I understand the rule that says that you can return your general to the command zone if it would go to the graveyard or be exiled. I also understand that by rule no such replacement effect applies if your general would be bounced to hand or would be shuffled away.
My question, basically, is why no such replacement effect is available when your general is shuffled away? Is there a very good reason for that, or is it just a 'because the rules have always been like that' kind of reason?
It seems pretty contrary to the spirit of the format, where you're supposed to have your general available any time you have enough mana for him (not to mention that it has the really, really weird effect of making Bant Charm the best removal in the format, which seems like it should have some unintended color pie implications), and I'm just wondering if this is the kind of thing that the rules weren't precise enough to cover and which doesn't get changed because of inertia.
Really, it's a fluke of the rules that destroying or exiling a general allows it to be put back in the command zone and shuffling generals deals with them on a long-term basis and arresting or stealing them deals with them until they're sacrificed or destroyed, but it's a fluke that works out pretty well, as it results in generals landing at a medium level of solvability - they're a creature you can generally but not absolutely count on having available. It's actually fairly rare in my experience for generals to get shuffled; there's only a handful of cards that do it, and the general can sometimes be sacrificed in response.
Checks and balances. There are a rather limited number of cards that 'tuck' generals (Oblation being my personal go-to card for this). Yes, they are abnormally powerful in this format but so are a great deal of other cards. As much as you always start the game with access to your general, you should not be completely crippled if deprived of it.
When I originally learned to play EDH, I was taught with no 'tucking'. Your general would end up back in the command zone when that happened. In the end, I don't think it made the game better or worse, but it was definitely different. I think the ability to bury a commander into a deck wasn't really an intended thing with the original rules, but it's not such a powerful effect that it's worth changing how the cards that provide the ability work.
This isn't to say the effect isn't strong, but instead that it shouldn't be completely game-breaking. Decks that rely on their generals are hurt by it, but if the general is super integral to their strategy, they can often tutor it back up.
It has been discussed quite a bit about whether the cards should continue to work this way and since nothing's changed I assume most people don't see it s being too contrary to the 'spirit' of the format. If your group doesn't like it, they're also always free to change it, that is definitely one of the more common house rules I see.
Just to answer two different things: 1. I absolutely am on board with generals being answerable, and on board with building a deck that doesn't absolutely rely on the general to function.
2. The main concern here is that it pushes the best removal in the format into colors which ordinarily wouldn't have the best removal in the format. Red and Black are the two obvious colors that suffer from this rule (though my understanding is that Black is still very strong), while white and blue end up more powerful.
It just seems like a really random place to put your 'answer' for a general.
Its to balance a game. If you dont like the rule, its because you haven't had to deal with Uril/Zur/other stupidly good voltron generals that are otherwise incredibly rough to deal with, without boarding.
Tuck may not happen often, but I am all for it. Without it, some generals would be nigh unstoppable, since producing another two mana each turn often isn't that hard.
(not to mention that it has the really, really weird effect of making Bant Charm the best removal in the format, which seems like it should have some unintended color pie implications)
2. The main concern here is that it pushes the best removal in the format into colors which ordinarily wouldn't have the best removal in the format. Red and Black are the two obvious colors that suffer from this rule (though my understanding is that Black is still very strong), while white and blue end up more powerful.
Where is this idea that white doesn't generally have powerful removal coming from? Blue having the top removal is a little strange, but they've had their fingers in all aspects of the color pie for years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I think that is the point the TS is making; blue is already so powerful, does it really need to have the most effective general removal as well (with white)?
Where is this idea that white doesn't generally have powerful removal coming from? Blue having the top removal is a little strange, but they've had their fingers in all aspects of the color pie for years.
White DOES generally have powerful removal. They just kind of shoot to the top, leapfrogging black. Blue is potentially more powerful than black at it in some cases as well.
I particularly hate the "well, there's a million tutors so who cares" argument, by the way. It assumes you're going to run a zillion tutors in your singleton deck, which for some people goes completely contrary to the purpose.
I'm not sure if we're going to have a house rule about this or not, and it doesn't really matter either way - I'm fine playing either way (I'm also not one of those people who thinks that tutors are contrary to the spirit of singleton - I view it more as a deckbuilding challenge than high variance magic). My problem here isn't that the game is a lot worse or anything like that, I just find it really, really strange. I can certainly build around it - it's just a deckbuilding constraint, right?
I believe that there is no tuck rule to begin with, in the first place. The replacement effect that returns your general to your command zone from the graveyard or from exile comes from the fact that many decks do not have the immediate ability to return their general to play from graveyard or from exile. This is kind of a bummer given that the general is supposed to be central figure to your deck. On the other hand, if your general is in any other zone (i.e. the command zone, the library, the hand, the battlefield or the stack), the general can eventually be recasted from that zone*.
Do not think of the command zone so much as an entitlement rather than thinking of it as a privilege granted.
*Technically, a general already in the battlefield need not be recasted but I am just including it for completeness. I didn't bother including the "ante zone" given that it is not used in EDH anyway. Phase out is NOT a zone.
My problem here isn't that the game is a lot worse or anything like that, I just find it really, really strange. I can certainly build around it - it's just a deckbuilding constraint, right?
Actually, the moment that you decided to play in a format of 1 unique card a deck (excluding basic lands and relentless rats), you are already having a huge, huge, deckbuilding constraint.
There's also no replacement effect for generals that have been Pacified, bounced, or stolen.
Most of these problems can be solved by simply including a High Market or other sac outlet in your deck, and besides, you should be running some form of protection for your general anyway.
I like the rule because it keeps things intresting - you can't always just rush in with your general without consequences. Besides, decks should be built to be able to function without their general.
There's also no replacement effect for generals that have been Pacified, bounced, or stolen.
Most of these problems can be solved by simply including a High Market or other sac outlet in your deck, and besides, you should be running some form of protection for your general anyway.
I like the rule because it keeps things intresting - you can't always just rush in with your general without consequences. Besides, decks should be built to be able to function without their general.
I'd argue that the lack of replacement effect for generals being arrested and vanished makes sense both from a philosophical and flavour perspective. While it is true that your general is supposed to be the pivot of your deck, you're not supposed to rush out your general blindly or as Telekinesis mentioned, if you plan to do so anyway, make sure you have a Plan B (High Market is one solution as is Miren, the Moaning Well). From a flavour perspective, it is not unthinkable that your general is affected by the disabling magic of your opponents.
In pokemon terms, we are guaranteeing that your general will not "faint" permanently but we make no guarantees that your general won't be burned, poisoned, paralysed, frozen, confused or otherwise impaired
2. The main concern here is that it pushes the best removal in the format into colors which ordinarily wouldn't have the best removal in the format. Red and Black are the two obvious colors that suffer from this rule (though my understanding is that Black is still very strong), while white and blue end up more powerful.
I don't think it makes blue and white stronger so much s making up for the fact that countering a general only delays it for a turn or 2, and exiling it has the same effect. Also, its only the most powerful removal as far as generls are concerned. Tucking other creatures isn't as good, in my opinion, since alot of decks dont have much recurssion and this gives them more of a chance to get there creatures back.
My apparent "There are enough tutors" argument does hold water here, just like it was said Pacifism effects have many ways to circumvent it.
I do not believe this format was created to be revolving around your general. I look at the general as a planeswalker and your deck is THEIR arsenal. Also when would a general just go stampeding into battle? Where is the damn flavor in that? That makes no sense to me.
Its not like there are a billion tucking effects out there. There are many ways to replicate the same effect as well.
My friends uril deck revolves out his general being out to win. So when we worked together to build it, I made sure he had ways of getting the general back from tucking. He has about 6-7 ways to do it if I recall.
Kresh looks like he IS stampeding into battle. Anyway, I don't think the format began as revolving around your general, but I think it has evolved into that idea, which is FANtastic.
/rollseyes. Fine. remove tucking, make the format ezmode. I don't really care. It won't change anyway but go ahead and make it a house rule and enjoy some of the most boring edh games in history.
There are less than 10 playable "tuck" cards, so I'm not sure I understand why it's such a problem. Does it really matter that .001% of the cards in the format do this?
Personally, I don't mind tuck. I don't think it's overpowered. I do know it bothers some players and is very non-intuitive when teaching the format.
I don't think tuck balances the format. If it the few cards of tuck are needed to balance the format. If they are, there is something flawed with the current rules.
I think eventually there could be a critical mass of tuck. Thinking ahead, I believe possibilities need to be considered.
I don't think I've ever tutored tuck spells besides Hallowed Burial... Usually I go after wincons or mass removal.
EDH is a multiplayer format. Bottom of the library removal is a metagame balancing effect. Not everyone is going to be playing white and/or blue, but if there is at least one player using those colors (other than the player with the annoying general) then they will have an answer that ultimately helps everyone. Also, the possibility that there might be players with bottom of the library removal pushes players that are over-reliant on their generals to adjust their decks so that they can still work without.
I have several times tutored for Condemn because I needed a one mana answer available in case I was attacked before my next turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My question, basically, is why no such replacement effect is available when your general is shuffled away? Is there a very good reason for that, or is it just a 'because the rules have always been like that' kind of reason?
It seems pretty contrary to the spirit of the format, where you're supposed to have your general available any time you have enough mana for him (not to mention that it has the really, really weird effect of making Bant Charm the best removal in the format, which seems like it should have some unintended color pie implications), and I'm just wondering if this is the kind of thing that the rules weren't precise enough to cover and which doesn't get changed because of inertia.
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
Now if there were only more ways for colors other than Blue or White to take advantage of that rule...
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
This isn't to say the effect isn't strong, but instead that it shouldn't be completely game-breaking. Decks that rely on their generals are hurt by it, but if the general is super integral to their strategy, they can often tutor it back up.
It has been discussed quite a bit about whether the cards should continue to work this way and since nothing's changed I assume most people don't see it s being too contrary to the 'spirit' of the format. If your group doesn't like it, they're also always free to change it, that is definitely one of the more common house rules I see.
2. The main concern here is that it pushes the best removal in the format into colors which ordinarily wouldn't have the best removal in the format. Red and Black are the two obvious colors that suffer from this rule (though my understanding is that Black is still very strong), while white and blue end up more powerful.
It just seems like a really random place to put your 'answer' for a general.
GB [Primer][Competitive][Stax][Combo] Meren of Clan Nel Toth 95% RETIRED
UW [Primer][Competitive][Combo][Stax] Brago, King Eternal RETIRED
BR Rakdos, Lord of Riots (75%)
G Titania - 75%
W SRAM - Welcome to the cheeri0s jam 95%
U Teferi - stax 100%
R Neheb - janky mono red eggs combo 90%
B Gonti - 50% valuetown
Where is this idea that white doesn't generally have powerful removal coming from? Blue having the top removal is a little strange, but they've had their fingers in all aspects of the color pie for years.
(Multiplayer)
BRGKarrthus, Tyrant of Jund
WUBSharuum the Hegemon
(American 1v1)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking Grave
WUGDerevi
White DOES generally have powerful removal. They just kind of shoot to the top, leapfrogging black. Blue is potentially more powerful than black at it in some cases as well.
I particularly hate the "well, there's a million tutors so who cares" argument, by the way. It assumes you're going to run a zillion tutors in your singleton deck, which for some people goes completely contrary to the purpose.
I'm not sure if we're going to have a house rule about this or not, and it doesn't really matter either way - I'm fine playing either way (I'm also not one of those people who thinks that tutors are contrary to the spirit of singleton - I view it more as a deckbuilding challenge than high variance magic). My problem here isn't that the game is a lot worse or anything like that, I just find it really, really strange. I can certainly build around it - it's just a deckbuilding constraint, right?
Do not think of the command zone so much as an entitlement rather than thinking of it as a privilege granted.
*Technically, a general already in the battlefield need not be recasted but I am just including it for completeness. I didn't bother including the "ante zone" given that it is not used in EDH anyway. Phase out is NOT a zone.
Actually, the moment that you decided to play in a format of 1 unique card a deck (excluding basic lands and relentless rats), you are already having a huge, huge, deckbuilding constraint.
Most of these problems can be solved by simply including a High Market or other sac outlet in your deck, and besides, you should be running some form of protection for your general anyway.
I like the rule because it keeps things intresting - you can't always just rush in with your general without consequences. Besides, decks should be built to be able to function without their general.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
I'd argue that the lack of replacement effect for generals being arrested and vanished makes sense both from a philosophical and flavour perspective. While it is true that your general is supposed to be the pivot of your deck, you're not supposed to rush out your general blindly or as Telekinesis mentioned, if you plan to do so anyway, make sure you have a Plan B (High Market is one solution as is Miren, the Moaning Well). From a flavour perspective, it is not unthinkable that your general is affected by the disabling magic of your opponents.
In pokemon terms, we are guaranteeing that your general will not "faint" permanently but we make no guarantees that your general won't be burned, poisoned, paralysed, frozen, confused or otherwise impaired
I don't think it makes blue and white stronger so much s making up for the fact that countering a general only delays it for a turn or 2, and exiling it has the same effect. Also, its only the most powerful removal as far as generls are concerned. Tucking other creatures isn't as good, in my opinion, since alot of decks dont have much recurssion and this gives them more of a chance to get there creatures back.
Thanks to Scuttlemutt Productions for my awesome sig
I'm from the FUTURE. I assemble contraptions all the time.
I AM THE STEAMFLOGGER
EDH
Toshiro Umezawa B
Sliver Overlord WUBRG
Doran, the Seige TowerWBG
Kaervek the MercilessBR
I do not believe this format was created to be revolving around your general. I look at the general as a planeswalker and your deck is THEIR arsenal. Also when would a general just go stampeding into battle? Where is the damn flavor in that? That makes no sense to me.
Its not like there are a billion tucking effects out there. There are many ways to replicate the same effect as well.
My friends uril deck revolves out his general being out to win. So when we worked together to build it, I made sure he had ways of getting the general back from tucking. He has about 6-7 ways to do it if I recall.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Also, @Aardvark: Yeah, but probably 95% of all the cards ever printed are nigh-unusable for any reason (save for hilarity).
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
EDH is a multiplayer format. Bottom of the library removal is a metagame balancing effect. Not everyone is going to be playing white and/or blue, but if there is at least one player using those colors (other than the player with the annoying general) then they will have an answer that ultimately helps everyone. Also, the possibility that there might be players with bottom of the library removal pushes players that are over-reliant on their generals to adjust their decks so that they can still work without.
I have several times tutored for Condemn because I needed a one mana answer available in case I was attacked before my next turn.