After hearing Rosewaters take on change to commander, am I the only one that wants the tuck rule back?
I don't like the argument that "because white and blue don't better it would be unfair". White and red are great at mass LD, I think losing all your lands makes it hard to play then losing your commander. I feel like the decks that are all in on their commander should have that sort of weakness. What do we think?
I disagree. You should not be punished for building a deck around a commander in a game-mode where the commander is the main unique selling point. Having 'tuck' effects effectively be 'return target commander to the command zone' is strong enough imo.
My problem with tucking also isn't 'white/blue do it better' but 'it makes the game less fun'. At least most mass land destruction (that i'm aware of) is at least somewhat symmetrically, but among my play-group we've also agreed not to run any of the big land destruction cards.
A couple of years back, when a commander became the target of a spell that'd put them somewhere into your library (instead of destroying them or exiling them or whatever) you wouldn't get the choice to put them into the command zone instead. So, for example, if your commander got hit with spell crumple as you cast them, then they'd go to the bottom of your library, and chances where you'd not get the chance to play them again that game.
After hearing Rosewaters take on change to commander, am I the only one that wants the tuck rule back?
No thanks. It's wizard that should stop designing broken commanders like Derevi and Prossh thinking about not having them instead of players being punished for playing fair commanders.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
I always played decks that were vulnerable to tuck, but honestly felt that when they removed the tuck option that they were kinda dumbing down the format. I understand the desire to lower complexity for new players, but I still feel like removing problematic commanders semi-permenatly was necessary and encouraged better deck/win-con building.
On that same page I also strongly dislike the rule adjustment where non-commander specific color can now be produced in a deck. That was a very flavorful rule and I still can't fathom why on earth it was changed.
When cards are needlessly banned or rules are needlessly changed, when the format is completely healthy, it just feels like someone is just reminding us that they have some influence over the format. It's silly.
There is a grey area between casually-competative and cEDH, where stronger and more oppressive commanders can warp a fairly casual table, and the best answer would be to tuck them.
On that same page I also strongly dislike the rule adjustment where non-commander specific color can now be produced in a deck. That was a very flavorful rule and I still can't fathom why on earth it was changed.
I realize this is slightly off topic, but they explained very well why this was changed. It was changed because it was dumb that a City of Brass or Mana Confluence or Birds of Paradise (or whatever) could be used to cast a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in any deck except a 5 color deck. The introduction of colorless costs prompted the change.
Honestly how much of an issue was that to begin with?
None of those cards are played extensively in this format, past the occasional Kozilek deck itself. With access to talismans and filter+pain lands I see zero reason why the introduction of colorless-specific mana warranted a complete rule deletion.
One of the basic principles of the format is a color restriction based on the commander of choice. Being able to make off-color mana distorts that basic flavor, and while it's not something that can be abused, it's a random rule change that didn't actually need to happen.
We are sort of derailing the topic with the whole colorless mana rule fix.
Honesty I'm glad people are disgareeing with me. I like hearing the other side of the conversation. I agree that losing a commander is not fun but so is mass LD, stacks, and prison. While mass LD is symmetrical, at best everyone is set the same and at worst they bring it all back or make their lands indestructible. Lands are more important for playing the game baring very specific exceptions. For me the rational of "it's not fun" should mean a lot of other cards need to be on this list.
I agree that losing a commander is not fun but so is mass LD, stacks, and prison.
At least you have to deckbuild around these themes. To tuck you just need to put oblation into every white deck and hinder into every blue deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
That is fair. Of course there are the few cornerstone cases of people just playing mass LD spells just to play them, but those are outliers. The biggest thing for me is the tuck rule only applies for answer cards, I don't see an issue with cards like that being better in this format. Either way I doubt they are going to change it back but it's an interesting discussion
Not all tuck spells are guaranteed to work - condemn won't stop combo engines like gitrog, and hinder is a 3cmc counter which is too slow for most competitive metas where problem commanders tend to linger. Not to mention the odds of finding the 1/99 pseudo answer while the problem commander is always avaliable in the command zone.
I find that currently in EDH, 'problems' (i.e. the business cards) are waaaaaaaaay too good, whereas the 'answers' (points of interaction) are just way too weak. In a format like legacy where we can play 4-ofs, we can have efficient answers as a way to slow down even ultra-fast decks, and we have a good amount of consistency in finding said answers. That is fun. There's a lot of give and take, a lot of interactions, and even when playing against decks that deliberately avoid lines of interactions, there are still a lot more meaningful interactions than many EDH games i've played.
Not being able to effectively answer say a deck's constant looping of troublesome permanents/general in and out of the yard/command zone, etc, means that the game kinda spirals into something that just doesn't feel like magic anymore. That is just as unfun as having your general tucked (as in having to sit and watch someone 'ignore' your answers because they just keep looping the same cards over and over to get value). Maybe the tuck rule isn't the way forward to 'fix' the problem, but perhaps the penalty for the general being killed is too lax.
maybe the tax should be 1 for bounced to hand, 2 for normal death, 3 for exile, 4 for tuck, 5 for AWOL removal.
I don't see an issue with cards like that being better in this format.
It's not being "better", it's "counter this, play tutors or get the **** off from this game".
A tuck against my Derevi is fair because it's basically the only way to remove that *****
A tuck against my Gishath let me with a bunch of overcosted, crappy dinosaurs and simple question in my mind: why am i playing a format advertised as "play fun strategies wih your commander" when it's not actually a good idea doing that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
Learning how and when to play around threats is an important part of becoming a better player and deck builder.
If the potential of having your commander tucked away completely disabled your deck, then that's a fantastic opportunity to learn. You either consider deck changes (answers to tuck effects), playstyle changes (running your commander in to open mana), or risk assessment changes (odds of them having tuck vs upside if your commander does whatever it does).
Tuck was never a guarenteed answer and was just another option for opponents to answer a commander. Treachery and gilded drake effects can also deal with a commander in ways that some decks can't react to, yet these cards will never be banned. And if the opponent running those theft effects decides to pack a few counter spells, then a stolen commander can be impossible to get back, while tucked commander can still be found.
Tuck was never a guarenteed answer and was just another option for opponents to answer a commander. Treachery and gilded drake effects can also deal with a commander in ways that some decks can't react to, yet these cards will never be banned. And if the opponent running those theft effects decides to pack a few counter spells, then a stolen commander can be impossible to get back, while tucked commander can still be found.
Every deck will run at least some removal, but not every deck can run creature tutors. In other words, just aboute very deck can deal with theft effects, but not all decks can deal with tuck effects. In fact, metas that prioritize interesting deck-building over consistency and linearity are almost guaranteed to have very few to no tutors.
A better comparison for the effect of tucking is imprisoned in the moon. It's an effect that most decks can't deal with at all, and that'll likely see a commander taken out permanently.
If the potential of having your commander tucked away completely disabled your deck, then that's a fantastic opportunity to learn.
I don't want to learn. If I'd ever want to master card advantage, bluffing, baiting answers and remove efficiently the right threat, I'd go to a modern tournament.
I just want to play a dumb dinosaur deck so my games feel like I'm living jurassic park.
Tuck was never a guarenteed answer and was just another option for opponents to answer a commander. Treachery and gilded drake effects can also deal with a commander in ways that some decks can't react to, yet these cards will never be banned. And if the opponent running those theft effects decides to pack a few counter spells, then a stolen commander can be impossible to get back, while tucked commander can still be found.
Fake analogy.
against treachery: destroy the enchantment.
against both treachery and gilded drake: kill you commander and cast it back. Every color can do that.
against tuck: either tutor (and not every color can do that) or get incredible lucky
Second part of the analogy:
theft+counters is unbeatable because they can just counter your kill spells.
... so is tuck+counters? they can just counter your tutors can your commander won't come back except by luck. I don't think that the 1/90 chance of getting lucky and negating you opponents strategy without any good play is interesting at all. Funny enough, it isn't even a good way to "learn" something about the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
So, just to clarify, you've interpreted my statement about giving players a chance to better themselves, as "git gud" ?
I'm guessing your comments are coming from a difference in meta. This dinosaur deck you described sounds like a linear battle cruiser deck. This sounds fun, but with the people I play against, your deck just wouldn't exist.
Per your "fake anaolgy" comment, think about it this way; we are talking about effects that try to remove an opponents commander permenatly. If you haven't played against a bunch of efficient theft effects with backup, then I'm envious of your meta. This is common at our tables and can cause some of the best pivotal decisions in a game.
Sure very color can cast a spell to destroy an enchantment or their own stolen commander, but what if they don't already have the answer in hand, or it doesn't resolve? If you want to explore this, then we have to consider the odds of finding the correct answer in a 99 card deck. How many krosan grips do you run? Maybe you have to tutor for a specific answer. Maybe the avaliable answer cards are so small in number out of your 99 that we might as well just draw our commander?
Another thing to think about is the likelyhood of a resolving answer impacting the actual owner more than it should. In a scenario where a mono-red deck has its commander stolen by a treachery, if the blue player has any counter backup, the red player is basically out of options. The blue player might even let something like oblivion stone resolve because sure it will blow up treachery, but the mono-red player is likely nuking more of their own permenants they've cast up till then as well.
There are infinite tempo scenarios where a theft effect can take over the game while the blue player hordes card advantage just waiting for the thefted effect to be dealt with. If you haven't been in a game where a single gilded drake/bribery/treachery has stolen the game, then I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Back to the tuck analogy - I've been giving examples of how theft can often be better than tuck. There are fewer tuck cards than theft options. Not all tuck cards will work on all commanders. The odds of finding the random tuck spell at the appropriate time is actually very low. In multiplayer the entire interaction only involves two players, so there is card disadvantage and politics to consider. And if the tuck spell is found at the wrong time, it's just a highly-situational usually overcosted card in hand. At least hinder can be pitched to force of will.
Now I do respect your dinosaur deck and how you choose to play and what you want from this format. So try to do the same for me - I enjoy assembling puzzle decks, intricate combos and storm. My friends offer fairly competitive matchups that make me think. Combat damage math is rarely the hardest decision point in a turn for us.
I'm guessing your comments are coming from a difference in meta. This dinosaur deck you described sounds like a linear battle cruiser deck. This sounds fun, but with the people I play against, your deck just wouldn't exist.
Aaaaand that's why i'm glad you and/or playgroup are not in the RC.
"this sounds fun" is exactly why me and a lot of players(and by a lot i mean the majority) play commander.
Now i know that my deck could easily be annihilated into nothingness by a cEDH deck. but that require efforts, dedicated deckbuilding and a particular mindset.
getting tuck back would make my games almost as miserable as playing against cEDH decks by just having casual players upgrade their counterspells to hinder and their generous gifts to oblation.
Another thing to think about is the likelyhood of a resolving answer impacting the actual owner more than it should. In a scenario where a mono-red deck has its commander stolen by a treachery, if the blue player has any counter backup, the red player is basically out of options. The blue player might even let something like oblivion stone resolve because sure it will blow up treachery, but the mono-red player is likely nuking more of their own permenants they've cast up till then as well.
Then i don't get why we should give the blue player even more toys. He can already delete a fundamental aspect of the format for a player. Why should he get even more cards to do that?
By the way i play against theft effect pretty often. I shoved homeward path into almost all of my decks. Playing like that it's still more fun and interactible than playing against hinders and oblations.
Now I do respect your dinosaur deck and how you choose to play and what you want from this format. So try to do the same for me - I enjoy assembling puzzle decks, intricate combos and storm. My friends offer fairly competitive matchups that make me think. Combat damage math is rarely the hardest decision point in a turn for us.
And i respect your competitiveness but don't shove it into casual players' throat.
First, you can just try to solve your puzzle in a different way. There still ways to deal with a general "permanently": nevermore, imprisoned in the moon, song of the dryads, darksteel mutation...
Second, you can just your group to bring tuck back and see what happens. But I surely won't play a game of that.
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
Huh, I stand corrected. Still, my overall point (removal is more common than tutors) still stands, at least as far as I've seen in my local playgroups at least.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
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.
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'd agree with this sentiment, but at the same time, it's a bit of a spectrum, innit.. its a game of EDH; the main pull of the format ISN'T that it's a 100-card singleton.. Nor is it the colour-restrctions in deckbuilding. Or the banlist. For some, maybe it's the eternal cardpool. But for most, it's being able to have a legendary dude who's your general.
Yes, contingency plans are good, and you need a good plan B, C and so on. But the fun point of the format for many is being able to relatively consistently be able to play the general that leads the deck. For the vast majority of the more casual side of the crowd, i'd imagine that tuck isn't a very wanted rule.
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.
And if you are playing X color goodstuff you can just and play legacy/standard/modern/pionner?
Commander was created to create janky decks around cool legendaries. Deciding to punish the guy who built around is weird legendary like Kethys or Rienne to let win the guy who play 5 color goodstuff and never cast his commander is a recipe for a disaster
And also is still favoring bad decks. I'd take fragile decks over goodstuffy netdecked combo decks anyday.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't like the argument that "because white and blue don't better it would be unfair". White and red are great at mass LD, I think losing all your lands makes it hard to play then losing your commander. I feel like the decks that are all in on their commander should have that sort of weakness. What do we think?
My problem with tucking also isn't 'white/blue do it better' but 'it makes the game less fun'. At least most mass land destruction (that i'm aware of) is at least somewhat symmetrically, but among my play-group we've also agreed not to run any of the big land destruction cards.
A couple of years back, when a commander became the target of a spell that'd put them somewhere into your library (instead of destroying them or exiling them or whatever) you wouldn't get the choice to put them into the command zone instead. So, for example, if your commander got hit with spell crumple as you cast them, then they'd go to the bottom of your library, and chances where you'd not get the chance to play them again that game.
No thanks. It's wizard that should stop designing broken commanders like Derevi and Prossh thinking about not having them instead of players being punished for playing fair commanders.
On that same page I also strongly dislike the rule adjustment where non-commander specific color can now be produced in a deck. That was a very flavorful rule and I still can't fathom why on earth it was changed.
When cards are needlessly banned or rules are needlessly changed, when the format is completely healthy, it just feels like someone is just reminding us that they have some influence over the format. It's silly.
There is a grey area between casually-competative and cEDH, where stronger and more oppressive commanders can warp a fairly casual table, and the best answer would be to tuck them.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
None of those cards are played extensively in this format, past the occasional Kozilek deck itself. With access to talismans and filter+pain lands I see zero reason why the introduction of colorless-specific mana warranted a complete rule deletion.
One of the basic principles of the format is a color restriction based on the commander of choice. Being able to make off-color mana distorts that basic flavor, and while it's not something that can be abused, it's a random rule change that didn't actually need to happen.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Honesty I'm glad people are disgareeing with me. I like hearing the other side of the conversation. I agree that losing a commander is not fun but so is mass LD, stacks, and prison. While mass LD is symmetrical, at best everyone is set the same and at worst they bring it all back or make their lands indestructible. Lands are more important for playing the game baring very specific exceptions. For me the rational of "it's not fun" should mean a lot of other cards need to be on this list.
At least you have to deckbuild around these themes. To tuck you just need to put oblation into every white deck and hinder into every blue deck.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Not being able to effectively answer say a deck's constant looping of troublesome permanents/general in and out of the yard/command zone, etc, means that the game kinda spirals into something that just doesn't feel like magic anymore. That is just as unfun as having your general tucked (as in having to sit and watch someone 'ignore' your answers because they just keep looping the same cards over and over to get value). Maybe the tuck rule isn't the way forward to 'fix' the problem, but perhaps the penalty for the general being killed is too lax.
maybe the tax should be 1 for bounced to hand, 2 for normal death, 3 for exile, 4 for tuck, 5 for AWOL removal.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
It's not being "better", it's "counter this, play tutors or get the **** off from this game".
A tuck against my Derevi is fair because it's basically the only way to remove that *****
A tuck against my Gishath let me with a bunch of overcosted, crappy dinosaurs and simple question in my mind: why am i playing a format advertised as "play fun strategies wih your commander" when it's not actually a good idea doing that?
If the potential of having your commander tucked away completely disabled your deck, then that's a fantastic opportunity to learn. You either consider deck changes (answers to tuck effects), playstyle changes (running your commander in to open mana), or risk assessment changes (odds of them having tuck vs upside if your commander does whatever it does).
Tuck was never a guarenteed answer and was just another option for opponents to answer a commander. Treachery and gilded drake effects can also deal with a commander in ways that some decks can't react to, yet these cards will never be banned. And if the opponent running those theft effects decides to pack a few counter spells, then a stolen commander can be impossible to get back, while tucked commander can still be found.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Every deck will run at least some removal, but not every deck can run creature tutors. In other words, just aboute very deck can deal with theft effects, but not all decks can deal with tuck effects. In fact, metas that prioritize interesting deck-building over consistency and linearity are almost guaranteed to have very few to no tutors.
A better comparison for the effect of tucking is imprisoned in the moon. It's an effect that most decks can't deal with at all, and that'll likely see a commander taken out permanently.
I don't want to learn. If I'd ever want to master card advantage, bluffing, baiting answers and remove efficiently the right threat, I'd go to a modern tournament.
I just want to play a dumb dinosaur deck so my games feel like I'm living jurassic park.
Fake analogy.
against treachery: destroy the enchantment.
against both treachery and gilded drake: kill you commander and cast it back. Every color can do that.
against tuck: either tutor (and not every color can do that) or get incredible lucky
Second part of the analogy:
theft+counters is unbeatable because they can just counter your kill spells.
... so is tuck+counters? they can just counter your tutors can your commander won't come back except by luck. I don't think that the 1/90 chance of getting lucky and negating you opponents strategy without any good play is interesting at all. Funny enough, it isn't even a good way to "learn" something about the game.
I'm guessing your comments are coming from a difference in meta. This dinosaur deck you described sounds like a linear battle cruiser deck. This sounds fun, but with the people I play against, your deck just wouldn't exist.
Per your "fake anaolgy" comment, think about it this way; we are talking about effects that try to remove an opponents commander permenatly. If you haven't played against a bunch of efficient theft effects with backup, then I'm envious of your meta. This is common at our tables and can cause some of the best pivotal decisions in a game.
Sure very color can cast a spell to destroy an enchantment or their own stolen commander, but what if they don't already have the answer in hand, or it doesn't resolve? If you want to explore this, then we have to consider the odds of finding the correct answer in a 99 card deck. How many krosan grips do you run? Maybe you have to tutor for a specific answer. Maybe the avaliable answer cards are so small in number out of your 99 that we might as well just draw our commander?
Another thing to think about is the likelyhood of a resolving answer impacting the actual owner more than it should. In a scenario where a mono-red deck has its commander stolen by a treachery, if the blue player has any counter backup, the red player is basically out of options. The blue player might even let something like oblivion stone resolve because sure it will blow up treachery, but the mono-red player is likely nuking more of their own permenants they've cast up till then as well.
There are infinite tempo scenarios where a theft effect can take over the game while the blue player hordes card advantage just waiting for the thefted effect to be dealt with. If you haven't been in a game where a single gilded drake/bribery/treachery has stolen the game, then I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Back to the tuck analogy - I've been giving examples of how theft can often be better than tuck. There are fewer tuck cards than theft options. Not all tuck cards will work on all commanders. The odds of finding the random tuck spell at the appropriate time is actually very low. In multiplayer the entire interaction only involves two players, so there is card disadvantage and politics to consider. And if the tuck spell is found at the wrong time, it's just a highly-situational usually overcosted card in hand. At least hinder can be pitched to force of will.
Now I do respect your dinosaur deck and how you choose to play and what you want from this format. So try to do the same for me - I enjoy assembling puzzle decks, intricate combos and storm. My friends offer fairly competitive matchups that make me think. Combat damage math is rarely the hardest decision point in a turn for us.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Every color has at least one card capable of tutoring for an arbitrary commander, as well: Thalia's Lancers, Long-Term Plans, Demonic Tutor, Gamble, Worldly Tutor. (Hell, with the exception of Worldly Tutor, those options can also all tutor planeswalker commanders.) For certain commanders, more tutor options are available (for example, Imperial Recruiter can get Kiki-jiki, Mirror Breaker, but not Lathliss, Dragon Queen).
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Aaaaand that's why i'm glad you and/or playgroup are not in the RC.
"this sounds fun" is exactly why me and a lot of players(and by a lot i mean the majority) play commander.
Now i know that my deck could easily be annihilated into nothingness by a cEDH deck. but that require efforts, dedicated deckbuilding and a particular mindset.
getting tuck back would make my games almost as miserable as playing against cEDH decks by just having casual players upgrade their counterspells to hinder and their generous gifts to oblation.
Then i don't get why we should give the blue player even more toys. He can already delete a fundamental aspect of the format for a player. Why should he get even more cards to do that?
By the way i play against theft effect pretty often. I shoved homeward path into almost all of my decks. Playing like that it's still more fun and interactible than playing against hinders and oblations.
And i respect your competitiveness but don't shove it into casual players' throat.
First, you can just try to solve your puzzle in a different way. There still ways to deal with a general "permanently": nevermore, imprisoned in the moon, song of the dryads, darksteel mutation...
Second, you can just your group to bring tuck back and see what happens. But I surely won't play a game of that.
Huh, I stand corrected. Still, my overall point (removal is more common than tutors) still stands, at least as far as I've seen in my local playgroups at least.
Now perhaps he nuance was missed, but tuck being a chance for people to 'improve' surely does not make the average game more fun, right?
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
I'd agree with this sentiment, but at the same time, it's a bit of a spectrum, innit.. its a game of EDH; the main pull of the format ISN'T that it's a 100-card singleton.. Nor is it the colour-restrctions in deckbuilding. Or the banlist. For some, maybe it's the eternal cardpool. But for most, it's being able to have a legendary dude who's your general.
Yes, contingency plans are good, and you need a good plan B, C and so on. But the fun point of the format for many is being able to relatively consistently be able to play the general that leads the deck. For the vast majority of the more casual side of the crowd, i'd imagine that tuck isn't a very wanted rule.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
And if you are playing X color goodstuff you can just and play legacy/standard/modern/pionner?
Commander was created to create janky decks around cool legendaries. Deciding to punish the guy who built around is weird legendary like Kethys or Rienne to let win the guy who play 5 color goodstuff and never cast his commander is a recipe for a disaster
And also is still favoring bad decks. I'd take fragile decks over goodstuffy netdecked combo decks anyday.