I like the change personally. I don't think Phage would be all that bad as a general, there are plenty of generals that one-shot people. The Black Myojin is most likely the most dangerous of the bunch, and likely becomes the go-to for MBC. Meh, they're fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
On the one hand, those particular legends that require play from hand should be able to be used as such, since that's how they were designed.
On the other hand, having the commander zone is a garentee that the card will be IN your 'hand'....so how powerful will these cards become...
Personally, I believe the EDH community would profit (in terms of fun) if these mis-gnomer legends were given the chance to shine the way they were meant to. After all, there are enough other generals out there that can do some pretty broken stuff....why shut these poor souls down just because of how the rule is 'phrased'.
If it becomes a serious problem with a general being able to abuse the commander zone, then do what has been already done to several commanders....ban them as commanders.
Why would you need permission to play him as your general? He can still be cast for the 7 CMC without the suspend.
This is true, but Ith is just horrible if you cast him for seven mana. No immediate impact on the board, subject to major tempo loss, fragile body, and he has summoning sickness too. Suspending Ith instantly removes his two biggest flaws: expensive to cast for what he does, and summoning sickness on the Maze ability.
This is true, but Ith is just horrible if you cast him for seven mana. No immediate impact on the board, subject to major tempo loss, fragile body, and he has summoning sickness too. Suspending Ith instantly removes his two biggest flaws: expensive to cast for what he does, and summoning sickness on the Maze ability.
So are you saying you'd support this change? If so I'd love if you could get the commandercast crew in on this movement. Their support would really help move this along.
Not that you were asking me, but I support any mechanically clean ruling that allows more generals to be played with the functionality available to them in normal games of Magic.
The key phrase is "mechanically clean". You have to explain how the rule works in a single sentence, and the average player has to "get it" the first time they hear it. This means that while you can fix Phage and the Myojin, you probably aren't getting any fixes for Haakon, Ith, or Ink-eyes.
The simplest text I can come up with is:
You may cast your general as though it were in your hand, and if you do, it is treated as if it were in your hand when you cast it.
So this helps Phage and the Myojin. Tacking on a clause about "activating abilities of the general that required it to be in your hand" is getting way too wordy and bordering on confusing, but that would be the only thing that lets Ith and Ink-eyes get played. To make Haakon work, you need clauses that actually move the general to your hand from the command zone, and that's just way over the complexity line. Sorry, I'd love it if you could play the guy too, but it's okay. Not every legendary creature needs to be a potential general. The fact that 98% of them can be used is probably good enough.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
You may cast your general as though it were in your hand, and if you do, it is treated as if it were in your hand when you cast it.
The phrase 'treated as' is no longer used in M:tG rules text, precisely because it's horribly ambiguous. A gatherer search for that phrase hits only the reminder text of cards with Phasing.
That's a really scary point in itself. Everyone in favor of this: do you know the rules of phasing? If I enchant your general with Vanishing and activate it, what happens? If I activate it and then respond using Crown of Ages to move the Vanishing to another creature, what is the board state once the stack empties? Does your Aura Shards trigger at any point? Do you want to have to answer 'treated as' questions ever in your life?
This is such an incredibly bad idea. It hyper-complicates the rules, and the only gain is awful new degenerate strategies nobody sane wants to play against. If your playgroup wants to do that, I wish you all the best in that, but please don't try to amend the rules to inflict an Age of Black Myojin Decks on my FLGS, where we take the rules literally and play to win. I will scoop IRL to that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
Yes, I know exactly how phasing works. And "treated as" is the best way of explaining to new players how phasing exists, for the record. Getting to your ruling question, the vanishing will move to the new creature. When the vanishing effect resolves, the new creature will phase out and nothing happens to the general. Aura Shards does not trigger. All that happens is that anything that wants to know if the phased out creature is on the battlefield gets an answer of "no", until it phases in again when the answer becomes "yes".
The reason phasing is so complicated is NOT the use of the word "treated". It's *what* is treated. In particular, the fact that it affects a wide array of permanents, and it changes how they interact with the battlefield, by far the most complicated zone in Magic. Interactions on the battlefield are more complicated than the combined complexity of all other zones.
This rule uses "treated as" to apply only to the zone of "hand", and it only applies when the spell is cast. Once the spell has resolved and any related triggers are done, there is no need to ever remember that it was "treated as" coming from the hand.
So stop using phasing as a straw man. Come up with an example of how THIS RULE can create a genuinely confusing situation when casting a general.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
The phrase 'treated as' is no longer used in M:tG rules text, precisely because it's horribly ambiguous. A gatherer search for that phrase hits only the reminder text of cards with Phasing.
That's a really scary point in itself. Everyone in favor of this: do you know the rules of phasing? If I enchant your general with Vanishing and activate it, what happens? If I activate it and then respond using Crown of Ages to move the Vanishing to another creature, what is the board state once the stack empties? Does your Aura Shards trigger at any point? Do you want to have to answer 'treated as' questions ever in your life?
FWIW, once you know that phasing in/out does not trigger any enters/leaves the battlefield triggers, it's not that complicated. But it's still something that probably 90% (or more) people who play the game have never encountered.
This is such an incredibly bad idea. It hyper-complicates the rules, and the only gain is awful new degenerate strategies nobody sane wants to play against. If your playgroup wants to do that, I wish you all the best in that, but please don't try to amend the rules to inflict an Age of Black Myojin Decks on my FLGS, where we take the rules literally and play to win. I will scoop IRL to that.
So, an 8 mana 5/2 that has pretty much zero impact on the board is degenerate? I understand that wiping everyone's (well, not your own) hands out is very powerful, but shouldn't 8 mana creatures do something powerful? I guess I just don't see the problem. We allow people to play any of the Generals that have triggers/whatever based on playing the card from their hand in our local group and have had no issues whatsoever. YMMV, I guess.
I think people are chasing something they can't have: A unique commander. Once you've exhausted the seldom played because they're underpowered legendary creatures (Reveka, Wizard Savant, Jasmine Boreal, etc) you have no where to go but the seldom played because they break the rules legendaries, non creatures like Genju of the Realms/Elbrus, the Binding Blade or ones that are technically playable but don't interact well with the command zone like the Myojins, Phage, or Higure, the Still Wind .
I think constantly updating the rules to allow more and more commanders does not actually increase the health of the format. If you change this rule and suddenly there is a flood of people playing decks built around the new curiosities they will become just as "boring" as every other commander and people will start clamoring for the Nephilim's to be allowed, for legendaries that cannot ever become creatures (Meishin, the Mind Cage, Mirari, etc). This isn't a slippery slope argument, I don't think these cards will ever be allowed and if they were it wouldn't be a big deal; but rather to point out that people are trying to push the rules for the wrong reasons: trying to be a unique snowflake, not to improve the format.
Yes, I know exactly how phasing works. And "treated as" is the best way of explaining to new players how phasing exists, for the record. Getting to your ruling question, the vanishing will move to the new creature. When the vanishing effect resolves, the new creature will phase out and nothing happens to the general. Aura Shards does not trigger. All that happens is that anything that wants to know if the phased out creature is on the battlefield gets an answer of "no", until it phases in again when the answer becomes "yes".
You could post in the Rulings forum if you wanted to be sure, but I'm pretty sure Vanishing's ability refers to the enchanted creature as an object, and resolves looking for the object it was attached to when the ability was activated. Moreover, you didn't mention that any auras or equipment attached to that creature would phase out with it.
The reason phasing is so complicated is NOT the use of the word "treated". It's *what* is treated. In particular, the fact that it affects a wide array of permanents, and it changes how they interact with the battlefield, by far the most complicated zone in Magic. Interactions on the battlefield are more complicated than the combined complexity of all other zones.
This rule uses "treated as" to apply only to the zone of "hand", and it only applies when the spell is cast. Once the spell has resolved and any related triggers are done, there is no need to ever remember that it was "treated as" coming from the hand.
So stop using phasing as a straw man. Come up with an example of how THIS RULE can create a genuinely confusing situation when casting a general.
I used Phasing because that was literally the only place in Gatherer that phrase appears. "Treated as" does come up in the comprehensive rules quite a bit more, but since we're talking about a scrap of rules text that is essentially spliced onto every single Commander at the beginning of the game...
Clear, consistent, unambiguous rules aren't for those of us that spend time learning exactly how the game works - they're for everyone who doesn't want to read the comprehensive rules. Don't use your knowledge of phasing as a straw man for everyone who plays EDH.
Your implementation wasn't that bad, it just illustrates why this rule is so unwritable - nothing else in the game works this way at all. The existing rule is similar to effects like Spelljack and Praetor's Grasp, or Havengul Lich, which allow you to cast cards from unusual zones.
So, an 8 mana 5/2 that has pretty much zero impact on the board is degenerate? I understand that wiping everyone's (well, not your own) hands out is very powerful, but shouldn't 8 mana creatures do something powerful? I guess I just don't see the problem. We allow people to play any of the Generals that have triggers/whatever based on playing the card from their hand in our local group and have had no issues whatsoever. YMMV, I guess.
It's not that hard for a monoblack player to cast an eight-mana spell by turn six, sometimes earlier. An eight-mana black sorcery that says 'everyone else discards their hands' would be extremely powerful, and letting it be your commander is degenerate.
As for 'zero impact on the board' I really think you underestimate an indestructible blocker with five power who dumps everyone else's hand as soon as he's in danger.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
It's not that hard for a monoblack player to cast an eight-mana spell by turn six, sometimes earlier. An eight-mana black sorcery that says 'everyone else discards their hands' would be extremely powerful, and letting it be your commander is degenerate.
We simply have different definitions of degenerate. I am much more afraid of, say, Tooth & Nail turn 6, because it typically means the game is over. Now, I don't necessarily think Tooth & Nail is degenerate, as it is a 9 mana (with Entwine) sorcery, but it wins the game when it is cast more often than not, whereas Myojin doesn't barring Megrim type shenanigans or something. I've lost games after activating Myojin and won after opponents activated it. I just don't see the card as degenerate, personally, but fair enough.
As for 'zero impact on the board' I really think you underestimate an indestructible blocker with five power who dumps everyone else's hand as soon as he's in danger.
Indestructible 5/2s are fine, but they aren't much of a deterrent in my experience. Primeval Titan, etc. attack right through him, so the body just isn't that significant when compared to threats at the same (or slightly lower) mana cost. Again, I am not denying that the ability is a strong one, but I can't say I have ever been afraid to attack into one, and frequently have people attack into mine. I guess it depends on your playgroup and the decks they play, just like everything else.
I think constantly updating the rules to allow more and more commanders does not actually increase the health of the format. If you change this rule and suddenly there is a flood of people playing decks built around the new curiosities they will become just as "boring" as every other commander and people will start clamoring for the Nephilim's to be allowed, for legendaries that cannot ever become creatures (Meishin, the Mind Cage, Mirari, etc). This isn't a slippery slope argument, I don't think these cards will ever be allowed and if they were it wouldn't be a big deal; but rather to point out that people are trying to push the rules for the wrong reasons: trying to be a unique snowflake, not to improve the format.
But it is a slippery slope argument. The cards we are looking at are legendary creatures, which are the backbone of the format. You are extending the misguided logic by saying that this may eventually include legendary artifacts, enchantments, flip cards, etc, which is indeed a slippery slope. By all means, most of the creatures under discussion can be used as generals already, but then they just become overcosted beat sticks. The purpose of this rule change is to allow more legendary creatures to become playable.
I used Phasing because that was literally the only place in Gatherer that phrase appears. "Treated as" does come up in the comprehensive rules quite a bit more, but since we're talking about a scrap of rules text that is essentially spliced onto every single Commander at the beginning of the game...
Clear, consistent, unambiguous rules aren't for those of us that spend time learning exactly how the game works - they're for everyone who doesn't want to read the comprehensive rules. Don't use your knowledge of phasing as a straw man for everyone who plays EDH.
You are missing tedv's point: you are drawing a single word from the whole "phasing" mechanic. In that context, everything is relatively wordy and unnecessary. In this context in which we're using it, "treats" just means that if an effect checks where something was cast from, it makes it as though it was cast from the hand.
It's not that hard for a monoblack player to cast an eight-mana spell by turn six, sometimes earlier. An eight-mana black sorcery that says 'everyone else discards their hands' would be extremely powerful, and letting it be your commander is degenerate.
As for 'zero impact on the board' I really think you underestimate an indestructible blocker with five power who dumps everyone else's hand as soon as he's in danger.
This discussion isn't about power levels; if someone wants to break EDH, they will break it. It's about letting more generals to be used without them being virtually useless as a general.
Well I fear this will be turn into a debate based on semantics rather than actual content; but I was not making the argument that this change would be negative because it would lead to future changes (the definition of a slippery slope argument). This change would not even be negative at all in my opinion. But the change is pointless because it is an attempt to obtain something you cannot ever obtain.
Why do you quote what I say about phasing, but ignore the whole text about how phasing isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand. Stop being an e-twit. And now you want to derail this discussion on the intricacies of phasing and whether I really understand what happens when you combine aura movement with phasing?
This has nothing to do the original post about whether there are clean ways to make more generals playable. I'd report your post, but I'm not sure whether to report it as intentional trolling, complete stupidity, or willful belligerence.
You still haven't brought up why "treated as though it were cast from your hand" would be confusing for generals. Stop trying to prove guilt by proximity and come up with a real example that uses the actual proposed rule. Or did you just ignore that because you couldn't come up with one?
Now that said, because you seem to have a stiffy for phasing, let me retort to your off topic information:
You could post in the Rulings forum if you wanted to be sure, but I'm pretty sure Vanishing's ability refers to the enchanted creature as an object, and resolves looking for the object it was attached to when the ability was activated. Moreover, you didn't mention that any auras or equipment attached to that creature would phase out with it.
It was your ****ing example! I didn't mention any auras or equipment because YOU didn't mention any auras or equipment. But even if Vanishing applied to the original creature it was attached to instead of the new creature, all that would happen is the first creature would be phased out instead. And phased out means "If anything asks whether this is on the battlefield, the answer is no."
I used Phasing because that was literally the only place in Gatherer that phrase appears. "Treated as" does come up in the comprehensive rules quite a bit more, but since we're talking about a scrap of rules text that is essentially spliced onto every single Commander at the beginning of the game...
How many times a certain phrase comes up in the comprehensive rules is irrelevant. Know what term didn't even exist in the rulebook one month ago? Undying. Yet for some reason, Wizards figured that it was worth the complication of adding another term to the game, one that had NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE!
Look, the complexity of a word or phrase is not measured by instances in the rule book. It's measured by the amount of text required to describe how it works. "Treated as though cast from your hand" requires at best 3 sentences and 2 entries in the comprehensive rules. It would be a footnote to the set of rules governing things like Spelljack. Even undying had more rules than that. You are focusing too much on the phrase "treated as" and not enough on what that would actually mean.
And last, a bit of insight into life. "Everyone has two reasons for doing something. A good reason and a real reason." Which is to say, people do things because they want to, but then retroactively find rationalizations for why that's a good idea. You might think you have a good reason for complaining about this rule as being "complex like phasing", but your real reason is that you just don't want certain generals to be playable. You even hinted at this in your original post.
And similarly, I have two reasons for responding. My good reason is that I don't like letting bull**** logic slide. But my real reason is that I think you're an idiot and deserve to be mocked for it using the cold, hard mallet of logic.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
That's a really scary point in itself. Everyone in favor of this: do you know the rules of phasing?
Yes.
If I enchant your general with Vanishing and activate it, what happens?
The General phases out. Vanishing phases out with it. It does not leave the battlefield. It cannot be moved to the Command zone.
If I activate it and then respond using Crown of Ages to move the Vanishing to another creature, what is the board state once the stack empties?
The newly enchanted creature phases out. Vanishing phases out with it. This is because the ability states the enchanted creature is phased out. This is checked on resolution.
You could post in the Rulings forum if you wanted to be sure, but I'm pretty sure Vanishing's ability refers to the enchanted creature as an object, and resolves looking for the object it was attached to when the ability was activated. Moreover, you didn't mention that any auras or equipment attached to that creature would phase out with it.
No, the ability on the stack says, "Phase out what this is enchanting," and on resolution sees what that is.
No other auras/equipment were in your scenario.
Both of those arguments have more to do with the rules of what phasing affects. Not the rules of how phased out objects are treated as though they are not on the battlefield.
I find the "as though" clause to very clear. Anything that asks "Are you on the battlefield?" gets back the answer "No, because I'm treated as though I'm not."
I would have thought that a better reason - and really, the only legitimate one - would have been because you believe the rule change would have been beneficial to the game. If you're arguing the point based on another agenda, I think we have a problem.
I'm personally ambivalent on a rules change. Whatever happens though, I want it to happen for a good reason. I definitely don't have an agenda beyond that.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
You don't get to tell me what's relevant to the issue being discussed, any more than you get to tell me what I think or how I feel.
I just wanted the chorus of "hey why am I not allowed to do this, let's change it" to be suitably answered by "because it allows me to do THIS, which you'd hate" and "because unnecessary rules complexity is bad".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
You don't get to tell me what's relevant to the issue being discussed, any more than you get to tell me what I think or how I feel.
I just wanted the chorus of "hey why am I not allowed to do this, let's change it" to be suitably answered by "because it allows me to do THIS, which you'd hate" and "because unnecessary rules complexity is bad".
Actually everyone here has the right to say whether the issue is on topic, as defined by the original post. We're talking about potentially changing the rules for casting generals. I specifically like your point of:
"because it allows me to do THIS, which you'd hate"
What exactly is "THIS"? What would adding "as though it were cast from your hand" allow people to do that they would hate? I'll avoid the "unnecessary complexity is bad" statement, which I agree with, because the decisions of "necessary" and "complex" are highly subjective. But you seem to have a specific, concrete example of something this rule would allow people to do that players would hate. Can you enlighten us on what that is?
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
Ok so somehow I've noticed people tending towards the argument that I'm proposing this rules change so that I can get to play with a niche or unique general who only I want to play with in this way. I actually don't want to play with any of these terrible commanders in any of these ways. I just want the rules to properly allow for all the cards available to function as they were intended: e.g. they get a counter if you didn't cheat them into play, or you can cheat them into play if some simple conditions are met.
I'd appreciate if this didn't degenerate into a rules qubble about things that are irrelevant or off-topic. Thanks to tedv, shneakyshneaky, and everyone else who is trying to keep the thread focused (and answering rules questions!).
Again, the only arguments I'm seeing against this change are still: I don't want to play against commander X. Which is completely invalid as a reason to not make it an option to play that commander (I don't want to play against Iona but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to play her). And that the change would be confusing. To this I say, well any rules change takes some getting used to, but honestly there is a learning curve to play any new format, adding a small functional change like this wouldn't cause people to be incapable of grasping the rules fast enough to want to play the format.
This change isn't just for a couple corner cases right now either. It's for every other general in the future with a clause that counts casting from the hand. I want to make sure that if R+D doesn't go through adding errata to every card like this, then we can still play with them as they were intended.
EDIT: A quick check says it isn't, I recommend posting this thread here and seeing what people have to say.
This is getting a bit bigger than me, I need a hero. But seriously, I'm trying to edit OP to reflect a more precise wording, and don't even have an account on EDH forums so I'll do that soon but right now I'm still working here.
Ok so somehow I've noticed people tending towards the argument that I'm proposing this rules change so that I can get to play with a niche or unique general who only I want to play with in this way. I actually don't want to play with any of these terrible commanders in any of these ways. I just want the rules to properly allow for all the cards available to function as they were intended: e.g. they get a counter if you didn't cheat them into play, or you can cheat them into play if some simple conditions are met.
Again, the only arguments I'm seeing against this change are still: I don't want to play against commander X. Which is completely invalid as a reason to not make it an option to play that commander (I don't want to play against Iona but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to play her).
But generals do get banned when they're sufficiently degenerate. Black Myojin would probably be banned if he worked the way he was designed to work.
For the record, my current problem with the black Myojin is precisely that I've never seen someone play him and then win; I've only seen him played to stop another player from winning, which never works, but also ruins MY chances of taking down the winner with a card that could actually stop him.
My speculative problem is that black Myojin decks will be designed to dump everyone else's hand around turn five or six, and that isn't something this format needs. I haven't even seen the red Myojin played, but I'm betting it's not any better, and not something I'd want to have to play around every single game.
And that the change would be confusing. To this I say, well any rules change takes some getting used to, but honestly there is a learning curve to play any new format, adding a small functional change like this wouldn't cause people to be incapable of grasping the rules fast enough to want to play the format.
Rules you can almost always ignore are a design flaw. See also: mana burn.
This change isn't just for a couple corner cases right now either. It's for every other general in the future with a clause that counts casting from the hand. I want to make sure that if R+D doesn't go through adding errata to every card like this, then we can still play with them as they were intended.
I don't mind the idea as a house rule, but that's really where it ought to stay, because the logic used to justify playing something the way it was designed to work can be applied to, let's say, every rare from Kamigawa Block. Or Sorin Markov. The cards should do what they say.
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
On the one hand, those particular legends that require play from hand should be able to be used as such, since that's how they were designed.
On the other hand, having the commander zone is a garentee that the card will be IN your 'hand'....so how powerful will these cards become...
Personally, I believe the EDH community would profit (in terms of fun) if these mis-gnomer legends were given the chance to shine the way they were meant to. After all, there are enough other generals out there that can do some pretty broken stuff....why shut these poor souls down just because of how the rule is 'phrased'.
If it becomes a serious problem with a general being able to abuse the commander zone, then do what has been already done to several commanders....ban them as commanders.
+1 for the idea
+1 for hoping it goes through
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
This is true, but Ith is just horrible if you cast him for seven mana. No immediate impact on the board, subject to major tempo loss, fragile body, and he has summoning sickness too. Suspending Ith instantly removes his two biggest flaws: expensive to cast for what he does, and summoning sickness on the Maze ability.
So are you saying you'd support this change? If so I'd love if you could get the commandercast crew in on this movement. Their support would really help move this along.
Level 1 Judge
The key phrase is "mechanically clean". You have to explain how the rule works in a single sentence, and the average player has to "get it" the first time they hear it. This means that while you can fix Phage and the Myojin, you probably aren't getting any fixes for Haakon, Ith, or Ink-eyes.
The simplest text I can come up with is:
You may cast your general as though it were in your hand, and if you do, it is treated as if it were in your hand when you cast it.
So this helps Phage and the Myojin. Tacking on a clause about "activating abilities of the general that required it to be in your hand" is getting way too wordy and bordering on confusing, but that would be the only thing that lets Ith and Ink-eyes get played. To make Haakon work, you need clauses that actually move the general to your hand from the command zone, and that's just way over the complexity line. Sorry, I'd love it if you could play the guy too, but it's okay. Not every legendary creature needs to be a potential general. The fact that 98% of them can be used is probably good enough.
The phrase 'treated as' is no longer used in M:tG rules text, precisely because it's horribly ambiguous. A gatherer search for that phrase hits only the reminder text of cards with Phasing.
That's a really scary point in itself. Everyone in favor of this: do you know the rules of phasing? If I enchant your general with Vanishing and activate it, what happens? If I activate it and then respond using Crown of Ages to move the Vanishing to another creature, what is the board state once the stack empties? Does your Aura Shards trigger at any point? Do you want to have to answer 'treated as' questions ever in your life?
This is such an incredibly bad idea. It hyper-complicates the rules, and the only gain is awful new degenerate strategies nobody sane wants to play against. If your playgroup wants to do that, I wish you all the best in that, but please don't try to amend the rules to inflict an Age of Black Myojin Decks on my FLGS, where we take the rules literally and play to win. I will scoop IRL to that.
The reason phasing is so complicated is NOT the use of the word "treated". It's *what* is treated. In particular, the fact that it affects a wide array of permanents, and it changes how they interact with the battlefield, by far the most complicated zone in Magic. Interactions on the battlefield are more complicated than the combined complexity of all other zones.
This rule uses "treated as" to apply only to the zone of "hand", and it only applies when the spell is cast. Once the spell has resolved and any related triggers are done, there is no need to ever remember that it was "treated as" coming from the hand.
So stop using phasing as a straw man. Come up with an example of how THIS RULE can create a genuinely confusing situation when casting a general.
FWIW, once you know that phasing in/out does not trigger any enters/leaves the battlefield triggers, it's not that complicated. But it's still something that probably 90% (or more) people who play the game have never encountered.
So, an 8 mana 5/2 that has pretty much zero impact on the board is degenerate? I understand that wiping everyone's (well, not your own) hands out is very powerful, but shouldn't 8 mana creatures do something powerful? I guess I just don't see the problem. We allow people to play any of the Generals that have triggers/whatever based on playing the card from their hand in our local group and have had no issues whatsoever. YMMV, I guess.
I think constantly updating the rules to allow more and more commanders does not actually increase the health of the format. If you change this rule and suddenly there is a flood of people playing decks built around the new curiosities they will become just as "boring" as every other commander and people will start clamoring for the Nephilim's to be allowed, for legendaries that cannot ever become creatures (Meishin, the Mind Cage, Mirari, etc). This isn't a slippery slope argument, I don't think these cards will ever be allowed and if they were it wouldn't be a big deal; but rather to point out that people are trying to push the rules for the wrong reasons: trying to be a unique snowflake, not to improve the format.
You could post in the Rulings forum if you wanted to be sure, but I'm pretty sure Vanishing's ability refers to the enchanted creature as an object, and resolves looking for the object it was attached to when the ability was activated. Moreover, you didn't mention that any auras or equipment attached to that creature would phase out with it.
I used Phasing because that was literally the only place in Gatherer that phrase appears. "Treated as" does come up in the comprehensive rules quite a bit more, but since we're talking about a scrap of rules text that is essentially spliced onto every single Commander at the beginning of the game...
Clear, consistent, unambiguous rules aren't for those of us that spend time learning exactly how the game works - they're for everyone who doesn't want to read the comprehensive rules. Don't use your knowledge of phasing as a straw man for everyone who plays EDH.
Your implementation wasn't that bad, it just illustrates why this rule is so unwritable - nothing else in the game works this way at all. The existing rule is similar to effects like Spelljack and Praetor's Grasp, or Havengul Lich, which allow you to cast cards from unusual zones.
It's not that hard for a monoblack player to cast an eight-mana spell by turn six, sometimes earlier. An eight-mana black sorcery that says 'everyone else discards their hands' would be extremely powerful, and letting it be your commander is degenerate.
As for 'zero impact on the board' I really think you underestimate an indestructible blocker with five power who dumps everyone else's hand as soon as he's in danger.
We simply have different definitions of degenerate. I am much more afraid of, say, Tooth & Nail turn 6, because it typically means the game is over. Now, I don't necessarily think Tooth & Nail is degenerate, as it is a 9 mana (with Entwine) sorcery, but it wins the game when it is cast more often than not, whereas Myojin doesn't barring Megrim type shenanigans or something. I've lost games after activating Myojin and won after opponents activated it. I just don't see the card as degenerate, personally, but fair enough.
Indestructible 5/2s are fine, but they aren't much of a deterrent in my experience. Primeval Titan, etc. attack right through him, so the body just isn't that significant when compared to threats at the same (or slightly lower) mana cost. Again, I am not denying that the ability is a strong one, but I can't say I have ever been afraid to attack into one, and frequently have people attack into mine. I guess it depends on your playgroup and the decks they play, just like everything else.
But it is a slippery slope argument. The cards we are looking at are legendary creatures, which are the backbone of the format. You are extending the misguided logic by saying that this may eventually include legendary artifacts, enchantments, flip cards, etc, which is indeed a slippery slope. By all means, most of the creatures under discussion can be used as generals already, but then they just become overcosted beat sticks. The purpose of this rule change is to allow more legendary creatures to become playable.
You are missing tedv's point: you are drawing a single word from the whole "phasing" mechanic. In that context, everything is relatively wordy and unnecessary. In this context in which we're using it, "treats" just means that if an effect checks where something was cast from, it makes it as though it was cast from the hand.
This discussion isn't about power levels; if someone wants to break EDH, they will break it. It's about letting more generals to be used without them being virtually useless as a general.
RGodo, Bandit WarlordR
GSeton, Krosan ProtectorG
BGJarad, Golgari Lich LordGB
Well I fear this will be turn into a debate based on semantics rather than actual content; but I was not making the argument that this change would be negative because it would lead to future changes (the definition of a slippery slope argument). This change would not even be negative at all in my opinion. But the change is pointless because it is an attempt to obtain something you cannot ever obtain.
This has nothing to do the original post about whether there are clean ways to make more generals playable. I'd report your post, but I'm not sure whether to report it as intentional trolling, complete stupidity, or willful belligerence.
You still haven't brought up why "treated as though it were cast from your hand" would be confusing for generals. Stop trying to prove guilt by proximity and come up with a real example that uses the actual proposed rule. Or did you just ignore that because you couldn't come up with one?
Now that said, because you seem to have a stiffy for phasing, let me retort to your off topic information:
It was your ****ing example! I didn't mention any auras or equipment because YOU didn't mention any auras or equipment. But even if Vanishing applied to the original creature it was attached to instead of the new creature, all that would happen is the first creature would be phased out instead. And phased out means "If anything asks whether this is on the battlefield, the answer is no."
How many times a certain phrase comes up in the comprehensive rules is irrelevant. Know what term didn't even exist in the rulebook one month ago? Undying. Yet for some reason, Wizards figured that it was worth the complication of adding another term to the game, one that had NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE!
Look, the complexity of a word or phrase is not measured by instances in the rule book. It's measured by the amount of text required to describe how it works. "Treated as though cast from your hand" requires at best 3 sentences and 2 entries in the comprehensive rules. It would be a footnote to the set of rules governing things like Spelljack. Even undying had more rules than that. You are focusing too much on the phrase "treated as" and not enough on what that would actually mean.
And last, a bit of insight into life. "Everyone has two reasons for doing something. A good reason and a real reason." Which is to say, people do things because they want to, but then retroactively find rationalizations for why that's a good idea. You might think you have a good reason for complaining about this rule as being "complex like phasing", but your real reason is that you just don't want certain generals to be playable. You even hinted at this in your original post.
And similarly, I have two reasons for responding. My good reason is that I don't like letting bull**** logic slide. But my real reason is that I think you're an idiot and deserve to be mocked for it using the cold, hard mallet of logic.
Tone it down a notch please. -ISB
Yes.
The General phases out. Vanishing phases out with it. It does not leave the battlefield. It cannot be moved to the Command zone.
The newly enchanted creature phases out. Vanishing phases out with it. This is because the ability states the enchanted creature is phased out. This is checked on resolution.
No. Nothing entered or left the battlefield.
Was that so hard?
Here's the hard questions:
A germ token is attacking you with a Batterskull attached. You cast Reality Ripple on the germ. What happens?
A Murderous Spoils targets your creature with a skullclamp on it. You cast Reality Ripple and phase it out. Another opponent casts Time and Tide. What happens?
No, the ability on the stack says, "Phase out what this is enchanting," and on resolution sees what that is.
No other auras/equipment were in your scenario.
Both of those arguments have more to do with the rules of what phasing affects. Not the rules of how phased out objects are treated as though they are not on the battlefield.
I find the "as though" clause to very clear. Anything that asks "Are you on the battlefield?" gets back the answer "No, because I'm treated as though I'm not."
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
The major point is, does the benefit added equal or surpass in value the complexity added to the rules.
I think the answer is no.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
You don't get to tell me what's relevant to the issue being discussed, any more than you get to tell me what I think or how I feel.
I just wanted the chorus of "hey why am I not allowed to do this, let's change it" to be suitably answered by "because it allows me to do THIS, which you'd hate" and "because unnecessary rules complexity is bad".
Can't we use the wording from these spells? Or find a way to use the same rules functions?
Actually everyone here has the right to say whether the issue is on topic, as defined by the original post. We're talking about potentially changing the rules for casting generals. I specifically like your point of:
What exactly is "THIS"? What would adding "as though it were cast from your hand" allow people to do that they would hate? I'll avoid the "unnecessary complexity is bad" statement, which I agree with, because the decisions of "necessary" and "complex" are highly subjective. But you seem to have a specific, concrete example of something this rule would allow people to do that players would hate. Can you enlighten us on what that is?
I'd appreciate if this didn't degenerate into a rules qubble about things that are irrelevant or off-topic. Thanks to tedv, shneakyshneaky, and everyone else who is trying to keep the thread focused (and answering rules questions!).
Again, the only arguments I'm seeing against this change are still: I don't want to play against commander X. Which is completely invalid as a reason to not make it an option to play that commander (I don't want to play against Iona but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to play her). And that the change would be confusing. To this I say, well any rules change takes some getting used to, but honestly there is a learning curve to play any new format, adding a small functional change like this wouldn't cause people to be incapable of grasping the rules fast enough to want to play the format.
This change isn't just for a couple corner cases right now either. It's for every other general in the future with a clause that counts casting from the hand. I want to make sure that if R+D doesn't go through adding errata to every card like this, then we can still play with them as they were intended.
Level 1 Judge
Is it posted on the EDH forums?
EDIT: A quick check says it isn't, I recommend posting this thread here and seeing what people have to say.
This is getting a bit bigger than me, I need a hero. But seriously, I'm trying to edit OP to reflect a more precise wording, and don't even have an account on EDH forums so I'll do that soon but right now I'm still working here.
Level 1 Judge
Then why no thread about using hybrid-colored cards you can only pay half of? You're hardly the first person to be annoyed that the rules of Commander don't match the printed intent of some cards, but it seems to me like that's not an accident. 'I always start with this card in my hand and my deck is designed to capitalize on it' is 'cheating' plenty as it is.
But generals do get banned when they're sufficiently degenerate. Black Myojin would probably be banned if he worked the way he was designed to work.
For the record, my current problem with the black Myojin is precisely that I've never seen someone play him and then win; I've only seen him played to stop another player from winning, which never works, but also ruins MY chances of taking down the winner with a card that could actually stop him.
My speculative problem is that black Myojin decks will be designed to dump everyone else's hand around turn five or six, and that isn't something this format needs. I haven't even seen the red Myojin played, but I'm betting it's not any better, and not something I'd want to have to play around every single game.
Rules you can almost always ignore are a design flaw. See also: mana burn.
I don't mind the idea as a house rule, but that's really where it ought to stay, because the logic used to justify playing something the way it was designed to work can be applied to, let's say, every rare from Kamigawa Block. Or Sorin Markov. The cards should do what they say.