MTG Salvation

Quote from NGW »

If your deck completely falls apart because you do not have access to your commander you made a bad deck, plain and simple. You can certainly build a deck that's primary strategy involves your commander, in fact I much prefer decks that do (or at the very least benefit greatly from their commander), but you should always have a contingency plan. Removing the tuck rule simply encouraged bad deck building by removing a check for decks that were overly reliant on a single card they always have access to.

I understand you argument, but that is a very spikey perspective. What about the Jhonnies and Timmies? Commander allows me to build decks around mechanics unique to specific legendary creatures, decks that could never funcion in a format where i don't have guaranteed avaiability of a certain card. Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer is a prime example of this. Would that deck work once the commander is tucked? Definately not. But why should that make it a bad deck? It plays well (in the absence of tuck), its fun, its unique and it has cool flavor. Now YOU may not care about any of these things, but a lot of people do, and in my perspective that makes it a pretty good deck. Maybe putting together a deck that is filled with options to wiggle out of every corner is super fun to you, but thats not true for everyone. I don't want to fill half my deck with tutors and counters, both of which make commander games unfun (for me) in large numbers. Point is, preventing tuck opens up a lot of interesting deck builds and that is a good thing imo. My Commander playgroup nearly died because tuck was so frustrating and it flourished since the tuck change.