Regarding undesirable game states - I am not sure that durdling forever without winning is an undesirable game state. Stopping people from being able to play is undesirable. In that sense, Winter Orb seems like a bigger offender, but is still tolerable.
I played PE in standard. If you know what you are doing, even without infinite combos, you should be able to end the game. But, in EDH, it is so easy to go infinite I would have a very serious conversation with people in your meta who are just wasting time.
I find it strange that your meta has so much PE. It is a spikey meta? I used to play at a LGS for prizes, and though I have not played there in over 2 years, I would presume that people all have 1-2 PE decks with them every night. I would call that meta a 90% meta.
cEDH plays a lot of PE, but I do not think cEDH should be considered.
I have two metas of reference, one in Phoenix and one in Erie. The Phoenix one had a lot of 75% players who have been emboldened to pick up PE since it has dodged banning so much.
It figured in every other game there approximately. One night I remember had 4 of 5 games i played end with PE via combo or durdle.
In Erie I have not played enough to have a great sample but I have seen 3 PE decks in 3 nights out at the shop. So I figure it is probably common.
I feel like strong combo wincons that appeal to popular deck types but also are encouraging to durdly lines are bad. But may be just me.
I also think the more casual the deck the more prone to flaming out. So as casuals play it more it'll likely get worse rather than better.
And the longer it's legal the worse it'll get.
But that's just my take ofc. A buddy of mine who still plays in Phoenix said he's seeing it more and more but third hand anecdote is what it is
Regarding undesirable game states - I am not sure that durdling forever without winning is an undesirable game state. Stopping people from being able to play is undesirable. In that sense, Winter Orb seems like a bigger offender, but is still tolerable.
I played PE in standard. If you know what you are doing, even without infinite combos, you should be able to end the game. But, in EDH, it is so easy to go infinite I would have a very serious conversation with people in your meta who are just wasting time.
I find it strange that your meta has so much PE. It is a spikey meta? I used to play at a LGS for prizes, and though I have not played there in over 2 years, I would presume that people all have 1-2 PE decks with them every night. I would call that meta a 90% meta.
cEDH plays a lot of PE, but I do not think cEDH should be considered.
I have two metas of reference, one in Phoenix and one in Erie. The Phoenix one had a lot of 75% players who have been emboldened to pick up PE since it has dodged banning so much.
It figured in every other game there approximately. One night I remember had 4 of 5 games i played end with PE via combo or durdle.
In Erie I have not played enough to have a great sample but I have seen 3 PE decks in 3 nights out at the shop. So I figure it is probably common.
I feel like strong combo wincons that appeal to popular deck types but also are encouraging to durdly lines are bad. But may be just me.
I also think the more casual the deck the more prone to flaming out. So as casuals play it more it'll likely get worse rather than better.
And the longer it's legal the worse it'll get.
But that's just my take ofc. A buddy of mine who still plays in Phoenix said he's seeing it more and more but third hand anecdote is what it is
For what it's worth, I play at 3 different stores in the greater Houston area and Paradox Engine is not all that common. At two of my stores, I'm the only one who plays it (I only play it in Jhoira, because she's basically a Storm deck), and at the third store one or two other people play it. They're not easy to find around here, and the price is getting more prohibitive by the month. I'd say the meta at two of these stores is 75% at most (I really hate this metric but since everyone insists...), and between 75-90% at the third store. Having discussed the banlist and joked amongst a lot of them about the vocal minorities people online and the silly stuff people want banned/unbanned, most stated they feel it's too niche to just jam in most decks, and requires a fragile board state to try to build to abuse it. Someone once stated it pretty well: It's like Ashnod's Altar, because both are dead on an empty board; both enable you to go infinite with 2 or 3 other cards; except Paradox Engine is actually less ubiquitous than Ashnod's Altar because people jam ETB/Death triggers and Creature-centric strategies in Commander more than anything. Yes, the two are actually comparable, which doesn't so much show how powerful Ashnod's Altar is as much as that how Paradox Engine doesn't need the torches and pitchforks.
It's like Ashnod's Altar, because both are dead on an empty board; both enable you to go infinite with 2 or 3 other cards; except Paradox Engine is actually less ubiquitous than Ashnod's Altar because people jam ETB/Death triggers and Creature-centric strategies in Commander more than anything. Yes, the two are actually comparable, which doesn't so much show how powerful Ashnod's Altar is as much as that how Paradox Engine doesn't need the torches and pitchforks.
An apt comparison. PE can get gross, but Altar gets gross a lot easier. Both require pretty specific board presence to do anything, PE more so than Altar - and there's reasonable opportunity to intervene with PE before it reaches a critical mass.
IMO it's definitely a card to keep eyes on if/when it hits the board and should definitely be a target for immediate removal, but I don't consider it a card worth mentioning in terms of adding to the banlist. The critical thing that makes it unworthy of consideration for me is that in a vacuum it's worthless - it only enables degeneracy in relation to other cards, and even then it's up to the user how far they take it. I've never gone infinite with PE personally (although it sure can seem like it), but that's because I choose not to play the sort of cards that would lead to that. It's a game finisher, sure, but it's only ever a piece of a larger puzzle, and it's entirely up to the user what the rest of the puzzle looks like.
I have two metas of reference, one in Phoenix and one in Erie. The Phoenix one had a lot of 75% players who have been emboldened to pick up PE since it has dodged banning so much.
Why do you feel its that PE 'dodged bannings' if other cards like Winter Orb have not?
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.
Winter Orb seems a different thing. As far as I'm aware it has never been considered for banning, but it's also the sort of card that metas will enforce on their own with a short, sharp 'we don't want stax so don't be a dick'.
As far as PE, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned by Sheldon upon release as one to keep an eye on, but otherwise seems to have flown under the radar. In my personal experience, I am the only player I know that runs it, so it's prevalence is very, very minimal here regardless.
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.
I have two metas of reference, one in Phoenix and one in Erie. The Phoenix one had a lot of 75% players who have been emboldened to pick up PE since it has dodged banning so much.
Why do you feel its that PE 'dodged bannings' if other cards like Winter Orb have not?
PE has been extensively discussed for bannings, with multiple RC members weighing in not completely against, and they've identified that it's a card they have talked about IIRC.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously suggest banning winter orb but I am sure it's happened.
It's like Ashnod's Altar, because both are dead on an empty board; both enable you to go infinite with 2 or 3 other cards; except Paradox Engine is actually less ubiquitous than Ashnod's Altar because people jam ETB/Death triggers and Creature-centric strategies in Commander more than anything. Yes, the two are actually comparable, which doesn't so much show how powerful Ashnod's Altar is as much as that how Paradox Engine doesn't need the torches and pitchforks.
You may have missed the discussion on Rings of brighthearth but Ashnod's altar is basically the same -- it's not a card with a lot of fair uses, and it doesn't really generate the same level of mana as quickly, or go infinite with as many combinations of cards. If you use AA as a "fair" way to generate mana it usually is at the cost of your board state, vs. PE and Metalworker which do not have to go down cards to get there.
The page where I analyzed the types of scenarios that generate explosive mana turns with PE or Metalworke may also be informative for you -- Ashnod's Altar will not generate tons of mana in early turns in very many scenarios, so at least in terms of mana production it's not really very comparable (3 card combos happen much less often than "draw a few mana rocks").
Generally speaking AA sees play only in focused combo decks or rarely as an open sac outlet for aristocrats type decks (that almost always have a combo or two as well).
Paradox Engine is a little further left on the "has fair uses" spectrum so in my opinion it's a bit more likely to be problematic; it is very good in fair decks that play a lot of rocks or dorks, and doesn't really need to "combo" to be strong.
At least, that's my opinion you're welcome to disagree of course. There's surely a kind of "how spiky is this card" spectrum where the RC is willing to just let combo pieces go - but the broader the appeal the more problematic, generally.
I see Paradox Engine often in the local metagame, though not quite as much as was the case a few months ago. Some of the more spikey players have moved on to other busted decks, and some of the more casual players have taken PE out of some of their decks (as I have also done), or possibly even all of them. That said, most players I know who have one or more copies of PE and who keep more than one or two decks built at a time seem to have at least one deck that runs PE and can go nuts with it, so, again, I see it on a pretty regular basis. Like, at least once every time I play, which is a lot more than I see Rings of Brighthearth, for example. I see PE show up in a fairly wide range of decks that can just use it for a fair amount of value, but most often you see it in the sorts of decks which are themselves perfectly fine decks but which can easily break PE, things like artifact decks or token decks which also run mana dorks and Cryptolith Rite. And that is my continued problem with the card. You really don't have to build around it much at all to make it entirely broken. You just have to run things which are already good in your deck. This makes it different from most other combo pieces. Green or G/X creature or token-based decks often run mana elves and land untappers and Cryptolith Rite, and lots of decks run a lot of mana rocks. Kozilek decks and Sisay decks (which can fetch PE) become even more insane just by adding this card to their existing build.
On the positive side, pretty much everyone in the local meta who has been playing for more than a few months now also recognizes Paradox Engine as a "kill on sight" card.
I just want to point out that the "fair uses" thing is relevant, as members of the RC have used that as a contributing reason for borderline cars remaining unbanned, specifically I'm thinking of Tooth and Nail. The presence of fair, non problematic uses for a card seems to somewhat offset the problematic uses of the card. The fact that Tooth and Nail can legitimately be used to just grab two fatties from your library and slam them on the battlefield, and this actually happens in practice, keeps it from being a card whose sole purpose is to just win the game out of nowhere (its "combo" use, and I put "combo" in quotes because, while there are deck building considerations, it is a one card combo). Just tutoring up and slamming down Ulamog and Vorcinclex is a big, splashy, powerful play that many people want to make, and all it takes is a modicum of constraint when running T&N to eschew including its combos and go for that instead.
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 just want to point out that the "fair uses" thing is relevant, as members of the RC have used that as a contributing reason for borderline cars remaining unbanned, specifically I'm thinking of Tooth and Nail. The presence of fair, non problematic uses for a card seems to somewhat offset the problematic uses of the card. The fact that Tooth and Nail can legitimately be used to just grab two fatties from your library and slam them on the battlefield, and this actually happens in practice, keeps it from being a card whose sole purpose is to just win the game out of nowhere (its "combo" use, and I put "combo" in quotes because, while there are deck building considerations, it is a one card combo). Just tutoring up and slamming down Ulamog and Vorcinclex is a big, splashy, powerful play that many people want to make, and all it takes is a modicum of constraint when running T&N to eschew including its combos and go for that instead.
It's interesting that "fair uses" can be both a good and a bad depending on circumstances and just how powerful/centralizing the card is in practice. For me, PE's fair uses are actually a thing that makes me hate it more, same as Prophet of Kruphix.
Too many fair uses for a strong card can lead to problematic casual omnipresence, but fun fair uses for a mostly combo card can lead to something being safe. Very interesting phenomenon
I just want to point out that the "fair uses" thing is relevant, as members of the RC have used that as a contributing reason for borderline cars remaining unbanned, specifically I'm thinking of Tooth and Nail. The presence of fair, non problematic uses for a card seems to somewhat offset the problematic uses of the card. The fact that Tooth and Nail can legitimately be used to just grab two fatties from your library and slam them on the battlefield, and this actually happens in practice, keeps it from being a card whose sole purpose is to just win the game out of nowhere (its "combo" use, and I put "combo" in quotes because, while there are deck building considerations, it is a one card combo). Just tutoring up and slamming down Ulamog and Vorcinclex is a big, splashy, powerful play that many people want to make, and all it takes is a modicum of constraint when running T&N to eschew including its combos and go for that instead.
It's interesting that "fair uses" can be both a good and a bad depending on circumstances and just how powerful/centralizing the card is in practice. For me, PE's fair uses are actually a thing that makes me hate it more, same as Prophet of Kruphix.
Too many fair uses for a strong card can lead to problematic casual omnipresence, but fun fair uses for a mostly combo card can lead to something being safe. Very interesting phenomenon
I'm really not sure how a non problematic use, by definition, can contribute to problematic casual omnipresence. The whole idea behind a "fair use" is that it is non problematic, and thus I would think that any increase in play caused by people using the card fairly does not contribute to problematic casual omnipresence. If T&N started showing up in every deck, but the increase was entirely due to people just using it to tutor out fatties, I doubt that would put it over the line.
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 prophet, most of what people were doing with it was fair. Sylvan primordial kinda the same. But when they got common enough they became problematic. One pok in a game is find, someone removes it and moves on. When the second one hits and gets cloned is when the problems start.
With PE I'm not sure the same can happen but I've seen two scenarios that make me think it can become problematic based on common fair usage:
1) I have seen people clone it and go off.
2) I have seen people combo with it on accident just playing good cards together ("wow i didn't know that would go infinite" was only a more common occurence with my buddy's ghave deck).
And kinda 2.5 but seeing more play taxes removal, which means just being common can be an issue. this was a moderate issue with pok in my group where sometimes no one would have removal for the second or third prophet.
I would be more concerned with PE if people started recognizing it as a ramp card and using it to cast a bunch of spells a turn... every turn... for five turns... without winning. When players start taking longer turns by durdling with untapping their rocks, counting their mana, and repeating with each spell and figuring out how to spend that mana, it becomes an undesirable game state. I would much rather see one turn where a player quickly demonstrates the ability to go infinite or win on the spot.
I would be more concerned with PE if people started recognizing it as a ramp card and using it to cast a bunch of spells a turn... every turn... for five turns... without winning. When players start taking longer turns by durdling with untapping their rocks, counting their mana, and repeating with each spell and figuring out how to spend that mana, it becomes an undesirable game state. I would much rather see one turn where a player quickly demonstrates the ability to go infinite or win on the spot.
Yeah, most of the "combo by accident" examples I can remember involve this sequence of hitting a bunch of draw spells and then casting stuff and functionally comboing in a nondeterministic way.
This will happen a lot if people play it as a ramp spell ("fair usage"). That's the worry on the card becoming acceptably mainstream (as it has seemed to progress toward in my experience).
I tend to avoid infinite combos in my deck, so when I go off with Paradox Engine, it doesn't tend to be an "I win" combo so much as I use topdeck manipulation and chain together draw spells until I draw into one of the deck's various win conditions. As a result, things can sometimes take awhile, depending on my board state at the time and how long it takes to draw into a win condition, kind of like what Pokken refers to as "functionally comboing in a nondeterministic way." Usually I can win on the round I cast Paradox Engine, but that round might take awhile. The result is not exactly durdling, but not a great game state, either. This is not atypical of what I see when less competitive/combo-oriented players run Paradox Engine.
With prophet, most of what people were doing with it was fair. Sylvan primordial kinda the same. But when they got common enough they became problematic. One pok in a game is find, someone removes it and moves on. When the second one hits and gets cloned is when the problems start.
With PE I'm not sure the same can happen but I've seen two scenarios that make me think it can become problematic based on common fair usage:
1) I have seen people clone it and go off.
2) I have seen people combo with it on accident just playing good cards together ("wow i didn't know that would go infinite" was only a more common occurence with my buddy's ghave deck).
And kinda 2.5 but seeing more play taxes removal, which means just being common can be an issue. this was a moderate issue with pok in my group where sometimes no one would have removal for the second or third prophet.
I believe that 1 and 2 are both things the RC looks for. If people start trying to Bribery for it or clone it on a regular basis, that falls under "overly centralizing." Accidental combos I think fit under problematic game states, but I'm not sure.
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 would be more concerned with PE if people started recognizing it as a ramp card and using it to cast a bunch of spells a turn... every turn... for five turns... without winning. When players start taking longer turns by durdling with untapping their rocks, counting their mana, and repeating with each spell and figuring out how to spend that mana, it becomes an undesirable game state. I would much rather see one turn where a player quickly demonstrates the ability to go infinite or win on the spot.
Agreed here, and the latter is predominantly what I see happen with PE. It might take a little while to hit critical mass, but usually it gets me over the finish line. If not, I fully expect people to come for me, that's the risk you take landing the Engine in the first place. Having said that, it's entirely possible to use it as more of a 'draw-go' control enabler; in my Dralnu build it can do this really well, and I very much prefer using it this way, as I prefer not to combo - while the deck doesn't specfically combo, PE as a finisher sure looks like it.
Its weird talking about the prevalence of the card. It sounds like a lot of meta's out there its become quite ubiquitous, but I literally don't ever see it unless I play it myself. There's even other Kaladesh rocks that I see hitting 'casual omnipresence' levels; Aetherflux Reservoir is one I see very regularly, and it's ridiculously easy to end the game with, with very few options to intervene.
There is a true deckbuilding cost to Rofellos, in that you essentially need to be playing 30 basic forests to stand even a 63.5% chance of having +3 mana on turn 3, and with that only have a 44% chance of having +4 mana on turn 4.
The mana production of a rofellos deck will only exceed Azusa consistently by playing at least 30 basic forests, whereas Azusa can play much higher ratio of great lands, and can be ramped into because of her flexible mana cost. Selvala has similar benefits, but also can significantly exceed Rofellos in the mid game and is more likely to go infinite.
Playing 30 forests is a serious deckbuilding consequence.
If you cut it to 20 forests, your chances of drawing >=3 forests drop to a weak 33% without some sort of forest fixing (that really has to cost 1, 2, or 3 mana to be relevant).
Anyway, I'd love to hear a counterpoint there but I can't really see any point for Rofellos to sit on the banned list with the options we have out there. The format's come quite a long way in terms of speed and power in general.
Consistently having upwards of six mana on turn 3 with out any sort of real deckbuilding constraints or using any ramp other than your commander is what differentiates him from Yisan, Selvala and Azusa. All of them alone don't do anything until turn three and their power is only felt from there on. Rofellos let's you cast a six drop on turn 3 ezpz.
Can any of those other three mono green commanders generate more mana quickly? Probably, sure, but only if you build for it.
I mean he's in green, the colour of fetching lands to play in various ways. Even a t1 Burgeoning gives him an enormous boost very quickly.
While there's plenty of ways to get stupid mana stupid quick these days, I feel like unleashing Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary would be like opening Pandora's box. Being a mono green player myself I can see this just getting gross suuuuuper quick. Even just switching Nissa, Vastwood Seer out for him would make my deck disgusting. T5 is my fastest win with Nissa, I bet Rofellos could beat that without batting an eyelid.
There is a true deckbuilding cost to Rofellos, in that you essentially need to be playing 30 basic forests to stand even a 63.5% chance of having +3 mana on turn 3, and with that only have a 44% chance of having +4 mana on turn 4.
The mana production of a rofellos deck will only exceed Azusa consistently by playing at least 30 basic forests, whereas Azusa can play much higher ratio of great lands, and can be ramped into because of her flexible mana cost. Selvala has similar benefits, but also can significantly exceed Rofellos in the mid game and is more likely to go infinite.
Playing 30 forests is a serious deckbuilding consequence.
If you cut it to 20 forests, your chances of drawing >=3 forests drop to a weak 33% without some sort of forest fixing (that really has to cost 1, 2, or 3 mana to be relevant).
Anyway, I'd love to hear a counterpoint there but I can't really see any point for Rofellos to sit on the banned list with the options we have out there. The format's come quite a long way in terms of speed and power in general.
Well, you're mono green, so you are very likely playing that many forests normally. Sure, maybe you want to run 10 non basics, but you don't need fixing, and that only drops you to 27 forests. Cutting a few nonbasics to hit 30 for Rofellos. Its a pretty easy hurdle to get over. Selvala needs high power creatures. Azusa needs ways to get land into her hand to really ramp hard. Rofellos benefits from anything that fetches forests to the battlefield, of which green has a plethora. I agree, however, that Azusa and Selvala are both very strong ramp commanders, and I would argue that they have a higher ceiling when built to their strengths (Azusa gets you a lot of mileage out of things that fetch lands to hand, which are typically much more efficient than things that fetch to the battlefield, and she has synergy with things like Strip Mine/Crucible, while Selvala can go nuts very quickly with the right creatures, and drawing some cards is a different angle). I don't see Yisan as a real ramp commander, he's a cheat it out commander. He's bonkers, but in a different way. Rofellos' main issue is that running 30 forests is such a low bar that any mono green deck that wanted to ramp hard out of the command zone but didn't want to make many deck building concessions would run him. He also starts ramping early, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him ramp 3 on turn 3. His too much too fast raking would be middling, probably a 4 in the 99, but in the command zone he's much more problematic as he is guaranteed to hit turn 2. As for other factors, I think we'd see less omnipresence than we would have when EDH was young, as there are other options you pointed out, and also because being a weatherlight member has less cache these days, so there would be fewer people just wanting to run him because of the story.
In the end, I think he'd be generically stronger than any other option available, but whether a tuned Rofellos deck would be stronger than tuned Azusa or Selvala, or more than just marginally stronger, I don't know. I do know that he'd be easier to build. Azusa and Selvala are already probably on the edge of what's acceptable in the command zone, so I'm not sure it would be wise to let him out, but I'll also say that out of the cards on the banlist, I'd think that Rofellos is one of the ones that's most "on the edge" of banability. That is, he's just over the line, and would be one of the few cards that might be able to safely be unbanned. He certainly would be if he wasn't a legend.
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!
My point is that Rofellos does what it does too well. I mean, it isn't even a 1/1! It is an enabler for any green deck, heck I could head my Ghalta, Primal Hunger deck with it with minimal tweaking (literally one enchantment would need to go and Ghalta would become one of the 99).
Also, Paradox and Azusa are pratically auto additions to a Rofellos deck.
Lastly, only 30 forests? You can run more than that in a mono green. I am not seening the 10 nonbasics that you would be usings, more like 4.
Wouldn't mind see your list for that.
Generally speaking I'd expect a rofellos deck to not want to run a lot more than 33 or 34 lands just because you really want payoffs and your commander is relatively cheap.
I can think of a few ways to build, ranging from high land count eldrazi, to elves w dorks, to land ramp spells, to even a good number of busted rocks (moxen at least).
I'm not sure enough of what the optimal build is to really guess. But I do not see it as a strictly better mono green commander.
Yisan, selvala, azusa and several others offer their own styles.
I do think he'd be the second best green fair ramp commander (with azusa being better by virtue of being more resilient and getting to play 20+ utility lands).
I do think that 30 forests in a deck is a lot. I have 17 basics in my lands deck and a typical monocolor deck will run 24 or so. Which is not enough.
Having 6 mana on turn 3 is a lot but it's not particularly uncommon and requires untapping so is somewhat telegraphed.
Lots of scenarios where a single opportunistic removal will set you back quite badly.
Eh. I dunno, maybe I've just been inured to ramp a bit.
Generally speaking I'd expect a rofellos deck to not want to run a lot more than 33 or 34 lands just because you really want payoffs and your commander is relatively cheap.
I can think of a few ways to build, ranging from high land count eldrazi, to elves w dorks, to land ramp spells, to even a good number of busted rocks (moxen at least).
I'm not sure enough of what the optimal build is to really guess. But I do not see it as a strictly better mono green commander.
Yisan, selvala, azusa and several others offer their own styles.
I do think he'd be the second best green fair ramp commander (with azusa being better by virtue of being more resilient and getting to play 20+ utility lands).
I do think that 30 forests in a deck is a lot. I have 17 basics in my lands deck and a typical monocolor deck will run 24 or so. Which is not enough.
Having 6 mana on turn 3 is a lot but it's not particularly uncommon and requires untapping so is somewhat telegraphed.
Lots of scenarios where a single opportunistic removal will set you back quite badly.
Eh. I dunno, maybe I've just been inured to ramp a bit.
1: You probably don't run enough basics in mono color, especially mono green, which benefits greatly from basics. 34 lands is, well, unrealistically low for a commander that plays off of land. I get it, he's a ramp commander, but he works off of lands. Would you run 34 lands in Azusa? I looked over my mono green decks, 37 lands is my minimum, with the nonbasics hitting between 5 and 11, averaging 8, but 2 or more nonbasics typically search for basics (like thawing glaciers or myriad landscape, which granted aren't particularly fast for Rofellos).
2:"Having 6 mana on turn 3 is a lot but it's not particularly uncommon and requires untapping so is somewhat telegraphed.
Lots of scenarios where a single opportunistic removal will set you back quite badly."
As I said, its a lot, but not ridiculous, which is why I'd consider it a 4/10 on that criteria. However, importantly, it sits in your command zone, so getting that reliably every game is pretty crazy. And having it hit by removal early sets you back, but not that badly. He costs 2 and can be recast for 4. You haven't went down on cards or opened yourself up much. All you lost was the 2 mana you spent, and the potential to jump way ahead. You've been temporarily knocked back down to everyone's level.
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!
4/10 outside of the command zone seems a scoche high to me. Definitely less explosive than metalworker though more consistently - in optimized state probably +5 total by turn 4, which is good but not materially better than bloom tender or priest of titania, or even exploration. Definitely worse than metalworker to me and probably by a lot. Again talking optimized.
I think he's functionally nearly equivalent to azusa, and she rates maybe a 2 for me.
The main thing I guess is he might be an issue in casuals. But I'm pretty sure those game groups get rolled by a medium azusa.
Eh, not sure on the land count. I suspect it might be right to play 34 or even fewer and lots of basic search spells. Unlike azusa you're not getting any value out of extra lands so you may be better off running stuff like like cultivate et al, and avoiding the extra land drop stuff since it is kinda winmore again I haven't really brewed at it but I'm always leery of flooding when commander makes mana.
Anyone remember what the early rofellos decks played?
I have two metas of reference, one in Phoenix and one in Erie. The Phoenix one had a lot of 75% players who have been emboldened to pick up PE since it has dodged banning so much.
It figured in every other game there approximately. One night I remember had 4 of 5 games i played end with PE via combo or durdle.
In Erie I have not played enough to have a great sample but I have seen 3 PE decks in 3 nights out at the shop. So I figure it is probably common.
I feel like strong combo wincons that appeal to popular deck types but also are encouraging to durdly lines are bad. But may be just me.
I also think the more casual the deck the more prone to flaming out. So as casuals play it more it'll likely get worse rather than better.
And the longer it's legal the worse it'll get.
But that's just my take ofc. A buddy of mine who still plays in Phoenix said he's seeing it more and more but third hand anecdote is what it is
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
For what it's worth, I play at 3 different stores in the greater Houston area and Paradox Engine is not all that common. At two of my stores, I'm the only one who plays it (I only play it in Jhoira, because she's basically a Storm deck), and at the third store one or two other people play it. They're not easy to find around here, and the price is getting more prohibitive by the month. I'd say the meta at two of these stores is 75% at most (I really hate this metric but since everyone insists...), and between 75-90% at the third store. Having discussed the banlist and joked amongst a lot of them about the vocal minorities people online and the silly stuff people want banned/unbanned, most stated they feel it's too niche to just jam in most decks, and requires a fragile board state to try to build to abuse it. Someone once stated it pretty well: It's like Ashnod's Altar, because both are dead on an empty board; both enable you to go infinite with 2 or 3 other cards; except Paradox Engine is actually less ubiquitous than Ashnod's Altar because people jam ETB/Death triggers and Creature-centric strategies in Commander more than anything. Yes, the two are actually comparable, which doesn't so much show how powerful Ashnod's Altar is as much as that how Paradox Engine doesn't need the torches and pitchforks.
(Also known as Xenphire)
An apt comparison. PE can get gross, but Altar gets gross a lot easier. Both require pretty specific board presence to do anything, PE more so than Altar - and there's reasonable opportunity to intervene with PE before it reaches a critical mass.
IMO it's definitely a card to keep eyes on if/when it hits the board and should definitely be a target for immediate removal, but I don't consider it a card worth mentioning in terms of adding to the banlist. The critical thing that makes it unworthy of consideration for me is that in a vacuum it's worthless - it only enables degeneracy in relation to other cards, and even then it's up to the user how far they take it. I've never gone infinite with PE personally (although it sure can seem like it), but that's because I choose not to play the sort of cards that would lead to that. It's a game finisher, sure, but it's only ever a piece of a larger puzzle, and it's entirely up to the user what the rest of the puzzle looks like.
Why do you feel its that PE 'dodged bannings' if other cards like Winter Orb have not?
As far as PE, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned by Sheldon upon release as one to keep an eye on, but otherwise seems to have flown under the radar. In my personal experience, I am the only player I know that runs it, so it's prevalence is very, very minimal here regardless.
PE has been extensively discussed for bannings, with multiple RC members weighing in not completely against, and they've identified that it's a card they have talked about IIRC.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously suggest banning winter orb but I am sure it's happened.
You may have missed the discussion on Rings of brighthearth but Ashnod's altar is basically the same -- it's not a card with a lot of fair uses, and it doesn't really generate the same level of mana as quickly, or go infinite with as many combinations of cards. If you use AA as a "fair" way to generate mana it usually is at the cost of your board state, vs. PE and Metalworker which do not have to go down cards to get there.
The page where I analyzed the types of scenarios that generate explosive mana turns with PE or Metalworke may also be informative for you -- Ashnod's Altar will not generate tons of mana in early turns in very many scenarios, so at least in terms of mana production it's not really very comparable (3 card combos happen much less often than "draw a few mana rocks").
Generally speaking AA sees play only in focused combo decks or rarely as an open sac outlet for aristocrats type decks (that almost always have a combo or two as well).
Paradox Engine is a little further left on the "has fair uses" spectrum so in my opinion it's a bit more likely to be problematic; it is very good in fair decks that play a lot of rocks or dorks, and doesn't really need to "combo" to be strong.
At least, that's my opinion you're welcome to disagree of course. There's surely a kind of "how spiky is this card" spectrum where the RC is willing to just let combo pieces go - but the broader the appeal the more problematic, generally.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
On the positive side, pretty much everyone in the local meta who has been playing for more than a few months now also recognizes Paradox Engine as a "kill on sight" card.
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 interesting that "fair uses" can be both a good and a bad depending on circumstances and just how powerful/centralizing the card is in practice. For me, PE's fair uses are actually a thing that makes me hate it more, same as Prophet of Kruphix.
Too many fair uses for a strong card can lead to problematic casual omnipresence, but fun fair uses for a mostly combo card can lead to something being safe. Very interesting phenomenon
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I'm really not sure how a non problematic use, by definition, can contribute to problematic casual omnipresence. The whole idea behind a "fair use" is that it is non problematic, and thus I would think that any increase in play caused by people using the card fairly does not contribute to problematic casual omnipresence. If T&N started showing up in every deck, but the increase was entirely due to people just using it to tutor out fatties, I doubt that would put it over the line.
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!
With PE I'm not sure the same can happen but I've seen two scenarios that make me think it can become problematic based on common fair usage:
1) I have seen people clone it and go off.
2) I have seen people combo with it on accident just playing good cards together ("wow i didn't know that would go infinite" was only a more common occurence with my buddy's ghave deck).
And kinda 2.5 but seeing more play taxes removal, which means just being common can be an issue. this was a moderate issue with pok in my group where sometimes no one would have removal for the second or third prophet.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Yeah, most of the "combo by accident" examples I can remember involve this sequence of hitting a bunch of draw spells and then casting stuff and functionally comboing in a nondeterministic way.
This will happen a lot if people play it as a ramp spell ("fair usage"). That's the worry on the card becoming acceptably mainstream (as it has seemed to progress toward in my experience).
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I believe that 1 and 2 are both things the RC looks for. If people start trying to Bribery for it or clone it on a regular basis, that falls under "overly centralizing." Accidental combos I think fit under problematic game states, but I'm not sure.
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!
Agreed here, and the latter is predominantly what I see happen with PE. It might take a little while to hit critical mass, but usually it gets me over the finish line. If not, I fully expect people to come for me, that's the risk you take landing the Engine in the first place. Having said that, it's entirely possible to use it as more of a 'draw-go' control enabler; in my Dralnu build it can do this really well, and I very much prefer using it this way, as I prefer not to combo - while the deck doesn't specfically combo, PE as a finisher sure looks like it.
Its weird talking about the prevalence of the card. It sounds like a lot of meta's out there its become quite ubiquitous, but I literally don't ever see it unless I play it myself. There's even other Kaladesh rocks that I see hitting 'casual omnipresence' levels; Aetherflux Reservoir is one I see very regularly, and it's ridiculously easy to end the game with, with very few options to intervene.
I was just thinking when I did the paradox engine and metalworker math that Rofellos is probably not much of a big deal anymore. There are plenty of green commanders that are just as bad now, with Azusa, Lost but Seeking, Selvala, Heart of the Wilds and Yisan, the Wanderer Bard representing comparable mana amounts in their own way.
There is a true deckbuilding cost to Rofellos, in that you essentially need to be playing 30 basic forests to stand even a 63.5% chance of having +3 mana on turn 3, and with that only have a 44% chance of having +4 mana on turn 4.
The mana production of a rofellos deck will only exceed Azusa consistently by playing at least 30 basic forests, whereas Azusa can play much higher ratio of great lands, and can be ramped into because of her flexible mana cost. Selvala has similar benefits, but also can significantly exceed Rofellos in the mid game and is more likely to go infinite.
Playing 30 forests is a serious deckbuilding consequence.
If you cut it to 20 forests, your chances of drawing >=3 forests drop to a weak 33% without some sort of forest fixing (that really has to cost 1, 2, or 3 mana to be relevant).
Anyway, I'd love to hear a counterpoint there but I can't really see any point for Rofellos to sit on the banned list with the options we have out there. The format's come quite a long way in terms of speed and power in general.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Can any of those other three mono green commanders generate more mana quickly? Probably, sure, but only if you build for it.
While there's plenty of ways to get stupid mana stupid quick these days, I feel like unleashing Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary would be like opening Pandora's box. Being a mono green player myself I can see this just getting gross suuuuuper quick. Even just switching Nissa, Vastwood Seer out for him would make my deck disgusting. T5 is my fastest win with Nissa, I bet Rofellos could beat that without batting an eyelid.
Well, you're mono green, so you are very likely playing that many forests normally. Sure, maybe you want to run 10 non basics, but you don't need fixing, and that only drops you to 27 forests. Cutting a few nonbasics to hit 30 for Rofellos. Its a pretty easy hurdle to get over. Selvala needs high power creatures. Azusa needs ways to get land into her hand to really ramp hard. Rofellos benefits from anything that fetches forests to the battlefield, of which green has a plethora. I agree, however, that Azusa and Selvala are both very strong ramp commanders, and I would argue that they have a higher ceiling when built to their strengths (Azusa gets you a lot of mileage out of things that fetch lands to hand, which are typically much more efficient than things that fetch to the battlefield, and she has synergy with things like Strip Mine/Crucible, while Selvala can go nuts very quickly with the right creatures, and drawing some cards is a different angle). I don't see Yisan as a real ramp commander, he's a cheat it out commander. He's bonkers, but in a different way. Rofellos' main issue is that running 30 forests is such a low bar that any mono green deck that wanted to ramp hard out of the command zone but didn't want to make many deck building concessions would run him. He also starts ramping early, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him ramp 3 on turn 3. His too much too fast raking would be middling, probably a 4 in the 99, but in the command zone he's much more problematic as he is guaranteed to hit turn 2. As for other factors, I think we'd see less omnipresence than we would have when EDH was young, as there are other options you pointed out, and also because being a weatherlight member has less cache these days, so there would be fewer people just wanting to run him because of the story.
In the end, I think he'd be generically stronger than any other option available, but whether a tuned Rofellos deck would be stronger than tuned Azusa or Selvala, or more than just marginally stronger, I don't know. I do know that he'd be easier to build. Azusa and Selvala are already probably on the edge of what's acceptable in the command zone, so I'm not sure it would be wise to let him out, but I'll also say that out of the cards on the banlist, I'd think that Rofellos is one of the ones that's most "on the edge" of banability. That is, he's just over the line, and would be one of the few cards that might be able to safely be unbanned. He certainly would be if he wasn't a legend.
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!
Green needs a ramp commander like blue needs Ertai, Wizard Adept needs to cost 2 less mana; red needs Kamahl, Pit Fighter to untap like Goblin Sharpshooter does; like black needs Lim-Dûl the Necromancer to cost 5 less; like white needs Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite to cost 5 less.
I don't know how I got stuck on 5 less.
My point is that Rofellos does what it does too well. I mean, it isn't even a 1/1! It is an enabler for any green deck, heck I could head my Ghalta, Primal Hunger deck with it with minimal tweaking (literally one enchantment would need to go and Ghalta would become one of the 99).
Also, Paradox and Azusa are pratically auto additions to a Rofellos deck.
Lastly, only 30 forests? You can run more than that in a mono green. I am not seening the 10 nonbasics that you would be usings, more like 4.
Wouldn't mind see your list for that.
I can think of a few ways to build, ranging from high land count eldrazi, to elves w dorks, to land ramp spells, to even a good number of busted rocks (moxen at least).
I'm not sure enough of what the optimal build is to really guess. But I do not see it as a strictly better mono green commander.
Yisan, selvala, azusa and several others offer their own styles.
I do think he'd be the second best green fair ramp commander (with azusa being better by virtue of being more resilient and getting to play 20+ utility lands).
I do think that 30 forests in a deck is a lot. I have 17 basics in my lands deck and a typical monocolor deck will run 24 or so. Which is not enough.
Having 6 mana on turn 3 is a lot but it's not particularly uncommon and requires untapping so is somewhat telegraphed.
Lots of scenarios where a single opportunistic removal will set you back quite badly.
Eh. I dunno, maybe I've just been inured to ramp a bit.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
1: You probably don't run enough basics in mono color, especially mono green, which benefits greatly from basics. 34 lands is, well, unrealistically low for a commander that plays off of land. I get it, he's a ramp commander, but he works off of lands. Would you run 34 lands in Azusa? I looked over my mono green decks, 37 lands is my minimum, with the nonbasics hitting between 5 and 11, averaging 8, but 2 or more nonbasics typically search for basics (like thawing glaciers or myriad landscape, which granted aren't particularly fast for Rofellos).
2:"Having 6 mana on turn 3 is a lot but it's not particularly uncommon and requires untapping so is somewhat telegraphed.
Lots of scenarios where a single opportunistic removal will set you back quite badly."
As I said, its a lot, but not ridiculous, which is why I'd consider it a 4/10 on that criteria. However, importantly, it sits in your command zone, so getting that reliably every game is pretty crazy. And having it hit by removal early sets you back, but not that badly. He costs 2 and can be recast for 4. You haven't went down on cards or opened yourself up much. All you lost was the 2 mana you spent, and the potential to jump way ahead. You've been temporarily knocked back down to everyone's level.
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 think he's functionally nearly equivalent to azusa, and she rates maybe a 2 for me.
The main thing I guess is he might be an issue in casuals. But I'm pretty sure those game groups get rolled by a medium azusa.
Eh, not sure on the land count. I suspect it might be right to play 34 or even fewer and lots of basic search spells. Unlike azusa you're not getting any value out of extra lands so you may be better off running stuff like like cultivate et al, and avoiding the extra land drop stuff since it is kinda winmore again I haven't really brewed at it but I'm always leery of flooding when commander makes mana.
Anyone remember what the early rofellos decks played?
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall