cheap to reprint. The enchantress deck included terrible, overpriced bestow creatures in place of good things to enchant and some obvious choices of enchantments.
That said, I saw out of the box or minimally upgraded versions of all of these decks - but most often Windgrace and Saheeli - sometimes pull off wins at fairly casual tables, mostly by virtue of the overall strength (value aside) of the cards in Windgrace and Saheeli being insanely strong as a commander. Which doesn't make them actual good decks, and which certainly doesn't negate the fact that the reprints offered very poor value. It just gives me some confidence that with the feedback from last year in mind, the team at WotC can design commander decks which are worth buying in terms of card value and which are also interesting to play or to use as a starting point to build without having to replace 75% of what the decks start with.
But please, please, upgrade the freaking mana bases. They are largely embarrassingly terrible. Does anyone anywhere at this point need another Vivid Grove?? Are they trying to test how many crappy CIPT duals it takes before you would be better off just running more basic lands? I would much rather have another version of the new art cycle basics we got from Guay and others a couple years back than more CIPT draft chaff.
She costs 4 and has to tap to do anything, in colors which offer access to flash but can get haste essentially only through artifacts. Lots of protection via counterspells, of course.
I think she's going to be strong, and if she gets Swiftfoot Boots or something on her, yeah, she's going to probably win games, the way an unchecked Birthing Pod will win games, but I have a hard time seeing her being ban-worthy.
I'm pretty sure most tables I play at are better at threat assessment, and pack more removal, than the people on Commander Clash. I haven't seen this episode, but the couple I have seen were not exactly impressive.
Yeah, Gavin Verhey is not just "some guy on the internet." He's very involved in this process, and in multiple venues he has written and stated that the feedback re: the poor quality of reprints in last year's Commander sets has been heard loud and clear and recognized as legitimate. He has also stated that Commander (as well as things like future Conspiracy and Battlebond sets) is one of the places where in-demand reprints - those desired for Commander and also some which are popular in other eternal formats and in Modern - will be showing up. These are statements made by a guy in the know.
I don't blame someone for taking a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach to this, and I am not expecting fetches or Wasteland reprints in this year's Commander decks, but I am pretty confident we will be getting a better variety of strong reprints this year than has been the case for the past couple years.
The the other place where Academy and Cradle differ is that people tend to play more creature sweepers than artifact sweepers. Vandalblast is played in almost every red deck, a few others are widely played, but otherwise it's mostly targeted removal. In contrast, pretty much every reasonably efficient creature sweeper, including the various black ones, sees a lot of play. It is more common over the course of a typical EDH game for Cradle to do less than Academy would do, just because it's more typical for all the creatures to be dead than it is for all the artifacts to be dead. Toss in Academy being U and the possibility of countermagic to protect the artifacts as well.
Also, artifact creatures tokens are a thing with Academy. Though neither is exactly optimized for Academy in their current build, I am pretty Academy would be pumping out 4+ mana on its own by turn 4 more often than not in my Brudiclad and Jhoira decks, between artifact lands, artifacts I've cast and thopter-makers.
In my Kurkesh deck, if I have Metalworker in my opening hand or draw into it by turn 3, I can usually cast anything in my deck on turn 4, unless someone removes the MW. That has happened a few times, but more often than not it has stuck around for 1-2 turns, which is enough for it to a lot. A couple turns later, I have usually emptied most of my hand, and at that point MW itself is mostly moot, because I usually have a pretty commanding board state.
My perception of MW's dangerousness probably is based on part on the fact that I have played t1 Metalworker off of Mishra's Workshop more than once. That takes sort of a god hand, obviously, but the more typical t3 Metalworker isn't uncommon at all, and is still ridiculously powerful more often than not.
On the other hand, drawing t6 Metalworker is usually pretty bad, but a lot of ramp cards are pretty lame to draw into later in the game.
Personally, I think unbanning Metalworker was a bit of a mistake, but unbanning the Academy would be vastly worse, because it is a lot easily to completely break TA than it is Metalworker. Onering's points are spot-on.
This could produce obscene amounts of mana in my Jhoira deck if it came down early, and even though my Brudiclad and Rashmi decks aren't quite optimized for it, it would still be easily the best land in either of those decks.
I tend to avoid infinite combos in my deck, so when I go off with Paradox Engine, it doesn't tend to be an "I win" combo so much as I use topdeck manipulation and chain together draw spells until I draw into one of the deck's various win conditions. As a result, things can sometimes take awhile, depending on my board state at the time and how long it takes to draw into a win condition, kind of like what Pokken refers to as "functionally comboing in a nondeterministic way." Usually I can win on the round I cast Paradox Engine, but that round might take awhile. The result is not exactly durdling, but not a great game state, either. This is not atypical of what I see when less competitive/combo-oriented players run Paradox Engine.
This is a card I have considered often, but I don't recall ever actually running it in a deck. It's potentially good, despite the somewhat awkward mana requirements, so I expect I will get around to trying it out sometime.
You can be irritated all you want, but in the context of this format, the social aspect of the game and whether everyone is having a good time are just as important a component of game play as are strategic aspects. Stating this fact isn't muddying the thread at all. The social contract and politics are factors which were intentionally designed into this format. Also, as Buffsam89 notes, and as I and others have noted repeatedly throughout this thread, MLD does not actually do a good job of combatting ramp, and to the (poor) extent to which it does so, it does so in a manner which is indiscriminate, negatively impacting all of the opponents' ability to make meaningful decisions within the game, not just the player who is heavily ramping. This makes for a poor social play experience in addition to not generally working well against dedicated land ramp players. So, this makes your point doubly wrong.
At its core, MLD is a control strategy focusing on eliminating as much of each opponent's resources at possible. It is actually much more effective in controlling the table in a multiplayer game than are more conventional control strategies such as counterspells, bouncing permanents and hand destruction. As such, considered from purely a strategic point of view, MLD is a strong option to consider, especially in certain colors, if all you care about is winning the game. And if competition is the primary focus of whomever you are playing with, that's fine. But since that isn't what the majority of Commander players are looking for, pursuing that strategy is largely going to be an asocial (if not antisocial) route to go. MLD is not unique in this regard. Most of the people playing in this format are also not interested in playing against hard stax/lockdown decks, either.
Vandalblast to blow up everyone's rocks? They use their lands to cast more rocks and other stuff and keep playing.
Assuming they have more in hand, actively tutor them, recover their prior rocks, or luckily draw into them. Can result in "draw-go" if it stops a deck from progressing further as the pilot hopes to find more to put them back into the game. Which can result in the game stalling out based on the impact except for the person who did it.
Wrath effects to zap all the creatures? Players use lands to cast more creatures and other stuff, the game moves on.
See points on rocks.
Blow up all the lands? Most of the players, save those (including, non-coincidentally, the one who played the MLD) who are prepared for this, draw cards hoping to draw into something that might put them back into the game. Most of the time they draw and go. Even if they draw a land, they mostly draw and go until they do that a couple of times. The game crawls to the stall, unless the MLD guy can pull off a win pretty much immediately.
See points on rocks.
People who don't see the difference in these conditions either should play only with people who like the same thing, or maybe just stick to playing competitive formats. Or playing with themselves, I suppose.
Same could be same about basic destruction/disruption.
You are clearly one of the guys the lost point was aimed at.
The point is, if you still have your lands, unless you have built your deck really badly (or strangely, reflecting a few fringe cases), you can rebuild a lot more easily than is usually the case when you don't have lands. Even if you are a dedicated rock-user, you will probably not have the as your only mana sources; you will initially use lands to fuel your playing rocks. If you still have lands after your rocks go kablooie, you can draw into more rocks and cast them, or do something else (presumably your deck has more in it than just rocks). Same with creatures. Blow up someone's critters, they're still behind, but they can cast something else with that land (and maybe other mana) they have available. Everyone being able to do something, even if some of their stuff is blown up, lets people play and maybe continue to have a good time. Blow up the lands, this slows things down a lot more. This is important if your primary goal is to win. If your goal is for everyone to have an enjoyable, social game, not so much, especially if your win doesn't come immediately after (or perhaps as a result of) the MLD.
I think you missed my point actually. I personally believe you are misrepresenting land destruction VS other forms of disruption which can stall out a player.
Also social aspect is already inherent within MTG, its called interacting with the person or people who are your opponent(s) with words, emotions, body language, facial expressions, and physical contact (Example: Handshake for a good game).
You are also doing that thing I personally despise about these types of arguments: You are conflating different aspects of the game as if they meant the same thing. These aspects in this case are: social interaction, personal enjoyment, and gameplay. These aspects can be in conjunction but are also are distinct from each other and are never always all together.
Yeah, no. Giving someone the finger is a social interaction. Calling someone an ******** and pissing on their cards is also a social interaction, albeit not a very appropriate one. The social aspect of EDH is about more than socially interacting, which is indeed inherent to the game. EDH/Commander was designed as a social format, with "social" in this context referring to "creating a mutually enjoyable social experience." If everyone in a play group enjoys MLD, then cool, but the majority of players of this format are not cool with that, and for good reason: Because it is much harder to recover from MLD than from other, more acceptable forms of disruption. Other forms of disruption will rarely, if ever, disrupt the whole game the way MLD will, and if it does, people will almost always recover more slowly.
You can despise that reasoning all you want, but that reaction on your part doesn't change the facts about the social contract and its place in the format, or make your insistence that the game should be played a certain way regardless of whether people are having a good time any less wrong-headed when applied to this specific format of Magic.
If you just care about winning, play with other competitive players, or at least ones who are cool with the same thing, or play other competitive formats. This one was designed to be different, in that it specifically takes things like everyone's enjoyment into account (something that is irrelevant to, say, Legacy or Modern), and is about more than winning. People can choose to play it with the primary concern being competition, and that is cool, but that is not the default, and certainly not the one right way to play it.
Again, not seeing the upside here.
I expect it will encourage people to build decks poorly (not enough lands) and make it take longer to start games. Though not having to shuffle is an advantage in the second case, I suppose.
That said, I saw out of the box or minimally upgraded versions of all of these decks - but most often Windgrace and Saheeli - sometimes pull off wins at fairly casual tables, mostly by virtue of the overall strength (value aside) of the cards in Windgrace and Saheeli being insanely strong as a commander. Which doesn't make them actual good decks, and which certainly doesn't negate the fact that the reprints offered very poor value. It just gives me some confidence that with the feedback from last year in mind, the team at WotC can design commander decks which are worth buying in terms of card value and which are also interesting to play or to use as a starting point to build without having to replace 75% of what the decks start with.
But please, please, upgrade the freaking mana bases. They are largely embarrassingly terrible. Does anyone anywhere at this point need another Vivid Grove?? Are they trying to test how many crappy CIPT duals it takes before you would be better off just running more basic lands? I would much rather have another version of the new art cycle basics we got from Guay and others a couple years back than more CIPT draft chaff.
I think she's going to be strong, and if she gets Swiftfoot Boots or something on her, yeah, she's going to probably win games, the way an unchecked Birthing Pod will win games, but I have a hard time seeing her being ban-worthy.
I'm pretty sure most tables I play at are better at threat assessment, and pack more removal, than the people on Commander Clash. I haven't seen this episode, but the couple I have seen were not exactly impressive.
I don't blame someone for taking a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach to this, and I am not expecting fetches or Wasteland reprints in this year's Commander decks, but I am pretty confident we will be getting a better variety of strong reprints this year than has been the case for the past couple years.
Also, artifact creatures tokens are a thing with Academy. Though neither is exactly optimized for Academy in their current build, I am pretty Academy would be pumping out 4+ mana on its own by turn 4 more often than not in my Brudiclad and Jhoira decks, between artifact lands, artifacts I've cast and thopter-makers.
My perception of MW's dangerousness probably is based on part on the fact that I have played t1 Metalworker off of Mishra's Workshop more than once. That takes sort of a god hand, obviously, but the more typical t3 Metalworker isn't uncommon at all, and is still ridiculously powerful more often than not.
On the other hand, drawing t6 Metalworker is usually pretty bad, but a lot of ramp cards are pretty lame to draw into later in the game.
This could produce obscene amounts of mana in my Jhoira deck if it came down early, and even though my Brudiclad and Rashmi decks aren't quite optimized for it, it would still be easily the best land in either of those decks.
At its core, MLD is a control strategy focusing on eliminating as much of each opponent's resources at possible. It is actually much more effective in controlling the table in a multiplayer game than are more conventional control strategies such as counterspells, bouncing permanents and hand destruction. As such, considered from purely a strategic point of view, MLD is a strong option to consider, especially in certain colors, if all you care about is winning the game. And if competition is the primary focus of whomever you are playing with, that's fine. But since that isn't what the majority of Commander players are looking for, pursuing that strategy is largely going to be an asocial (if not antisocial) route to go. MLD is not unique in this regard. Most of the people playing in this format are also not interested in playing against hard stax/lockdown decks, either.
Yeah, no. Giving someone the finger is a social interaction. Calling someone an ******** and pissing on their cards is also a social interaction, albeit not a very appropriate one. The social aspect of EDH is about more than socially interacting, which is indeed inherent to the game. EDH/Commander was designed as a social format, with "social" in this context referring to "creating a mutually enjoyable social experience." If everyone in a play group enjoys MLD, then cool, but the majority of players of this format are not cool with that, and for good reason: Because it is much harder to recover from MLD than from other, more acceptable forms of disruption. Other forms of disruption will rarely, if ever, disrupt the whole game the way MLD will, and if it does, people will almost always recover more slowly.
You can despise that reasoning all you want, but that reaction on your part doesn't change the facts about the social contract and its place in the format, or make your insistence that the game should be played a certain way regardless of whether people are having a good time any less wrong-headed when applied to this specific format of Magic.
If you just care about winning, play with other competitive players, or at least ones who are cool with the same thing, or play other competitive formats. This one was designed to be different, in that it specifically takes things like everyone's enjoyment into account (something that is irrelevant to, say, Legacy or Modern), and is about more than winning. People can choose to play it with the primary concern being competition, and that is cool, but that is not the default, and certainly not the one right way to play it.