I wouldn't mind it. It's very very difficult to abuse walkers as opposed to creatures. Creatures get cheated out all the time. Besides, Doubling Season is indeed a very boring card. People can choose not to play it.
It would be interesting to have walkers as commanders. As the current 5 printed have shown. they CAN be powerful but they will never overshadow creature commanders. You can't attack a creature, while you can attack a walker.
People may run more Pithing Needle effects, or play more walker removal. It's not game-changing, but it does add a different angle of gameplay that still retains the nature of "Commander-ness"
I highly doubt it would hurt anything that badly. Commander isn't a format that's particularly promising for small, incremental advantage and that's basically what walkers tend to do other than their ultimates.
No, I think if you legalize all PW's as commanders than you're setting up the return of the "banned as commander" list whose abilities are too strong to be in the command zone. And that happens, you're setting the tone for the list to be expanded to include some other commanders that would likely be on it if the list were still in place.
I believe it wasn't all that long ago that Sheldon wrote an article on Scg.com regarding what the return of the list would mean.
do you have a link for that? I would like to read his reasoning.
Because from my point of view, 'banned as commander' was a good thing and I never understood why it was put away. Maybe his article will give me new sight on it.
I wouldn't mind it. It's very very difficult to abuse walkers as opposed to creatures. Creatures get cheated out all the time. Besides, Doubling Season is indeed a very boring card. People can choose not to play it.
It would be interesting to have walkers as commanders. As the current 5 printed have shown. they CAN be powerful but they will never overshadow creature commanders. You can't attack a creature, while you can attack a walker.
People may run more Pithing Needle effects, or play more walker removal. It's not game-changing, but it does add a different angle of gameplay that still retains the nature of "Commander-ness"
Exactly. In FFA games when we tested some PW's, I don't remember when some PW survived more than two turns. And forcing people to play more walker removal or stuff like pithing needle is not that bad, the diversity will improve again.
I highly doubt it would hurt anything that badly. Commander isn't a format that's particularly promising for small, incremental advantage and that's basically what walkers tend to do other than their ultimates.
Well, if 3 enemies let you get your ultimate on PW general (outside of Doubling Season) then something went totally wrong and you would win with any other general as well...
I have practiced with a several planeswalkers as Commanders and for the most part, they seemed fine. I even played a Sorin Markov deck. It certainly made the game faster as I could just keep setting an opponent's life down, but that is done one opponent at a time, and still needs other cards to generate a win. I had games where other players would kill the people that I brought down to 10 and then kill me.
You can use the ultimate ability for each of these Planeswalkers right out of the gate while a Doubling Season is on board, and pretty much all of them are relevant enough to give you a distinct advantage.
Ixalan rules change:
"Starting with this set, all planeswalkers past, present, and future will have the supertype legendary. They will also be subject to the "legend rule." The "planeswalker uniqueness rule" is going away. What does this mean? In short, everything that's true about legendary creatures will now be true about legendary planeswalkers."
Will this somehow affect commander? Mainly the sentence "everything that's true about legendary creatures will now be true about legendary planeswalkers."
Starting with this set, all planeswalkers past, present, and future will have the supertype legendary. They will also be subject to the "legend rule." The "planeswalker uniqueness rule" is going away. What does this mean? In short, everything that's true about legendary permanents will now be true about legendary planeswalkers. Also note that this does not mean legendary planeswalkers can be your Commander unless an ability says so.
Under the new rules, if a player controls more than one legendary planeswalker with the same name, that player chooses one and puts the other into their owner's graveyard. This means that if you control Jace, Unraveler of Secrets and cast Jace, Cunning Castaway, both Jaces can exist under your control.
So, no more new planeswalker commanders, but there might be some beastly past/future iteration combos.
In what way is Phenax unique while simultaneously Wrexial is boring?
If you are building around silas's weak effect you are making a weak deck. He is used for his colors in partner, not for what he does when cast. From a deckbuilding perspective, he is shallow as a puddle.
BAHAHAHA have you ever actually played with or against a worthwhile Silas deck? (I pair him with Bruse) He's powerful with even a Lotus Petal or Urza's Bauble every turn, but once you get Memory Jar or Executioner's Capsule going he quickly takes over the game.
Starting with this set, all planeswalkers past, present, and future will have the supertype legendary. They will also be subject to the "legend rule." The "planeswalker uniqueness rule" is going away. What does this mean? In short, everything that's true about legendary permanents will now be true about legendary planeswalkers. Also note that this does not mean legendary planeswalkers can be your Commander unless an ability says so.
Under the new rules, if a player controls more than one legendary planeswalker with the same name, that player chooses one and puts the other into their owner's graveyard. This means that if you control Jace, Unraveler of Secrets and cast Jace, Cunning Castaway, both Jaces can exist under your control.
So, no more new planeswalker commanders, but there might be some beastly past/future iteration combos.
That wasn't on the page originally, it seems it was edited in.
IF that means what it appears to, I think Sheldon and the RC will have to bring back the BaC list, JUST for planeswalkers, if nothing else.
But seriously, WTH WotC? I'd love to hear their justification on this...
My guess is they did it, at least in part, to make Jace work. People have been asking for a Planeswalker card of his to better showcase his Illusion abilities and his Ultimate really didn't work without this change (and it would have seemed odd to say they did not have the subtype Jace). I am not saying this is the most elegant solution, but it seems alright.
Plus, it tightens up the rules to eliminate an "extra" rule that functioned similarly but not identically to another rule.
I don't think it is a big deal and opens up quite a bit of play space.
Starting with this set, all planeswalkers past, present, and future will have the supertype legendary. They will also be subject to the "legend rule." The "planeswalker uniqueness rule" is going away. What does this mean? In short, everything that's true about legendary permanents will now be true about legendary planeswalkers. Also note that this does not mean legendary planeswalkers can be your Commander unless an ability says so.
Under the new rules, if a player controls more than one legendary planeswalker with the same name, that player chooses one and puts the other into their owner's graveyard. This means that if you control Jace, Unraveler of Secrets and cast Jace, Cunning Castaway, both Jaces can exist under your control.
So, no more new planeswalker commanders, but there might be some beastly past/future iteration combos.
Was not there when I copied it. Probably they added it afterwards. But whatever, it answers my question...
it would have seemed odd to say they did not have the subtype Jace
I disagree. His illusions look like him an act like him, but they are not him. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to make the mechanics of that be "except they don't have the Jace subtype" or something similar.
it would have seemed odd to say they did not have the subtype Jace
I disagree. His illusions look like him an act like him, but they are not him. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to make the mechanics of that be "except they don't have the Jace subtype" or something similar.
Fair enough. I suppose they could have done it that way. Perhaps they felt this was cleaner? I am not sure, but I do like the rule change.
IF that means what it appears to, I think Sheldon and the RC will have to bring back the BaC list, JUST for planeswalkers, if nothing else.
But seriously, WTH WotC? I'd love to hear their justification on this...
My guess is they did it, at least in part, to make Jace work. People have been asking for a Planeswalker card of his to better showcase his Illusion abilities and his Ultimate really didn't work without this change (and it would have seemed odd to say they did not have the subtype Jace). I am not saying this is the most elegant solution, but it seems alright.
Plus, it tightens up the rules to eliminate an "extra" rule that functioned similarly but not identically to another rule.
I don't think it is a big deal and opens up quite a bit of play space.
In the original text that would be true, but that would have also been a slippery slope("They're legendary, so why can't they be commanders?"). With this clarification, I think it still adds some interesting combos while closing up any possible problems that could have arisen from making PWs legendary. I do agree that it's better to streamline the rule, and I look forward to seeing how this works combo-wise.
I started a thread earlier this week on this topic without looking around and was pointed here so I will sum up my ideas on this:
From what I have tested since originally pitching this idea (sparking from the rules change to make Planeswalkers legendary) I have tested a few deck ideas with a couple of my friends. Now we aren't 100% competitive, but we try to have very powerful decks without making them oppressive. My friend playtested a deck revolving around Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas, 1v1 against me testing Xenagos, the Reveler. The game was pretty even, and even though my commander was Gaea's Cradle and not a lot more, the game was balanced, fun, and nothing really stood out as broken (although he did use the -2 from Tezzeret the Schemer to turn his Metalwork Colossus from 10/10 to 19/1 when it attacked me since he had 9 artifacts out, pretty cool play to be honest)
We plan on testing out more powerful commanders soon, but we wanted to try ones we were viewing as ones that most players would wanna find homes for. I am sure there are a lot of super competitive players who wanna see Ugin vs Lili of the Veil, or Sorin vs JTMS, we are working towards it but not our top priority at the moment. Once we do some more in depth testing I will let you know, but the verdict as is stands that the planeswalkers just add an extra element of fun and strategy behind the games. They are also a bit weak to aggro in general, so if you have a very aggressive playgroup, these might not last more than one turn, maybe two if you are lucky. But that is 100% okay in my book, the ultimates are there to scare people away from attacking your life total, which seems fine by me in Commander where politics can be king. As of this, I can't find a reason not to, as they do add a very fun dynamic behind games, and so far haven't proven themselves to be super broken or anything. If there are any commanders that anyone here might feel would be bad, let me know so I can try to test it out to the best of my ability.
they may not add anything, but they don't detract either and its something A LOT of players want.
[citation needed]
This very thread shows that, at least among MTGS users, it's not wanted.
mtgs is some kind of weird bubble that does not represent even a fraction of the magic community
sure, the poll shows that its not wanted, but how many magic players DON'T use mtg:s? its far more than the number that do, but we forget that because we live here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It would be interesting to have walkers as commanders. As the current 5 printed have shown. they CAN be powerful but they will never overshadow creature commanders. You can't attack a creature, while you can attack a walker.
People may run more Pithing Needle effects, or play more walker removal. It's not game-changing, but it does add a different angle of gameplay that still retains the nature of "Commander-ness"
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
do you have a link for that? I would like to read his reasoning.
Because from my point of view, 'banned as commander' was a good thing and I never understood why it was put away. Maybe his article will give me new sight on it.
Exactly. In FFA games when we tested some PW's, I don't remember when some PW survived more than two turns. And forcing people to play more walker removal or stuff like pithing needle is not that bad, the diversity will improve again.
Well, if 3 enemies let you get your ultimate on PW general (outside of Doubling Season) then something went totally wrong and you would win with any other general as well...
I would say that it's difficult to abuse planeswalkers in the same way as creatures, but they certainly can be abused.
Can someone please name the worthwhile PW that allow access to green?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Going alphabetically:
You can use the ultimate ability for each of these Planeswalkers right out of the gate while a Doubling Season is on board, and pretty much all of them are relevant enough to give you a distinct advantage.
"Starting with this set, all planeswalkers past, present, and future will have the supertype legendary. They will also be subject to the "legend rule." The "planeswalker uniqueness rule" is going away. What does this mean? In short, everything that's true about legendary creatures will now be true about legendary planeswalkers."
Will this somehow affect commander? Mainly the sentence "everything that's true about legendary creatures will now be true about legendary planeswalkers."
But seriously, WTH WotC? I'd love to hear their justification on this...
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
Are they also adding the type "creature"? Cuz the rule says "Players choose a legendary creature as the "Commander" for their deck.
And yet the existing planeswalker commanders work just fine with this rule.
So, no more new planeswalker commanders, but there might be some beastly past/future iteration combos.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
BAHAHAHA have you ever actually played with or against a worthwhile Silas deck? (I pair him with Bruse) He's powerful with even a Lotus Petal or Urza's Bauble every turn, but once you get Memory Jar or Executioner's Capsule going he quickly takes over the game.
Check out my competitive Ezuri, Claw of Progress primer!
That wasn't on the page originally, it seems it was edited in.
Plus, it tightens up the rules to eliminate an "extra" rule that functioned similarly but not identically to another rule.
I don't think it is a big deal and opens up quite a bit of play space.
Was not there when I copied it. Probably they added it afterwards. But whatever, it answers my question...
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I figured that might have been the case. As you say, it clears up the initial misconception.
In the original text that would be true, but that would have also been a slippery slope("They're legendary, so why can't they be commanders?"). With this clarification, I think it still adds some interesting combos while closing up any possible problems that could have arisen from making PWs legendary. I do agree that it's better to streamline the rule, and I look forward to seeing how this works combo-wise.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
I cant imagine the format being more enjoyable staring down even more creatureless decks.
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
From what I have tested since originally pitching this idea (sparking from the rules change to make Planeswalkers legendary) I have tested a few deck ideas with a couple of my friends. Now we aren't 100% competitive, but we try to have very powerful decks without making them oppressive. My friend playtested a deck revolving around Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas, 1v1 against me testing Xenagos, the Reveler. The game was pretty even, and even though my commander was Gaea's Cradle and not a lot more, the game was balanced, fun, and nothing really stood out as broken (although he did use the -2 from Tezzeret the Schemer to turn his Metalwork Colossus from 10/10 to 19/1 when it attacked me since he had 9 artifacts out, pretty cool play to be honest)
We plan on testing out more powerful commanders soon, but we wanted to try ones we were viewing as ones that most players would wanna find homes for. I am sure there are a lot of super competitive players who wanna see Ugin vs Lili of the Veil, or Sorin vs JTMS, we are working towards it but not our top priority at the moment. Once we do some more in depth testing I will let you know, but the verdict as is stands that the planeswalkers just add an extra element of fun and strategy behind the games. They are also a bit weak to aggro in general, so if you have a very aggressive playgroup, these might not last more than one turn, maybe two if you are lucky. But that is 100% okay in my book, the ultimates are there to scare people away from attacking your life total, which seems fine by me in Commander where politics can be king. As of this, I can't find a reason not to, as they do add a very fun dynamic behind games, and so far haven't proven themselves to be super broken or anything. If there are any commanders that anyone here might feel would be bad, let me know so I can try to test it out to the best of my ability.
they may not add anything, but they don't detract either and its something A LOT of players want. the vast majority of them aren't broken
This very thread shows that, at least among MTGS users, it's not wanted.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
mtgs is some kind of weird bubble that does not represent even a fraction of the magic community
sure, the poll shows that its not wanted, but how many magic players DON'T use mtg:s? its far more than the number that do, but we forget that because we live here.