What if they just created a new supertype called commander and used it instead of legendary for planeswalkers. That the rules with a commander planeswalker is that they follow the same rules as a legendary creature, but they can also be in the 99. However they can't be played in Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and Standard. Then they just do functional reprints of past versions of planeswalkers with this type that they reprinted before like those from the three mythic editions.
Too many issues with that:
- type line spacenis limited and would limit what other card type info you included
- what do you do with the 700+ generals already? If you add the super type then you're doing functional errata
Well if it was applied to every creature instead of legendary, the word commander is the same number of letters, 9 for 9. But I wasn't speaking of adding that to creatures, just using it on "new" planeswalkers that are a functional reprint of an older one but only legal for the commander format. Perhaps a simple visual demonstration of what I meant?
Jace, Sculptor of Minds2UU Commander Planeswalker - Jace (MR)
+2: Look at the top card of target player's library. You may put that card on the bottom of that player's library.
0: Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.
-1: Return target creature to its owner's hand.
-12: Exile all cards from target player's library, then that player shuffles his or her hand into his or her library.
[3]
Basically Jace, the Mind Sculptor but legal only for this format and can be the commander of a deck.
What purpose does this serve? Letting Wizards do an end run around the RC to force all PWs to be commanders? It's a worse idea than wizards just stepping in and forcing the issue. It's downright cowardly, doing something (overruling the RC to change the rules of the formst) but trying to pretend like they aren't. Why would wizards want to do that when they could just force the change and stand by it to show confidence in it? Another issue is that this would effectively mean that every PW can be ran as a 2 of in commander, undermining an additional aspect of the format. This seems like it just adds more issues without actually solving any.
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!
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support.
.
.
.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
Onering, you've brought the poll up on more than one occasion, but I think your interpretation of it isn't all that great.
First, this isn't a detailed poll. It doesn't afford any room for caveat or for voter explanation. It merely provides two binary options and one apathy option. That's it. There's no indication of voter confidence. There's no "I don't know" option. It's just a crummy poll, only useful for a surface reading of what outcome voters think they prefer. And most folks, regardless of how they voted, probably put less than a gut's reaction into whatever they ultimately decided to vote for. You keep referring to this poll like it's sacrosanct, but it appears to me like something that should only be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, the apathy option is effectively a second yes vote. Those voters are saying they're perfectly fine with the rules being changed. To lump those voters in as "not yes," while technically true, is a bit misleading. As such, what you're really looking at isn't 33% of people supporting change. It's 47% of people saying they're fine with change.
Third, MTGS is practically the old guard of Commander. Between Facebook, Reddit, and other more prevalent platforms, MTGS sees only a tiny fraction of the total Commander discussion. The folks who do engage here tend to be among the most loyal and most enfranchised Commander players out there though. Combine that with the fact that the Commander Rules Discussion subforum has a reputation for being one of the most virulent parts of the board, and what you get is even fewer casual faces even making it to the poll to begin with. It hardly represents what the actual Commander playerbase thinks.
Now, I don't know how the Commander community at large feels about making planeswalkers commanders. I suspect less enfranchised players will be much more likely to favor that change, but that's only a suspicion. But to read this poll as "only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something.
Its far from a perfect poll, but its still better than blatantly asserting that its a popular choice. The only evidence we have, while not great, points to it being unpopular. I've seen reddit polls that have varied between similar results, and pws being universally allowed as commanders getting a plurality, but not a majority. I have not pointed to the poll unless responding to a poster that claims, without a shred of evidence, that allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is something the majority of the player base is behind.
But even though the poll isn't particularly great (but still better than what the pro side has), I do have a quibble with this: "'only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something." The former interpretation simply states the facts, that only slightly more than a third favor the change, while the latter stretches to editorialize and make the pro side seem significantly stronger. All the poll shows is a majority, a little over half, being flat out against it, and a little over a third being for it, with the remainder, about 10%, not caring and thus not counting. They aren't an argument against allowing pws, nor are they an argument for it. Sure, they'd be fine with it, but just as fine without it. Lumping them in with the pros artificially inflates those numbers. And there's a big difference between not minding a change and actually wanting the change. Since one of the biggest arguments the pro side is making is that the public wants this change, they should actually demonstrate that. Making a change of this nature shouldn't be open to simple majority rule in the first place, but rather on what's best for the format, but it certainly should not be made based on what percent would merely be ok with the change. That less than half of the respondents are ok with making the change, not in favor but just ok, doesn't bode well for making the change.
And your last point "especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something" just isn't true at all. Studies have repeatedly shown that people are significantly more likely to vote yes than no and unsure combined when answering polls or voting on ballot initiatives. There's a significant yes bias, just like there is a significant first choice presented bias. Its easier to get things approved by the public than denied, and people who don't particularly care a more likely to break yes, even if an unsure option is available.
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 feel like the argument was at least given a subtle nod with the implementation of what’s always been around covertly in rule 0. It’s a master stroke to make this explicit and formalized, in that it gives people who want to play these sort of variants leeway to play the format the way they want to. They always could in the right time and place of course, but now it’s a little more easy to have that discussion. It’s not a win for the ‘yes’ crowd, but it is middle ground that both sides of this debate can use to test the waters, and no one needs to feel any way for bringing it up as an option.
Regarding ‘if not now, when?’, I agree. If it were ever to be formalized, now would’ve been the time. The hype is up, there’s now focus on walkers than ever and plenty of choices. The fact that the RC and CAG unanimously decided against speaks volumes - allowing a global concession for all walkers would be ill advised. Regardless, the option was always there if you wanted it and now that’s made more obvious. It might not be formal and binding in every game you shuffle up, but does it really matter? Your meta is your meta, so long as they’re cool with it you’re good to go.
To anyone who plays commander outside of a kitchen table setting, nothing has changed. Official rules are the only rules.
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support. You are saying that you want the rules changed to cater to your tastes at the expense of the enjoyment of the majority of players. Because you cannot rely on house rules, you want to force your own, unpopular preferences to be the mandated rules.
It sounds uncharitable, but that is what your comments are actually saying. Maybe you really believe this, maybe you don't realize this is what you actually want, or maybe you are just reacting to arguments without thinking through the implications of how your responses add up.
Your obvious rebuttal would be that just because a majority feel one way doesn't make it right. I agree, I think the general feelings of the playerbase matter but that if that was all that mattered the format would have been ruined long ago. That's why there's value in having the format managed by people who take the opinions of the playerbase into account but who are change averse, knowledgeable, and willing to put their own preferences aside when making decisions. That ensures that while changes may not come as often or as quickly as they would in an optimized format, they are able to avoid bad decisions pretty well and its almost only changes that positively effect the format that sneak through.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
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!
Because he’s a Legendary creature, and Legendary creatures are legal commanders.
I don't think that is the point of the discussion...
Leovold is Legendary creature as well and he is banned.
Actually, it quite literally IS the point of the discussion. Legendary creatures as commanders is the established focus of the format, while allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is a new thing being suggested as a change. Thus, legendary creatures only get discussed in terms of being allowed in the format if they are bannable, or close to it, because they are allowed by default, while planeswalkers HAVE to be discussed if you want them added, because without discussion you default to the status quo, which is a no.
Carthage has a point that if something like Purphoros is OK from a power level perspectivet then something like Lili of the Dark Realms would be as well. But he tried out an I'll advised rhetorical flourish that Bloody Wednesday easily cut into. It's one thing to point out that people shouldn't be concerned about Lili as a commander from a power level standpoint, but another to suggest that it's a double standard that we would discuss the impact of individual planeswalkers being allowed as commanders but not new legendary creatures. The former is a proposed rule change that needs to be justified, with the positives being weighed against both the negatives and the inherit value of the status quo and coming out on top, while the latter is a basic facet of the format. You debate, critique, and analyze potential changes more than keeping things as they are, especially if the way things are works really well.
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!
Point is, out of all the PW's (140 now, 37 incomming), I could find around 20 which I find interesting and make a deck for them (11%+). I hardly find 11% (93 creatures) out of all the 844 which I find interesting.
Cool story. I checked, and of the 179 Planeswalkers listed in gatherer, I believe 8 are DFCs. Of the remaining 171, I found 5 that I would possibly build around (less than 3%), and one of those I have already built around (Aminatou) because it explored a unique design space and has the special text allowing it to be a commander.
On the other hand, I've built nearly 100 commander decks over the last decade (started to lose track because I haven't written them all down). I find plenty of legendary creatures interesting, and I am constantly building more. Even if I had only used 84 unique commanders, that would put me about 10%, which is more than three times my percentage for planeswalkers.
The real point is - personal preference/anecdote means nothing. You like one thing, I like another.
Well, it does mean that at least HE believes that there are that many pw that would be interesting commanders. That in practice means that at least one person THINKS this (whether it would play out in practice or if after building he'd decide that some of those are not interesting is another matter). In theory though, it does show that this is a viewpoint that people do actually have, even if I disagree strongly (I think only a handful of pws would make interesting commanders, and some of those are already allowed as commanders). There are likely a significant number of people who share his view, and I don't think it's right to dismiss his opinion as illegitimate. It's also not right to make a change based on a minority opinion, even if it's a significant minority, when a majority is set against it and there aren't compelling reasons to make the change beyond the minority opinion. If it weren't butting up against the value of the status quo and a majority being against it, it would deserve serious consideration. It would in that case be like the change to color identity that allowed Bosh as a commander. Wanting the change was a minority opinion, but fewer people were against the change (most were indifferent), the change was small enough that the value of the status quo was smaller, and it made the rule work more intuitively (which was a reason beyond preference for the change) and added value to the format by not arbitrarily excluding potential commanders for having off color activations.
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!
This is only going to get worse with how well WAR is being received.
Expect more focus on plot and story and walkers in the future.
The best course of action is to make them legal now, which will encourage wizards to design walkers with EDH in mind.
Lol. Yeah, they sure weren't focusing on planeswalkers these past 14 years /sarcasm. The only way they could focus on planeswalkers more in the story would be to ignore legendary creatures entirely (which would be really, really ******* stupid as legendary creatures are used to tie the story to planes and prevent everything from getting too samey by only having the same characters show up). Good job making yet another broad assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up though. I haven't seen anything suggesting that WAR is a game changer and we're going to see tons of uncommon planeswalkers from now on. It's pretty clearly the gimmick of the set and required a lot of special set building considerations to pull off. It's like saying Dominaria was really well received so expect the focus to shift to having tons of legendary creatures in each set.
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 assume all newly printed commanders will no longer be legal at release, and instead evaluated for how "worthwhile" they are and what they can bring to the format.
Hey Taleran, this right here is an example of a disingenuous argument, for future reference.
So, Carthage, I see you are attempting at reductio ad absurdum, but failing miserably at it. The key difference here is that the rules of the format already allow newly printed cards to be allowed as commanders, so they are legal by default. They are, however, evaluated and banned if needed, like Leovold. Planeswalkers as commanders is not currently allowed by the rules unless they have special text allowing them. This means that allowing it necessarily has a higher bar to clear, as it is a change from the status quo. New cards being printed does not count, as in a collectible card game the printing of new cards, and their legality in all formats, is a built in feature of the status quo. It is the established and expected way in which the format grows that is accounted for in the rules. Allowing a new class of cards as commanders, unbanning cards, banning cards, allowing unsets permanently, those are changes to the status quo, and thus must pass a higher threshold when being considered for adoption. The same would be true, by the way, if the RC were to consider disallowing all pws as commanders including the ones with the rules text allowing them to be used as such. PW commanders were something they werent really backing, but they would have had to make a special rule preventing it as the basic rules of the game allow the "can be your commander" rules text to be employed and overrule the rules of the format (similar to ravenous rats).
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!
"There are already boring options, so you should add a bunch more" is not a compelling reason to make a change.
Agreed. That wasn't the point I was trying to make though.
The point I was trying to make was that demand should be (one of several) compelling reasons to make a change, not how interesting whatever the thing is that is in demand. Whether you or I find planeswalkers interesting ought not be a factor at all.
If that's the standard to go by, then it's pretty obviously a no. A bit more than a third want it, a bit more than half explicitly don't, and a handful are undecided. When considering demand for a change, you must also consider demand for the change not to be made. If a bit more than a third want something and most others are indifferent, that may be a good change to make. If a bit more than a third want something and a bit more than half, an outright majority, explicitly do not want that thing, it's probably not a change that should be made.
Honestly, I'd think that only overwhelming demand should be sufficient to prompt a change. Otherwise, however, i think other factors should lead in determining a change. How interesting the change would be, how safe, what problems it could cause, what value it adds to the format, etc. Something that only a handful of people are asking for, but that would add value to the format and be interesting while having no drawbacks would be something to consider even in the absence of demand for it.
Allowing all planeswalkers as commanders has been analyzed to death in this thread, and while there are a few points in favor (a handful of interesting commanders, being able to run specific characters as commanders), there are also points against (a handful of commanders that would likeybe banned, possible collateral damage on a number of cards, the promotion of a slow grindy archetype, several new commanders that would be chores to play against but not banworthy, open question of why not other legendary permanents or non legendary creatures, etc).
It seems papa funk is of the opinion that the benefits of making the change aren't significant enough to justify a change, to overcome the null hypothesis if you will, that the correct choice is always no change unless it can be shown that the change will be positive. Essentially, this promotes stability by basically placing a weight on the no change side. If we were assigning points to arguments, no change would always start off with a certain number of points, and if I'm interpreting papas argument correctly, the pro pw arguments don't earn enough "points" to overcome the points no change always starts with.
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'd dismiss most of the commanders that Carthage suggested as being comparable to Ashiok, but he has a point with derevi and narset.
Oloro gets hated for being lame, not for being oppressive. You know what your going to face when you see him, and you know that you have to pressure him to prevent him from establishing his fort, aetherflux, and combos, but you also know you are generally going to get whined at for doing the only thing you can to stop him. In an established playgroup he won't get hated on if the pilot isn't whiney and accepts that he's going to be targeted, and oloro isn't going to be hated if you announce your running tribal Giants or some other nonsense.
Nekusar is strong, but a glass cannon combo. I have more success with my untuned nekusar deck that eschews wheels and discard effects in favor of more answers and good stuff as well as kikimite combo than I did when it was a tuned list. That's because people know exactly what nekusar is trying to do and exactly how to stop it, so having a less all in plan gives you back up lines or play and takes pressure off of you (and is more fun for everyone). Nekusar doesn't shut anything down, he just provides a risky path to victory.
Now Narset has some less obnoxious builds, but her most fair state is still uninteractive Voltron. She doesn't shut anything down like Ashiok though, but her extra turns nonsense is not fun to ay against. Derevi is just entirely unfun unless you are trying out bird tribal. You have to intentionally handicap yourself with her to make her fun.
Still, none of these just shut down multiple common strategies on their own.
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!
We're complaining about having an exiling graveyard card commander now? Really? This is mind blowing bias against planeswalker commanders.
No, it's not. Cryo is entitled to feel how they want about each card. If anything it's a preference to not wanting to see mass exile in the command zone. Which I can understand - I'm not overly worried about it myself, but I get why it's a concern.
Once again, misrepresenting someone's statements to strengthen your own is not a reasonable way to have a discussion.
I consider calling ashiok a problem card to be extreme hyperbole to the point of ridiculousness. I will not entertain such statements. It is equivalent to me to saying brothers yamazaki is a problem card.
Well, its not just repeatedly exiling graveyards (and thus shutting down gy decks from the command zone), its also shutting down your opponents' ability to tutor and use sac lands. I mean, stopping the efficient tutors is a positive, but a lot of pretty basic stuff relies on searching the library, even budget stuff like terramorphic expanse, myriad landscape, cultivate, etc. It would be a pretty miserable commander to play against for most decks. Banworthy? I'm not sure, but certainly something I'd wager most people are glad they won't have to face in the command zone.
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 think it is incredibly generous to view the instances in which Brawl is brought in this thread as a place in which you can play the Planeswalkers you want and nothing else.
What I've read suggests nothing more nefarious than that. It's at least a bit reductive of some of the discussion had here to suggest that this would be the sole reason for bringing the format up anyway, to be absolutely fair.
I've gotten used to him stretching for whatever he can find to dismiss my arguments out of hand and insinuate that I have nothing but foul intentions. He does that whenever a point is made that he cannot easily refute. It's easier to pretend you are the smartest guy in the room when you don't concede that the people you disagree with can make valid points. I still respond to him because he does often make valid points, and while he's dismissive he doesn't straight up call people <snip> like some posters that are impossible to talk to.
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Warning for inappropriate language
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!
With the addition of all these new static effect planeswalkers I continue to be sad that they are not legal commanders.
The most iconic story figures in the game and you cannot build a deck around them legally in the most popular casual format.
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
It seems a strange thing to lay the failings of Brawl (that are many and vast as far as people I have talked to about it) solely at the feet of the thing you happen to be arguing should not happen in Commander.
It sure seems strange that you never seem to be able to read my entire post, as if you did you'd have noticed that I didn't do that at all. Unless of course you are just intentionally mischacterizing my post so you can dismiss it out of hand.
For anyone else with reading comprehension issues, intentional or otherwise, I pointed out that planeswalkers as commanders, as well as the lack of the auto include fast Mana cards and tutors, were touted as features of Brawl that should make it popular, and yet despite that Brawl failed. These are generally the top three complaints about commander you see online, that there's too much fast Mana that is too good, that the tutors are too good, and that you can't use any Planeswalker as your commander. All three of these complaints are addressed by brawl, so it follows that if these were really that important then brawl shouldn't be the failure that it is. You could argue that some or all of these contributed to brawl being unpopular, or you could argue that these were insufficient to overcome the limited card pool and rotating nature of the format.
Either way, it doesn't bode well for the argument that Carthage was making, that commander, as the most popular casual format, should logically allow planeswalkers as commanders, as they are, he argues, the most popular characters in magic. I attacked that argument on three fronts, first that planeswalkers generally aren't any more popular than legendary creatures generally, second that a commander like format that touts the availability of planeswalkers as a feature has proven unpopular which shows that it doesn't follow that allowing planeswalkers as commanders is something that would increase the draw of a format, and third that it's pretty clear that a lot more people are against pw commanders than for them, so it does seem that allowing all pws as commanders is more likely to be a liability than a benefit.
Brawl of course had no choice but to allow all walkers as there just aren't enough legendary creatures to sustain the format without them (and even with then it's close, and that's bouyed by legend and PW heavy sets like Dominaria and the three Ravnica sets). Personally, i think if pw commanders were actually a major draw then brawl would have done better, as pw commanders are the most tangible additive feature the format has that edh doesn't. If it had real value, the people who really want that feature would have done more to help the format to succeed. They didn't, and the only takeaway I can get from that is that, at best, pw commanders are not something that makes a format better, even for the people who most want that. This isn't even taking into account anyone who was turned off on brawl BECAUSE of pws, which is certainly non zero but since I don't have anyway of knowing how significant it is I'm not even considering it in my argument.
But the big, and I thought obvious, point in comparing edh to brawl centers on what Carthage said, that edh is by far the most popular casual format. He's complaining about the status quo, not allowing pws as commanders, in the most popular casual format, without considering that a big reason that it IS the most popular format is the decision making ability of the RC, who created the format and maintained it. Wizards promoting it helped it grows as did creating precons, but as we can see they promoted brawl more heavily and held brawl events and brawl failed, so promotion doesn't mean much without a good product, and in this case that good product are the rules that underpin the format. I don't agree with everything the RC does, but I recognize that, even with their mistakes, theyve done a phenomenal job, and the success of the format is proof, especially when even wizards can't generate the same amount of success with the formats they create or the tweaks they try to make to edh (see mtgo edh fiasco from a couple years back).
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!
With the addition of all these new static effect planeswalkers I continue to be sad that they are not legal commanders.
The most iconic story figures in the game and you cannot build a deck around them legally in the most popular casual format.
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Quote from ForgottenPlaneswalker »
Whether you love them or hate them or are just indifferent, you got to admit this is pretty much why this is happening.
This is 100% false. This discussion was being had before any PW had that line of text.
As well as this, it's the statement itself, not the existence of planeswalkers, that dictates legality for commander status. Whatever side of the debate you're on, currently the statement 'x can be your commander' is the only thing making walkers commander feasible, and they could stick that on anything - and that's a point against, not for. The fact that it got stuck on walkers is a small concession, yes, but it's also an indication that there's no indication of a blanket rule change. We can only assume the reasons why or why not that might be, but it's easy enough to extrapolate for our format. Most of it boils down to 'íf it ain't broke, why fix it?'and 'why create more problems for yourself than you need to?', with a healthy dose of 'there's no benefit to doing this'.
And I literally could see that phrase being stuck on an artifact or enchantment that flips to a creature. Elbrus, for instance, was a really cool idea that could be revisited. Hell, a Living Weapon commander or a Vehicle commander would make sense (living weapon moreso).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
So, why not just ride it out and wait for the list of “can be your commander” PW’s to grow?
If anything, this proves that bringing all PW into the fold as playable generals isn’t the right move, because the list of legal ones will inevitably grow, and you won’t have to worry about poor format interactions or bans out of the gate.
So, yeah. Pretty poor point to try and make your argument.
I’d also like to add that, so far, there have been a lot of spoiled ‘walkers that are going to be problematic with their static abilities, and that list will also inevitably grow. Powerful, enchantment-like, abilities in the command zone are not good for the format, period. Forcing WOTC to take an additional format into consideration when designing their “flagship” cards is poor business sense. People who don’t understand business economics really shouldn’t try and bring them up in their arguments. But what do I know, I mean, I’m debating this point with people who think, and agree, that 36% is a majority...
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
There is a lot of poor interactions even now, so that's a bad argument.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right?
Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
Please, enlighten us how WOTC who with printing Commander products found a gold mine is forced into poor business sense.
Obviously you have PhD from the business economics so maybe you could teach us a thing or two here and explain it to us how does it work.
I am really curious for that.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
You can argue that 49.9 is minority. Because it's less than 50.1.
The minority in the poll is the 7.5% of undecided people. I wouldn't call the 36.8% a minority.
But if this is what bothers you and what you point out is playing with words, say it beforehand.
You need to go back to school. The pro planeswalker side is the textbook definition of a minority. Its significantly less than half. It's barely over a third. Yes, undecided is smaller, which makes it an even smaller minority. And the opposing side represents an actual majority, and not even just a bare one. When judging mechanics and planes to see if they should be brought back, those kind of numbers translate into probably not.
Allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is an unpopular opinion that would require a fundamental change to the rules and nature of the format, would add little of value to the format while adding an equivalent amount of negatives, and is broadly hypocritical in it's approach. "So legendary creatures can lead armies, why not legendary planeswalkers?" Lol, why not non legendary creatures? Hell, it's especially goofy when you consider that there are many non legendary creatures that are straight up military leaders. It's a flavor argument true, but once you examine it it becomes apparent how weak it is. There are no benefits to just expanding the eligible commanders to planeswalkers instead of further, and the pro walker crowd is consistently incapable of addressing this. Neither would be particularly good for the format, but the latter would actually add a hell of a lot more to the format than just allowing walkers.
And yeah, Brawl was an attempt to get people used to allowing walkers as commanders. It failed badly. The format, despite being heavily promoted early on, failed to catch on and died on the first rotation. People just weren't into 60 limited card pool commander, and getting to use planeswalkers wasn't much of a draw. The planeswalker headed precons didn't exactly outpace the ones that only had legendary creatures either. This isn't something most people are clamoring for, but are willing to tolerate so long as it's limited as a way to throw a bone to the people who want it.
Also, wizards says they aren't printing the line of text in standard to prevent confusing newbs, but thats because they would only add it to certain cards rather than all of them. If they wanted to make them all legal as commanders, they would try to do so in a sweeping manner. They don't for reasons they have explained previously as well as reasons they don't like to talk about. They have previously talked about how difficult it is to design planeswalkers, especially when trying to design for multiple formats, so designing edh only pw commanders let's them focus just on the format and hopefully make fewer mistakes, rather than trying to balance between standard and edh. What they don't talk about is that, with the exception of precons themselves, every time they try to mess with commander it blows up in their face. Brawl, the mtgo only banlist targeted to competitive play, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What purpose does this serve? Letting Wizards do an end run around the RC to force all PWs to be commanders? It's a worse idea than wizards just stepping in and forcing the issue. It's downright cowardly, doing something (overruling the RC to change the rules of the formst) but trying to pretend like they aren't. Why would wizards want to do that when they could just force the change and stand by it to show confidence in it? Another issue is that this would effectively mean that every PW can be ran as a 2 of in commander, undermining an additional aspect of the format. This seems like it just adds more issues without actually solving any.
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!
Its far from a perfect poll, but its still better than blatantly asserting that its a popular choice. The only evidence we have, while not great, points to it being unpopular. I've seen reddit polls that have varied between similar results, and pws being universally allowed as commanders getting a plurality, but not a majority. I have not pointed to the poll unless responding to a poster that claims, without a shred of evidence, that allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is something the majority of the player base is behind.
But even though the poll isn't particularly great (but still better than what the pro side has), I do have a quibble with this: "'only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something." The former interpretation simply states the facts, that only slightly more than a third favor the change, while the latter stretches to editorialize and make the pro side seem significantly stronger. All the poll shows is a majority, a little over half, being flat out against it, and a little over a third being for it, with the remainder, about 10%, not caring and thus not counting. They aren't an argument against allowing pws, nor are they an argument for it. Sure, they'd be fine with it, but just as fine without it. Lumping them in with the pros artificially inflates those numbers. And there's a big difference between not minding a change and actually wanting the change. Since one of the biggest arguments the pro side is making is that the public wants this change, they should actually demonstrate that. Making a change of this nature shouldn't be open to simple majority rule in the first place, but rather on what's best for the format, but it certainly should not be made based on what percent would merely be ok with the change. That less than half of the respondents are ok with making the change, not in favor but just ok, doesn't bode well for making the change.
And your last point "especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something" just isn't true at all. Studies have repeatedly shown that people are significantly more likely to vote yes than no and unsure combined when answering polls or voting on ballot initiatives. There's a significant yes bias, just like there is a significant first choice presented bias. Its easier to get things approved by the public than denied, and people who don't particularly care a more likely to break yes, even if an unsure option is available.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support. You are saying that you want the rules changed to cater to your tastes at the expense of the enjoyment of the majority of players. Because you cannot rely on house rules, you want to force your own, unpopular preferences to be the mandated rules.
It sounds uncharitable, but that is what your comments are actually saying. Maybe you really believe this, maybe you don't realize this is what you actually want, or maybe you are just reacting to arguments without thinking through the implications of how your responses add up.
Your obvious rebuttal would be that just because a majority feel one way doesn't make it right. I agree, I think the general feelings of the playerbase matter but that if that was all that mattered the format would have been ruined long ago. That's why there's value in having the format managed by people who take the opinions of the playerbase into account but who are change averse, knowledgeable, and willing to put their own preferences aside when making decisions. That ensures that while changes may not come as often or as quickly as they would in an optimized format, they are able to avoid bad decisions pretty well and its almost only changes that positively effect the format that sneak through.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
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!
Actually, it quite literally IS the point of the discussion. Legendary creatures as commanders is the established focus of the format, while allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is a new thing being suggested as a change. Thus, legendary creatures only get discussed in terms of being allowed in the format if they are bannable, or close to it, because they are allowed by default, while planeswalkers HAVE to be discussed if you want them added, because without discussion you default to the status quo, which is a no.
Carthage has a point that if something like Purphoros is OK from a power level perspectivet then something like Lili of the Dark Realms would be as well. But he tried out an I'll advised rhetorical flourish that Bloody Wednesday easily cut into. It's one thing to point out that people shouldn't be concerned about Lili as a commander from a power level standpoint, but another to suggest that it's a double standard that we would discuss the impact of individual planeswalkers being allowed as commanders but not new legendary creatures. The former is a proposed rule change that needs to be justified, with the positives being weighed against both the negatives and the inherit value of the status quo and coming out on top, while the latter is a basic facet of the format. You debate, critique, and analyze potential changes more than keeping things as they are, especially if the way things are works really well.
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!
Well, it does mean that at least HE believes that there are that many pw that would be interesting commanders. That in practice means that at least one person THINKS this (whether it would play out in practice or if after building he'd decide that some of those are not interesting is another matter). In theory though, it does show that this is a viewpoint that people do actually have, even if I disagree strongly (I think only a handful of pws would make interesting commanders, and some of those are already allowed as commanders). There are likely a significant number of people who share his view, and I don't think it's right to dismiss his opinion as illegitimate. It's also not right to make a change based on a minority opinion, even if it's a significant minority, when a majority is set against it and there aren't compelling reasons to make the change beyond the minority opinion. If it weren't butting up against the value of the status quo and a majority being against it, it would deserve serious consideration. It would in that case be like the change to color identity that allowed Bosh as a commander. Wanting the change was a minority opinion, but fewer people were against the change (most were indifferent), the change was small enough that the value of the status quo was smaller, and it made the rule work more intuitively (which was a reason beyond preference for the change) and added value to the format by not arbitrarily excluding potential commanders for having off color activations.
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!
Lol. Yeah, they sure weren't focusing on planeswalkers these past 14 years /sarcasm. The only way they could focus on planeswalkers more in the story would be to ignore legendary creatures entirely (which would be really, really ******* stupid as legendary creatures are used to tie the story to planes and prevent everything from getting too samey by only having the same characters show up). Good job making yet another broad assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up though. I haven't seen anything suggesting that WAR is a game changer and we're going to see tons of uncommon planeswalkers from now on. It's pretty clearly the gimmick of the set and required a lot of special set building considerations to pull off. It's like saying Dominaria was really well received so expect the focus to shift to having tons of legendary creatures in each set.
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!
Hey Taleran, this right here is an example of a disingenuous argument, for future reference.
So, Carthage, I see you are attempting at reductio ad absurdum, but failing miserably at it. The key difference here is that the rules of the format already allow newly printed cards to be allowed as commanders, so they are legal by default. They are, however, evaluated and banned if needed, like Leovold. Planeswalkers as commanders is not currently allowed by the rules unless they have special text allowing them. This means that allowing it necessarily has a higher bar to clear, as it is a change from the status quo. New cards being printed does not count, as in a collectible card game the printing of new cards, and their legality in all formats, is a built in feature of the status quo. It is the established and expected way in which the format grows that is accounted for in the rules. Allowing a new class of cards as commanders, unbanning cards, banning cards, allowing unsets permanently, those are changes to the status quo, and thus must pass a higher threshold when being considered for adoption. The same would be true, by the way, if the RC were to consider disallowing all pws as commanders including the ones with the rules text allowing them to be used as such. PW commanders were something they werent really backing, but they would have had to make a special rule preventing it as the basic rules of the game allow the "can be your commander" rules text to be employed and overrule the rules of the format (similar to ravenous rats).
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!
If that's the standard to go by, then it's pretty obviously a no. A bit more than a third want it, a bit more than half explicitly don't, and a handful are undecided. When considering demand for a change, you must also consider demand for the change not to be made. If a bit more than a third want something and most others are indifferent, that may be a good change to make. If a bit more than a third want something and a bit more than half, an outright majority, explicitly do not want that thing, it's probably not a change that should be made.
Honestly, I'd think that only overwhelming demand should be sufficient to prompt a change. Otherwise, however, i think other factors should lead in determining a change. How interesting the change would be, how safe, what problems it could cause, what value it adds to the format, etc. Something that only a handful of people are asking for, but that would add value to the format and be interesting while having no drawbacks would be something to consider even in the absence of demand for it.
Allowing all planeswalkers as commanders has been analyzed to death in this thread, and while there are a few points in favor (a handful of interesting commanders, being able to run specific characters as commanders), there are also points against (a handful of commanders that would likeybe banned, possible collateral damage on a number of cards, the promotion of a slow grindy archetype, several new commanders that would be chores to play against but not banworthy, open question of why not other legendary permanents or non legendary creatures, etc).
It seems papa funk is of the opinion that the benefits of making the change aren't significant enough to justify a change, to overcome the null hypothesis if you will, that the correct choice is always no change unless it can be shown that the change will be positive. Essentially, this promotes stability by basically placing a weight on the no change side. If we were assigning points to arguments, no change would always start off with a certain number of points, and if I'm interpreting papas argument correctly, the pro pw arguments don't earn enough "points" to overcome the points no change always starts with.
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!
Oloro gets hated for being lame, not for being oppressive. You know what your going to face when you see him, and you know that you have to pressure him to prevent him from establishing his fort, aetherflux, and combos, but you also know you are generally going to get whined at for doing the only thing you can to stop him. In an established playgroup he won't get hated on if the pilot isn't whiney and accepts that he's going to be targeted, and oloro isn't going to be hated if you announce your running tribal Giants or some other nonsense.
Nekusar is strong, but a glass cannon combo. I have more success with my untuned nekusar deck that eschews wheels and discard effects in favor of more answers and good stuff as well as kikimite combo than I did when it was a tuned list. That's because people know exactly what nekusar is trying to do and exactly how to stop it, so having a less all in plan gives you back up lines or play and takes pressure off of you (and is more fun for everyone). Nekusar doesn't shut anything down, he just provides a risky path to victory.
Now Narset has some less obnoxious builds, but her most fair state is still uninteractive Voltron. She doesn't shut anything down like Ashiok though, but her extra turns nonsense is not fun to ay against. Derevi is just entirely unfun unless you are trying out bird tribal. You have to intentionally handicap yourself with her to make her fun.
Still, none of these just shut down multiple common strategies on their own.
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!
Well, its not just repeatedly exiling graveyards (and thus shutting down gy decks from the command zone), its also shutting down your opponents' ability to tutor and use sac lands. I mean, stopping the efficient tutors is a positive, but a lot of pretty basic stuff relies on searching the library, even budget stuff like terramorphic expanse, myriad landscape, cultivate, etc. It would be a pretty miserable commander to play against for most decks. Banworthy? I'm not sure, but certainly something I'd wager most people are glad they won't have to face in the command zone.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I've gotten used to him stretching for whatever he can find to dismiss my arguments out of hand and insinuate that I have nothing but foul intentions. He does that whenever a point is made that he cannot easily refute. It's easier to pretend you are the smartest guy in the room when you don't concede that the people you disagree with can make valid points. I still respond to him because he does often make valid points, and while he's dismissive he doesn't straight up call people <snip> like some posters that are impossible to talk to.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It sure seems strange that you never seem to be able to read my entire post, as if you did you'd have noticed that I didn't do that at all. Unless of course you are just intentionally mischacterizing my post so you can dismiss it out of hand.
For anyone else with reading comprehension issues, intentional or otherwise, I pointed out that planeswalkers as commanders, as well as the lack of the auto include fast Mana cards and tutors, were touted as features of Brawl that should make it popular, and yet despite that Brawl failed. These are generally the top three complaints about commander you see online, that there's too much fast Mana that is too good, that the tutors are too good, and that you can't use any Planeswalker as your commander. All three of these complaints are addressed by brawl, so it follows that if these were really that important then brawl shouldn't be the failure that it is. You could argue that some or all of these contributed to brawl being unpopular, or you could argue that these were insufficient to overcome the limited card pool and rotating nature of the format.
Either way, it doesn't bode well for the argument that Carthage was making, that commander, as the most popular casual format, should logically allow planeswalkers as commanders, as they are, he argues, the most popular characters in magic. I attacked that argument on three fronts, first that planeswalkers generally aren't any more popular than legendary creatures generally, second that a commander like format that touts the availability of planeswalkers as a feature has proven unpopular which shows that it doesn't follow that allowing planeswalkers as commanders is something that would increase the draw of a format, and third that it's pretty clear that a lot more people are against pw commanders than for them, so it does seem that allowing all pws as commanders is more likely to be a liability than a benefit.
Brawl of course had no choice but to allow all walkers as there just aren't enough legendary creatures to sustain the format without them (and even with then it's close, and that's bouyed by legend and PW heavy sets like Dominaria and the three Ravnica sets). Personally, i think if pw commanders were actually a major draw then brawl would have done better, as pw commanders are the most tangible additive feature the format has that edh doesn't. If it had real value, the people who really want that feature would have done more to help the format to succeed. They didn't, and the only takeaway I can get from that is that, at best, pw commanders are not something that makes a format better, even for the people who most want that. This isn't even taking into account anyone who was turned off on brawl BECAUSE of pws, which is certainly non zero but since I don't have anyway of knowing how significant it is I'm not even considering it in my argument.
But the big, and I thought obvious, point in comparing edh to brawl centers on what Carthage said, that edh is by far the most popular casual format. He's complaining about the status quo, not allowing pws as commanders, in the most popular casual format, without considering that a big reason that it IS the most popular format is the decision making ability of the RC, who created the format and maintained it. Wizards promoting it helped it grows as did creating precons, but as we can see they promoted brawl more heavily and held brawl events and brawl failed, so promotion doesn't mean much without a good product, and in this case that good product are the rules that underpin the format. I don't agree with everything the RC does, but I recognize that, even with their mistakes, theyve done a phenomenal job, and the success of the format is proof, especially when even wizards can't generate the same amount of success with the formats they create or the tweaks they try to make to edh (see mtgo edh fiasco from a couple years back).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I mean, there is another format where you can do that, and I was told repeatedly when it launched that it was going to be better than commander in part because you could run planeswalkers, and because it lacked the busted fast mana and tutors, but it seems that format isn't very popular for some reason.
Judging from this poll (and every time I see this discussed elsewhere) allowing planes walkers as commanders is pretty unpopular, so it doesn't follow that they should be allowed as commanders in the most popular casual format. I'd also question them being the most iconic characters. Certainly some of them are, but there are also plenty of legendary creatures that are just as iconic, and plenty of planeswalkers that elicit a "who?" from most players.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
And I literally could see that phrase being stuck on an artifact or enchantment that flips to a creature. Elbrus, for instance, was a really cool idea that could be revisited. Hell, a Living Weapon commander or a Vehicle commander would make sense (living weapon moreso).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
You need to go back to school. The pro planeswalker side is the textbook definition of a minority. Its significantly less than half. It's barely over a third. Yes, undecided is smaller, which makes it an even smaller minority. And the opposing side represents an actual majority, and not even just a bare one. When judging mechanics and planes to see if they should be brought back, those kind of numbers translate into probably not.
Allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is an unpopular opinion that would require a fundamental change to the rules and nature of the format, would add little of value to the format while adding an equivalent amount of negatives, and is broadly hypocritical in it's approach. "So legendary creatures can lead armies, why not legendary planeswalkers?" Lol, why not non legendary creatures? Hell, it's especially goofy when you consider that there are many non legendary creatures that are straight up military leaders. It's a flavor argument true, but once you examine it it becomes apparent how weak it is. There are no benefits to just expanding the eligible commanders to planeswalkers instead of further, and the pro walker crowd is consistently incapable of addressing this. Neither would be particularly good for the format, but the latter would actually add a hell of a lot more to the format than just allowing walkers.
And yeah, Brawl was an attempt to get people used to allowing walkers as commanders. It failed badly. The format, despite being heavily promoted early on, failed to catch on and died on the first rotation. People just weren't into 60 limited card pool commander, and getting to use planeswalkers wasn't much of a draw. The planeswalker headed precons didn't exactly outpace the ones that only had legendary creatures either. This isn't something most people are clamoring for, but are willing to tolerate so long as it's limited as a way to throw a bone to the people who want it.
Also, wizards says they aren't printing the line of text in standard to prevent confusing newbs, but thats because they would only add it to certain cards rather than all of them. If they wanted to make them all legal as commanders, they would try to do so in a sweeping manner. They don't for reasons they have explained previously as well as reasons they don't like to talk about. They have previously talked about how difficult it is to design planeswalkers, especially when trying to design for multiple formats, so designing edh only pw commanders let's them focus just on the format and hopefully make fewer mistakes, rather than trying to balance between standard and edh. What they don't talk about is that, with the exception of precons themselves, every time they try to mess with commander it blows up in their face. Brawl, the mtgo only banlist targeted to competitive play, etc.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!