Well, i can't really fault him/her for being bored with the existing options. Many of the current generals already have an "optimal" build, which leads to this boringness - it's already been solved.
My way of dealing with this is to try to do the opposite of what the general seems to want to be. My zedruu the greathearted voltron deck is sort of the epitome of that. No one expects zedruu to get pumped to 13+ power and attack with double strike.
I'm not sure necessary changing the rules is what the community needs. I think static, reliable rules are good. That being said, I think an emphasis on local groups having local house-rules is probably something that everyone needs. It did take a bit of time for me to convince my playgroup that we'd transcended the need for the RC to dictate how we play EDH, and our group's gotten better for it. Not to demean what the RC does though; they generally do a good job - it's just that my group isn't exactly their target.
I can see someone getting bored for that reason, but anybody that does should also realize how shallow the pool of interesting PW commanders is and how quickly they'd get bored of those for the same reason. Interesting PWs, those that aren't just good stuff value engines, are all pretty narrow, and optimized lists would be out as quickly for them as for any other linear commander like Neo Arcades. Very few actually do something that isn't already done by a legend in their colors (and most of those are already legal as commanders because they were designed to be). Allowing PW commanders would not solve his problem, if he's actually being honest about it.
This variant doesn't solve the variety issue. Nothing will solve the optimized list issue, you just have to, like you said, build outside the box and accept your deck not being optimized for the commander (but obviously you can optimize it for the build). What this variant does solve is the flavor argument. It simply gives people a framework to use to do something they want to do. It doesn't need any reasons to justify it beyond "some people want this" because it's not being forced on anyone, its just an option. That also gives the people experimenting with this more options to tweak the ban list to make this actually work.
so i've recently (in the last month or so) discovered a variant called oathbreaker. It's probably what the OP wants to see made. Being a 60-card singleton means that it's possible to have multiple 'optimal builds', since each deck can have a much narrow focus. For example, i built new saheeli with transmute artifact, another with blasphemous act, with thoughtcast and with treasure cruise. None are more an obvious build than the other, and they all play quite differently from each other.
But yea, back to onering's comment, i agree with the flavour argument. Though In a weird way, oathbreaker goes too far with the flavour; how is it possible for saheeli to chuck mountains onto the field before she gets cast? 'Cuz on that level, EDH should have a signature spell (which represents what we can do, and can cast it whenevers), and a general (a magic familiar). But i think its not really worth overhauling the game to make that work. Could be a silly alternative format though.
Well, i can't really fault him/her for being bored with the existing options. Many of the current generals already have an "optimal" build, which leads to this boringness - it's already been solved.
My way of dealing with this is to try to do the opposite of what the general seems to want to be. My zedruu the greathearted voltron deck is sort of the epitome of that. No one expects zedruu to get pumped to 13+ power and attack with double strike.
I'm not sure necessary changing the rules is what the community needs. I think static, reliable rules are good. That being said, I think an emphasis on local groups having local house-rules is probably something that everyone needs. It did take a bit of time for me to convince my playgroup that we'd transcended the need for the RC to dictate how we play EDH, and our group's gotten better for it. Not to demean what the RC does though; they generally do a good job - it's just that my group isn't exactly their target.
What I don’t understand is why would you want to advocate for Planeswalker Commanders and tie it to a starting life total change and bringing back the BaaC list. Just allowing Planeswalkers in the Command zone is a big enough change to contemplate, so why complicate the situation even more?
Yep, exactly that. The smartest way to test to see if something is valid or not, you should try to test one variable at a time to isolate the results of that variable.
Though to be honest, i think the RC is not going to budge on the PW as general nor the 30 life thing. PWs are going to make cards like tezzeret the seeker banned, which isn't what players want, and the 30 life thing is going to make battlecruiser magic significantly harder to do - and that is what draws many newer players to this format. the Banned as a commander thing i can see coming back though, but the final effect would be so minor that i'm not even sure its worth the effort.
We usually play with 30 HP in our playgroup. It makes aggro more relevant and all the combo decks have harder time to combo out before their life reaches 0.
I don't mind that change.
Also I am for bringing back BaaC.
We also houseruled that if all agree, PW's are available. If it proves the one being played is too strong, we will tell it after the game.
We played with 30-life for a good number of years, and then i moved, and i never ended up introducing it to the new peeps. It makes aggro strategies more playable, and the games are a lot more interactive this way - and you can really feel the pressure. Getting hit with a godsire at 40 life is nothing. At 30, it starts to get real.
I never really understood the point of removing the BaaC; i'm assuming that players are smart enough to figure out that some cards are completely ok to play with, but are a bit too bonkers when used as a general.
so i've recently (in the last month or so) discovered a variant called oathbreaker. It's probably what the OP wants to see made. Being a 60-card singleton means that it's possible to have multiple 'optimal builds', since each deck can have a much narrow focus. For example, i built new saheeli with transmute artifact, another with blasphemous act, with thoughtcast and with treasure cruise. None are more an obvious build than the other, and they all play quite differently from each other.
But yea, back to onering's comment, i agree with the flavour argument. Though In a weird way, oathbreaker goes too far with the flavour; how is it possible for saheeli to chuck mountains onto the field before she gets cast? 'Cuz on that level, EDH should have a signature spell (which represents what we can do, and can cast it whenevers), and a general (a magic familiar). But i think its not really worth overhauling the game to make that work. Could be a silly alternative format though.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
My way of dealing with this is to try to do the opposite of what the general seems to want to be. My zedruu the greathearted voltron deck is sort of the epitome of that. No one expects zedruu to get pumped to 13+ power and attack with double strike.
I'm not sure necessary changing the rules is what the community needs. I think static, reliable rules are good. That being said, I think an emphasis on local groups having local house-rules is probably something that everyone needs. It did take a bit of time for me to convince my playgroup that we'd transcended the need for the RC to dictate how we play EDH, and our group's gotten better for it. Not to demean what the RC does though; they generally do a good job - it's just that my group isn't exactly their target.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Yep, exactly that. The smartest way to test to see if something is valid or not, you should try to test one variable at a time to isolate the results of that variable.
Though to be honest, i think the RC is not going to budge on the PW as general nor the 30 life thing. PWs are going to make cards like tezzeret the seeker banned, which isn't what players want, and the 30 life thing is going to make battlecruiser magic significantly harder to do - and that is what draws many newer players to this format. the Banned as a commander thing i can see coming back though, but the final effect would be so minor that i'm not even sure its worth the effort.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
We played with 30-life for a good number of years, and then i moved, and i never ended up introducing it to the new peeps. It makes aggro strategies more playable, and the games are a lot more interactive this way - and you can really feel the pressure. Getting hit with a godsire at 40 life is nothing. At 30, it starts to get real.
I never really understood the point of removing the BaaC; i'm assuming that players are smart enough to figure out that some cards are completely ok to play with, but are a bit too bonkers when used as a general.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom