I do think we're kinda circling back on ourselves at this point with the fundamentals being one side thinks the potential diversity is worth the risk and the other doesn't.
That's where I'm sitting right now on this. I think at this point the topic is more or less talked out. Not every debate ends in resolution, and this is no different. My mind hasn't changed, although there have been some interesting points drawn up I hadn't thought of. Where it ends for me is that if there is a risk of reasonable detriment to the format (and to my mind there is), there's no adequate reason to change the rules to allow this.
Honestly my biggest issue isn't a power level thing, it's a fun issue. I really dislike Commander games where there is one player who is a giant threat before the game begins and the other players have to keep constant pressure on that one person. Because what usually happens is that Player 2 gets to sit back and watch Players 3 and 4 expend all their resources and then out of nowhere up and win the game. Player 1 is disappointed because they got ganged up on with nothing to show for it, and I feel cheated because I wasn't even able to have the option of making proper threat assessment, and instead had to blindly attack Elzpeth stax which quite possibly was just tribal soldiers but I never let them find out.
This is the format where we get to build around one card that is the face of our deck, and you guys are fighting for a change where literally the solution is to just not let them play their general. That just doesn't sit right with me.
Edit: they don't preemptively ban cards which is why Griselbrand was allowed to run free. This is effectively unbending cards, which they do very cautiously. Also, holy ***** dude, you think introducing more stax decks to the format is a good thing?
To be fair that mostly sounds like a player problem in that ya'll are playing decks of such mismatched power level that you feel the need to make it Archenemy before a single card is played. Social contract that *****, bro.
Planeswalkers were never banned, they've simply never been legal. It's not like the RC tried them all out and decided they were too problematic. It would be like saying I was banned from the Pro Tour despite never actually being at the Pro Tour. And yes, I think introducing new generals would be swell. I've never seen a mono-white stax deck. I'm not going to hide in a corner and cry just because someone says they're playing stax.
That list of commanders to worry about is...very generous.
Here's my list of problematic commanders: dack fayden - Consistently stealing sol rings and the other broken mana rocks that should but never will be banned probably makes him too consistent tamiyo, field researcher - Almost certainly wins the game on the spot with doubling season sorin markov - Setting someone's life to 10 in commander is really lame in casual play
And that's it.
Most of the listed commanders are substantially weaker than the already available options like daretti and mono blue teferi
Oh I fully admit to being generous and overly cautious. Because what is the alternative? "O ***** u guise we dun goofed because we didn't consider the worst case scenario now we have to undo the rule change." The RC doesn't make rules changes lightly, especially when they would have a large effect on the format. So why should we approach this with a narrow mind as well and just consider how we would be affected by the change or our own opinion.
The official commander products have brought us way more problematic generals than almost anything that would be made legal by making all planeswalkers commanders, and yet no one seems to be terrified of what new degenerate strategies will be brought to life from them every year.
Edgar Markov is kind of a pain if the pod has 0 interaction early. Ezuri loses to some early hate pieces. Mizzix has fallen to the wayside with other commanders like Kess (who is one of the only "problematic" precon ones I can think of) that do a similar thing. The partners and 4 color generals aren't problematic in of themselves, but more about how they open up so many options with their color identity. For example, artifact combos were already a degenerate playstyle, its just that Breya gets every option outside of green with them. As for the 2018 decks, not a single creature commander from those crops up all that often, but Windgrace sure is popular.
Facilitating different color combo decks isn't really a general creating a degenerate strategy if those strategies already existed in a less consistent state.
To be fair that mostly sounds like a player problem in that ya'll are playing decks of such mismatched power level that you feel the need to make it Archenemy before a single card is played. Social contract that *****, bro.
You're missing the point. If we are having an otherwise balanced game where each player gets to demonstrate that they are the threat, then it is more likely that each player will end the game feeling like they contributed. But when a player reveals something like Prossh, or Nekusar, or Krenko, the other players know they are racing a clock and must keep constant pressure on that one player. For me, planeswalkers like the ones I listed occupy that same threat level space. Maybe they aren't playing some Teir 1 deck, but I won't know because I'm sure as **** not going to let them ultimate. And Riku is just sitting quietly waiting for me to run out of gas. The social contract doesn't fix these games, because it's not as easy as saying "hey bruh, that Tazri deck is really good but all I have is my tribal thrull deck maybe you can change it up"
And yes, I think introducing new generals would be swell. I've never seen a mono-white stax deck. I'm not going to hide in a corner and cry just because someone says they're playing stax.
That's fine if it's what you want. I'm not afraid of s stax deck either. But it seems like you're not able to separate your desires from what is good for the overall health of the format.
The official commander products have brought us way more problematic generals than almost anything that would be made legal by making all planeswalkers commanders, and yet no one seems to be terrified of what new degenerate strategies will be brought to life from them every year.
Yes, they've given us a few annoying generals. But really, how can you quantify the claim that it is more than planeswalkers would bring? Because I wouldn't ban a single precon Commander but I sure as heck would ban at least two or three planeswalkers right off the bat.
Like maybe Tamiyo 2.0 but not even that is for sure for me.
I still feel like the kinds of tables these cards are supposed to and the kinds of decks played at those tables does not square for me ever.
I don't think anyone is arguing that any of these would stand a chance in more competitive circles and even the higher end of people not even going that far.
So we then crank down the power of all the decks and the PW decks and only them are supposed to somehow have the support, progection and ramp to have multiple fruitful attempts at sticking and then building to ultimate through all levels of Commander tax, removal and board presence.
Planeswalkers as they exist in the game right now barely make it around the table if people can help it and that is both something that would be carried through if this change was made and also be a relevant check against the supposed ability of these cards to steamroll a table.
I don't think playing one of these decks will be near the ease of dominance being described in this thread.
Also I will not speak for everyone else but regardless of the game or Commanders I think to myself about which one represents the biggest roadblock to the style of deck I am playing and which one is likely to be the most threatening. This is just the nature of sitting down and pulling out a Commander of any kind.
Yes, they've given us a few annoying generals. But really, how can you quantify the claim that it is more than planeswalkers would bring? Because I wouldn't ban a single precon Commander but I sure as heck would ban at least two or three planeswalkers right off the bat.
I would say this is cognitive dissonance.
Atraxa - Strongly encourages turns that take forever with many planeswalkers on the field at once, boring to play against, monopolizes time
Oloro - This one is very infamous for their extremely slow, plodding gameplay that people don't like to play against
Nekusar - I have never sat down at a table and seen someone happy to find a nekusar player there. It puts a clock on the whole game and people play archenemy against it
Prossh - Just casting prossh is almost an edh win condition, there are so many cards that exist right now that do strong things with prossh, even beyond the standard food chain win, which is at least as strong and probably much stronger than any doubling season play
Teferi - It's a top tier competitive edh general, and it encourages both combo and stax play which most players would find non-interactive and not fun casually.
Derevi - Again encourages stax play, which people would rather avoid casually
Yuriko - She takes advantage of the format in an irritating way by hitting you if someone else doesn't have a way to stop it.
Kaalia - master of cruelties
Animar - Encourages nothing but combos
Breya - Encourages artifact combo decks and also kills your attempts to set up your own general
Yidris - Another nekusar
Mizzix - Play archenemy or they storm off
Kynaios - Group hug is one of the most hated archetypes
I am more scared of any commander on this list than at least 95% of possible new planeswalkers
Yes, they've given us a few annoying generals. But really, how can you quantify the claim that it is more than planeswalkers would bring? Because I wouldn't ban a single precon Commander but I sure as heck would ban at least two or three planeswalkers right off the bat.
I would say this is cognitive dissonance.
Atraxa - Strongly encourages turns that take forever with many planeswalkers on the field at once, boring to play against, monopolizes time
Oh, so you’re talking about combo as well. This criteria literally applies to dozens of generals.
Oloro - This one is very infamous for their extremely slow, plodding gameplay that people don't like to play against
I didn’t know “slow” was a ban criteria. Otherwise, see above.
Nekusar - I have never sat down at a table and seen someone happy to find a nekusar player there. It puts a clock on the whole game and people play archenemy against it
I have never heard anyone complain about Nek, like, ever. Again, this applies to dozens of other generals, and would also be the case for the majority of PW’s would they be allowed as generals. Talking back your own point already.
Prossh - Just casting prossh is almost an edh win condition, there are so many cards that exist right now that do strong things with prossh, even beyond the standard food chain win, which is at least as strong and probably much stronger than any doubling season play
Prossh is strong. But, so are walkers who can ultimate on the spot with DS. It’s a wash.
Teferi - It's a top tier competitive edh general, and it encourages both combo and stax play which most players would find non-interactive and not fun casually.
And it’s a PW. There are better non-general Pw’s than him for what he is trying to accomplish, and they allow more than one color. Another one of those talking back your own point.
Derevi - Again encourages stax play, which people would rather avoid casually
Literally every PW would encourage some level of Stax. It’s the most effective way to protect your general.
Yuriko - She takes advantage of the format in an irritating way by hitting you if someone else doesn't have a way to stop it.
Would that not apply to PW’s as well? Not all, but most.
Animar - Encourages nothing but combos
Breya - Encourages artifact combo decks and also kills your attempts to set up your own general
Yidris - Another nekusar
Mizzix - Play archenemy or they storm off
Kynaios - Group hug is one of the most hated archetypes
I am more scared of any commander on this list than at least 95% of possible new planeswalkers
This last bit is laughable. Animar reference- How do you plan to win with your PW lol? Combo, duh. Breya can be replaced by all of the artifact-centric PW’s.
Is anything, this post is a point(or more) in favor of leaving PW’s out of the command zone.
I would agree that you have cognitive dissonance, because you are afraid of generals that sometimes encourage stax but want to not the multiple planeswalkers which can do the same. Or a group hug general but not a planeswalker that resets the game. Or one that combos with ONE card to set someone at one life, but not planeswalkers that have "player loses the game" in their ultimate. I could continue, but I think you get the point.
I have played and/or played against most of those generals and I do not disagree with your assessment that they are strong (except K&T because come on, really?) They do turn the game into arch enemy very early on, but they are all beatable and I haven't run into one yet that i would advocate to ban. Since I haven't played against any of the planeswalkers as generals (that aren't currently legal), I can only speculate on their strengths. I can say that the legal walkers require constant attention and are more difficult to remove that regular creatures, and I can't imagine that would change by introducing 140 more to the format, except it would warp deckbuilding since there are more options available.
I would agree that you have cognitive dissonance, because you are afraid of generals that sometimes encourage stax but want to not the multiple planeswalkers which can do the same. Or a group hug general but not a planeswalker that resets the game. Or one that combos with ONE card to set someone at one life, but not planeswalkers that have "player loses the game" in their ultimate. I could continue, but I think you get the point.
I have played and/or played against most of those generals and I do not disagree with your assessment that they are strong (except K&T because come on, really?) They do turn the game into arch enemy very early on, but they are all beatable and I haven't run into one yet that i would advocate to ban. Since I haven't played against any of the planeswalkers as generals (that aren't currently legal), I can only speculate on their strengths. I can say that the legal walkers require constant attention and are more difficult to remove that regular creatures, and I can't imagine that would change by introducing 140 more to the format, except it would warp deckbuilding since there are more options available.
See, this is the problem. You acknowledge that their are a ton of existing archenemy style generals already, and they are even quite popular if you look at aggregate statistics, but if planeswalkers add to this somehow that's detrimental enough to justify their exclusion.
Why add any new creature generals that could be strong at all to the game? The commander products have a bad track record of having their commanders be too strong, where is the thread to discontinue those products if they keep adding strong commanders? We have to play it safe. We don't want another nekusar or oloro, it's not healthy for commander.
And yet, the release of new commander decks every year is one of the most exciting times for the format. It seems like people don't mind having strong cards and new strategies to build around.
Percentage wise, planeswalkers would be a substantially safer inclusion of new generals than printing a new commander product.
You're missing the point. If we are having an otherwise balanced game where each player gets to demonstrate that they are the threat, then it is more likely that each player will end the game feeling like they contributed. But when a player reveals something like Prossh, or Nekusar, or Krenko, the other players know they are racing a clock and must keep constant pressure on that one player. For me, planeswalkers like the ones I listed occupy that same threat level space. Maybe they aren't playing some Teir 1 deck, but I won't know because I'm sure as **** not going to let them ultimate. And Riku is just sitting quietly waiting for me to run out of gas. The social contract doesn't fix these games, because it's not as easy as saying "hey bruh, that Tazri deck is really good but all I have is my tribal thrull deck maybe you can change it up"
You're right, I guess I am missing the point because all I'm getting from this is that you have an irrational hatred of certain generals and that you've decided to include 30 or so PWs on that list, and that hatred causes you to ignore proper threat evaluation.
That's fine if it's what you want. I'm not afraid of s stax deck either. But it seems like you're not able to separate your desires from what is good for the overall health of the format.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You obviously don't like stax so anything that kind of resembles it is ban worthy for you, or at least on a very short leash.
See, this is the problem. You acknowledge that their are a ton of existing archenemy style generals already, and they are even quite popular if you look at aggregate statistics, but if planeswalkers add to this somehow that's detrimental enough to justify their exclusion.
Why add any new creature generals that could be strong at all to the game? The commander products have a bad track record of having their commanders be too strong, where is the thread to discontinue those products if they keep adding strong commanders? We have to play it safe. We don't want another nekusar or oloro, it's not healthy for commander.
And yet, the release of new commander decks every year is one of the most exciting times for the format. It seems like people don't mind having strong cards and new strategies to build around.
Percentage wise, planeswalkers would be a substantially safer inclusion of new generals than printing a new commander product.
The RC only has control over new Commander precons when they are invited to help design them. Beyond that they have to trust the judgment of Wizards, and evaluate cards on a case by case basis. Creating a new rule which would potentially allow ~130 cards in the Command Zone is something that is 100% in their control, and it isn't something they should take lightly. And I am absolutely saying that it is something I would be very hesitant to do. Like unsaid above, so far the biggest defense to dismissing their power has been that they rarely survive a full round. Think about that for a minute. Who is going to enjoy playing a deck where they can't even get their general to stick for a full turn? That sounds miserable. So for the sale of argument we change the rule, players rejoice because they get to build planeswalkers decks.... and get hated out game after game. So now they add more pillowfort and wraths to get their Commander to stick. And the other players are miserable because games are dragging. Who wins in this situation?
You're right, I guess I am missing the point because all I'm getting from this is that you have an irrational hatred of certain generals and that you've decided to include 30 or so PWs on that list, and that hatred causes you to ignore proper threat evaluation.Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You obviously don't like stax so anything that kind of resembles it is ban worthy for you, or at least on a very short leash.
Yep, we're done here. We can continue this when you dont have to resort to trying to attacking my character.
Yep, we're done here. We can continue this when you dont have to resort to trying to attacking my character.
You can take it that way if you want, but you did just say you would zero in on someone because their general without waiting to see what kind of deck it was and make sure they die first, even if it is to your own detriment. Maybe before telling me I'm incapable of separating personal desire from the health of the format you should take a look at your own biases. It's not an attack on your character to point out when you're allowing prejudice against certain strategies to influence your decisions.
You can take it that way if you want, but you did just say you would zero in on someone because their general without waiting to see what kind of deck it was and make sure they die first, even if it is to your own detriment. Maybe before telling me I'm incapable of separating personal desire from the health of the format you should take a look at your own biases. It's not an attack on your character to point out when you're allowing prejudice against certain strategies to influence your decisions.
I don't know how you play games, but I'm not going to sit around and wait for an opponent to get an emblem that makes all their stuff indestructible, or all their creatures kill an opponent on combat damage, or restart the game, or counter my first spell every turn. If that means I have bad threat assessment, then guilty as charged. But I take offence to that accusation. I also didn't say that I would kill that player first, just that I would do my best to make sure their general didn't stick (which sometimes but not always means eliminating them first).
I also take offense to the idea that I'm biased against a strategy or Walker. I have built stax decks, degenerate combo decks, derpy turn dudes sideways decks, storm decks, etc. I'm not arguing this position or the planeswalkers I listed because I dislike them, I'm doing so because I am thinking about players as a whole.
End of the day this argument is currently bordering on pretty close to ad hominem attack, so we could all probably stand to take a step back and let our words be a little less inflammatory, whether they're intended that way or not. All that aside, I think cryo has a point here. Adding walkers is a zero sum game. They either get targeted to the point of not being playable, in which case the person playing the walker general isn't happy. Or they get to go off and land an unpleasant ultimate or stifle the game in ways that no one else finds enjoyable - so who really wins? No one at all.
Percentage wise, planeswalkers would be a substantially safer inclusion of new generals than printing a new commander product.
This isn't true - at least 70% of the walkers added are ones that no one is going to want to play. Sure, we have Breya and Derevi, but they don't see play outside of cEDH anyway. So you would trade off a whole lot of throwaway generals in lieu of a couple of competitive generals and some decently tailored generals that are designed for the format? Every year there's probably at least one deck that caters to the competitive market, but end of the day they build their reputation and then get pushed out of casual circles, and the world moves on. For every Atraxa or Breya, there's a Saskia. Most of the other commanders brought up are glass cannons and come off as personal bug bears moreso than cards that are detrimental to the format. And that's the fundamental difference; no one here is saying adding walkers would lead to breaking the format, we're saying it would be not fun for anyone involved.
no one here is saying adding walkers would lead to breaking the format, we're saying it would be not fun for anyone involved.
Well, I think you’d have to mark a line in the sand and say that, to a point, PW’s would “break”(I hate this term, btw) the format, because fun is a subjective term.
While I can’t say to what degree they would affect the format, I’m 100% certain that adding them would alter the EDH landscape considerably. Decks would have to be cognisent of PW generals during the deck building phase and adjust accordingly. And this is my reason for not wanting them. Cards, and to a lesser extent, strategies that punish you in the deck building phase should not be allowed to exist in this format. Iona, Shield Emeria is public enemy #1 in this regard. There are many PW’s that could achieve the same effect, specifically at the helm of a deck. I don’t think that’s a risk worth taking if you ask me.
For clarity, I do agree. It’s just if you are going to say “well, it won’t be fun, that’s why”, you’re opening up a really large can of worms on this forum, as I’m sure you are well aware.
I don't know how you play games, but I'm not going to sit around and wait for an opponent to get an emblem that makes all their stuff indestructible, or all their creatures kill an opponent on combat damage, or restart the game, or counter my first spell every turn. If that means I have bad threat assessment, then guilty as charged. But I take offence to that accusation. I also didn't say that I would kill that player first, just that I would do my best to make sure their general didn't stick (which sometimes but not always means eliminating them first).
I really dislike Commander games where there is one player who is a giant threat before the game begins and the other players have to keep constant pressure on that one person.
Maybe they aren't playing some Teir 1 deck, but I won't know because I'm sure as **** not going to let them ultimate. And Riku is just sitting quietly waiting for me to run out of gas.
If all your doing is stopping them from ultimating, why would players feel like they're unfairly being targeted, or that one person is such a massive threat the game is Archenemy before it starts? There's nothing wrong with disrupting your opponents' game plans, whether that means Swordsing their general or attacking their Planeswalker. There is a problem, however, if you don't know when to stop and reevaluate who is the threat. And from the way you describe your outlook on some of these generals, it certainly sounds like you'd rather just run them into the ground.
I also take offense to the idea that I'm biased against a strategy or Walker. I have built stax decks, degenerate combo decks, derpy turn dudes sideways decks, storm decks, etc. I'm not arguing this position or the planeswalkers I listed because I dislike them, I'm doing so because I am thinking about players as a whole.
Thanks, mom, but we're generally pretty good at figuring out what we like and don't like all on our own. We don't particularly need you to baby us for our own good. We can figure out how to play Elspeth in a fun and responsible manner, just like we did with Animar and Kaalia and Edgar.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning issued for trolling
If all your doing is stopping them from ultimating, why would players feel like they're unfairly being targeted, or that one person is such a massive threat the game is Archenemy before it starts? There's nothing wrong with disrupting your opponents' game plans, whether that means Swordsing their general or attacking their Planeswalker. There is a problem, however, if you don't know when to stop and reevaluate who is the threat. And from the way you describe your outlook on some of these generals, it certainly sounds like you'd rather just run them into the ground.
80-90% of people don't have a great concept of accurately assessing threats, so what Cryo describes here is far from new and unexpected. Besides, it's his deck, his game, he can play it how he wants without having to worry about your assessment of whether he is doing it right.
Thanks, mom, but we're generally pretty good at figuring out what we like and don't like all on our own. We don't particularly need you to baby us for our own good. We can figure out how to play Elspeth in a fun and responsible manner, just like we did with Animar and Kaalia and Edgar.
2 points here:
*Once again, ad hominem attacks are the weakest form of debate, and the above statement reeks of passive agressive sarcasm to boot. It's not cute.
*Can you though? Strictly speaking I'm not talking about just you, I'm sure you can build a deck just fine and pilot it with a degree of fairness. But I've seen enough gross builds to know there's a ton of casual players out there who will throw whatever grossness they want in a deck 'for lolz' with nary a thought to how their meta will respond, and giving them free reign on abusing walkers seems like opening a floodgate for degeneracy and unfun games.
You can take a quick swing through this thread and it's basically a who's who of forum denizens who approach discussion the same way they approach EDH - as if it's a zero sum dog-eat-dog game with only winners and losers.
Being perfectly honest the way people defend the pro-PW position is rapidly becoming the biggest turnoff to the idea of all for me It all seems to be boiling further down to some degree of "GIT GUD SCRUB."
It does seem to be going that way, sadly. That being said, there have been moments of diplomacy here, so it's a shame it went this way. Nonetheless, it's far from a black and white discussion, so I'd be glad to continue discussing rationally if that's something we can all agree on.
One thing I think might be missing is a collation of the various lists of walkers that might actually see play and what value they add to the format, but that's really about it for me. Trying to quantify the "VARIETY GOOD" argument might be useful.
I don't understand why people don't just house rule it to test it. Arguing that we need this rules change so you can walk into any shop and play the way you specifically want reeks of entitlement, especially since I doubt the same people would accept the same argument for any legendary permanent, or allowing proxies. The argument that this needs to be tested for at wide, and that it somehow cannot be tested by groups, is insipid. It simply insists that is the case without providing any reason why. Testing the impact of walkers on the format is something the RC could do, maybe with a few other play groups brought on just to be extra sure. There's nothing that makes this different than testing out a few bans and unbans.
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!
80-90% of people don't have a great concept of accurately assessing threats, so what Cryo describes here is far from new and unexpected.
Oh, are we just going to start making up numbers now?
Also:
Besides, it's his deck, his game, he can play it how he wants without having to worry about your assessment of whether he is doing it right.
But I've seen enough gross builds to know there's a ton of casual players out there who will throw whatever grossness they want in a deck 'for lolz' with nary a thought to how their meta will respond, and giving them free reign on abusing walkers seems like opening a floodgate for degeneracy and unfun games.
So which is it? Am I allowed to play however I want because it's my deck and not have to care about anyone else, or does that seem like opening a floodgate for degeneracy and unfun games?
You can take a quick swing through this thread and it's basically a who's who of forum denizens who approach discussion the same way they approach EDH - as if it's a zero sum dog-eat-dog game with only winners and losers.
Being perfectly honest the way people defend the pro-PW position is rapidly becoming the biggest turnoff to the idea of all for me It all seems to be boiling further down to some degree of "GIT GUD SCRUB."
Honestly, I've only seen one person really go that far. Though a couple get close, they don't cross the line and are making relevant arguments. I don't find their arguments to be very good, but they aren't just descending into personal attacks. Saying that answers exist is a valid counter argument to someone presenting a card or strategy as a problem. It's effectivesness as an argument depends on the degree to which those answers are effective against the card/strategy, as well as whether even if the answers are effective the mere presence of the strategy is detrimental.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's where I'm sitting right now on this. I think at this point the topic is more or less talked out. Not every debate ends in resolution, and this is no different. My mind hasn't changed, although there have been some interesting points drawn up I hadn't thought of. Where it ends for me is that if there is a risk of reasonable detriment to the format (and to my mind there is), there's no adequate reason to change the rules to allow this.
Planeswalkers were never banned, they've simply never been legal. It's not like the RC tried them all out and decided they were too problematic. It would be like saying I was banned from the Pro Tour despite never actually being at the Pro Tour. And yes, I think introducing new generals would be swell. I've never seen a mono-white stax deck. I'm not going to hide in a corner and cry just because someone says they're playing stax.
The idea that it would be 'too popular' also does not seem like a reason to not try it.
So unless there is a some fundamental reason not to this point voiced that seems the only path forward to me.
The official commander products have brought us way more problematic generals than almost anything that would be made legal by making all planeswalkers commanders, and yet no one seems to be terrified of what new degenerate strategies will be brought to life from them every year.
Edgar Markov is kind of a pain if the pod has 0 interaction early. Ezuri loses to some early hate pieces. Mizzix has fallen to the wayside with other commanders like Kess (who is one of the only "problematic" precon ones I can think of) that do a similar thing. The partners and 4 color generals aren't problematic in of themselves, but more about how they open up so many options with their color identity. For example, artifact combos were already a degenerate playstyle, its just that Breya gets every option outside of green with them. As for the 2018 decks, not a single creature commander from those crops up all that often, but Windgrace sure is popular.
Facilitating different color combo decks isn't really a general creating a degenerate strategy if those strategies already existed in a less consistent state.
You're missing the point. If we are having an otherwise balanced game where each player gets to demonstrate that they are the threat, then it is more likely that each player will end the game feeling like they contributed. But when a player reveals something like Prossh, or Nekusar, or Krenko, the other players know they are racing a clock and must keep constant pressure on that one player. For me, planeswalkers like the ones I listed occupy that same threat level space. Maybe they aren't playing some Teir 1 deck, but I won't know because I'm sure as **** not going to let them ultimate. And Riku is just sitting quietly waiting for me to run out of gas. The social contract doesn't fix these games, because it's not as easy as saying "hey bruh, that Tazri deck is really good but all I have is my tribal thrull deck maybe you can change it up"
That's fine if it's what you want. I'm not afraid of s stax deck either. But it seems like you're not able to separate your desires from what is good for the overall health of the format.
Yes, they've given us a few annoying generals. But really, how can you quantify the claim that it is more than planeswalkers would bring? Because I wouldn't ban a single precon Commander but I sure as heck would ban at least two or three planeswalkers right off the bat.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Like maybe Tamiyo 2.0 but not even that is for sure for me.
I still feel like the kinds of tables these cards are supposed to and the kinds of decks played at those tables does not square for me ever.
I don't think anyone is arguing that any of these would stand a chance in more competitive circles and even the higher end of people not even going that far.
So we then crank down the power of all the decks and the PW decks and only them are supposed to somehow have the support, progection and ramp to have multiple fruitful attempts at sticking and then building to ultimate through all levels of Commander tax, removal and board presence.
Planeswalkers as they exist in the game right now barely make it around the table if people can help it and that is both something that would be carried through if this change was made and also be a relevant check against the supposed ability of these cards to steamroll a table.
I don't think playing one of these decks will be near the ease of dominance being described in this thread.
Also I will not speak for everyone else but regardless of the game or Commanders I think to myself about which one represents the biggest roadblock to the style of deck I am playing and which one is likely to be the most threatening. This is just the nature of sitting down and pulling out a Commander of any kind.
I would say this is cognitive dissonance.
Atraxa - Strongly encourages turns that take forever with many planeswalkers on the field at once, boring to play against, monopolizes time
Oloro - This one is very infamous for their extremely slow, plodding gameplay that people don't like to play against
Nekusar - I have never sat down at a table and seen someone happy to find a nekusar player there. It puts a clock on the whole game and people play archenemy against it
Prossh - Just casting prossh is almost an edh win condition, there are so many cards that exist right now that do strong things with prossh, even beyond the standard food chain win, which is at least as strong and probably much stronger than any doubling season play
Teferi - It's a top tier competitive edh general, and it encourages both combo and stax play which most players would find non-interactive and not fun casually.
Derevi - Again encourages stax play, which people would rather avoid casually
Yuriko - She takes advantage of the format in an irritating way by hitting you if someone else doesn't have a way to stop it.
Kaalia - master of cruelties
Animar - Encourages nothing but combos
Breya - Encourages artifact combo decks and also kills your attempts to set up your own general
Yidris - Another nekusar
Mizzix - Play archenemy or they storm off
Kynaios - Group hug is one of the most hated archetypes
I am more scared of any commander on this list than at least 95% of possible new planeswalkers
Oh, so you’re talking about combo as well. This criteria literally applies to dozens of generals.
I didn’t know “slow” was a ban criteria. Otherwise, see above.
I have never heard anyone complain about Nek, like, ever. Again, this applies to dozens of other generals, and would also be the case for the majority of PW’s would they be allowed as generals. Talking back your own point already.
Prossh is strong. But, so are walkers who can ultimate on the spot with DS. It’s a wash.
And it’s a PW. There are better non-general Pw’s than him for what he is trying to accomplish, and they allow more than one color. Another one of those talking back your own point.
Literally every PW would encourage some level of Stax. It’s the most effective way to protect your general.
Would that not apply to PW’s as well? Not all, but most.
Alesha who Smiles at Death?
This last bit is laughable. Animar reference- How do you plan to win with your PW lol? Combo, duh. Breya can be replaced by all of the artifact-centric PW’s.
Is anything, this post is a point(or more) in favor of leaving PW’s out of the command zone.
I have played and/or played against most of those generals and I do not disagree with your assessment that they are strong (except K&T because come on, really?) They do turn the game into arch enemy very early on, but they are all beatable and I haven't run into one yet that i would advocate to ban. Since I haven't played against any of the planeswalkers as generals (that aren't currently legal), I can only speculate on their strengths. I can say that the legal walkers require constant attention and are more difficult to remove that regular creatures, and I can't imagine that would change by introducing 140 more to the format, except it would warp deckbuilding since there are more options available.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
See, this is the problem. You acknowledge that their are a ton of existing archenemy style generals already, and they are even quite popular if you look at aggregate statistics, but if planeswalkers add to this somehow that's detrimental enough to justify their exclusion.
Why add any new creature generals that could be strong at all to the game? The commander products have a bad track record of having their commanders be too strong, where is the thread to discontinue those products if they keep adding strong commanders? We have to play it safe. We don't want another nekusar or oloro, it's not healthy for commander.
And yet, the release of new commander decks every year is one of the most exciting times for the format. It seems like people don't mind having strong cards and new strategies to build around.
Percentage wise, planeswalkers would be a substantially safer inclusion of new generals than printing a new commander product.
The RC only has control over new Commander precons when they are invited to help design them. Beyond that they have to trust the judgment of Wizards, and evaluate cards on a case by case basis. Creating a new rule which would potentially allow ~130 cards in the Command Zone is something that is 100% in their control, and it isn't something they should take lightly. And I am absolutely saying that it is something I would be very hesitant to do. Like unsaid above, so far the biggest defense to dismissing their power has been that they rarely survive a full round. Think about that for a minute. Who is going to enjoy playing a deck where they can't even get their general to stick for a full turn? That sounds miserable. So for the sale of argument we change the rule, players rejoice because they get to build planeswalkers decks.... and get hated out game after game. So now they add more pillowfort and wraths to get their Commander to stick. And the other players are miserable because games are dragging. Who wins in this situation?
Yep, we're done here. We can continue this when you dont have to resort to trying to attacking my character.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't know how you play games, but I'm not going to sit around and wait for an opponent to get an emblem that makes all their stuff indestructible, or all their creatures kill an opponent on combat damage, or restart the game, or counter my first spell every turn. If that means I have bad threat assessment, then guilty as charged. But I take offence to that accusation. I also didn't say that I would kill that player first, just that I would do my best to make sure their general didn't stick (which sometimes but not always means eliminating them first).
I also take offense to the idea that I'm biased against a strategy or Walker. I have built stax decks, degenerate combo decks, derpy turn dudes sideways decks, storm decks, etc. I'm not arguing this position or the planeswalkers I listed because I dislike them, I'm doing so because I am thinking about players as a whole.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
This isn't true - at least 70% of the walkers added are ones that no one is going to want to play. Sure, we have Breya and Derevi, but they don't see play outside of cEDH anyway. So you would trade off a whole lot of throwaway generals in lieu of a couple of competitive generals and some decently tailored generals that are designed for the format? Every year there's probably at least one deck that caters to the competitive market, but end of the day they build their reputation and then get pushed out of casual circles, and the world moves on. For every Atraxa or Breya, there's a Saskia. Most of the other commanders brought up are glass cannons and come off as personal bug bears moreso than cards that are detrimental to the format. And that's the fundamental difference; no one here is saying adding walkers would lead to breaking the format, we're saying it would be not fun for anyone involved.
Well, I think you’d have to mark a line in the sand and say that, to a point, PW’s would “break”(I hate this term, btw) the format, because fun is a subjective term.
While I can’t say to what degree they would affect the format, I’m 100% certain that adding them would alter the EDH landscape considerably. Decks would have to be cognisent of PW generals during the deck building phase and adjust accordingly. And this is my reason for not wanting them. Cards, and to a lesser extent, strategies that punish you in the deck building phase should not be allowed to exist in this format. Iona, Shield Emeria is public enemy #1 in this regard. There are many PW’s that could achieve the same effect, specifically at the helm of a deck. I don’t think that’s a risk worth taking if you ask me.
For clarity, I do agree. It’s just if you are going to say “well, it won’t be fun, that’s why”, you’re opening up a really large can of worms on this forum, as I’m sure you are well aware.
Thanks, mom, but we're generally pretty good at figuring out what we like and don't like all on our own. We don't particularly need you to baby us for our own good. We can figure out how to play Elspeth in a fun and responsible manner, just like we did with Animar and Kaalia and Edgar.
80-90% of people don't have a great concept of accurately assessing threats, so what Cryo describes here is far from new and unexpected. Besides, it's his deck, his game, he can play it how he wants without having to worry about your assessment of whether he is doing it right.
2 points here:
*Once again, ad hominem attacks are the weakest form of debate, and the above statement reeks of passive agressive sarcasm to boot. It's not cute.
*Can you though? Strictly speaking I'm not talking about just you, I'm sure you can build a deck just fine and pilot it with a degree of fairness. But I've seen enough gross builds to know there's a ton of casual players out there who will throw whatever grossness they want in a deck 'for lolz' with nary a thought to how their meta will respond, and giving them free reign on abusing walkers seems like opening a floodgate for degeneracy and unfun games.
Being perfectly honest the way people defend the pro-PW position is rapidly becoming the biggest turnoff to the idea of all for me It all seems to be boiling further down to some degree of "GIT GUD SCRUB."
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
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!
Also: So which is it? Am I allowed to play however I want because it's my deck and not have to care about anyone else, or does that seem like opening a floodgate for degeneracy and unfun games?
Honestly, I've only seen one person really go that far. Though a couple get close, they don't cross the line and are making relevant arguments. I don't find their arguments to be very good, but they aren't just descending into personal attacks. Saying that answers exist is a valid counter argument to someone presenting a card or strategy as a problem. It's effectivesness as an argument depends on the degree to which those answers are effective against the card/strategy, as well as whether even if the answers are effective the mere presence of the strategy is detrimental.
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!