Because he’s a Legendary creature, and Legendary creatures are legal commanders.
I don't think that is the point of the discussion...
Leovold is Legendary creature as well and he is banned.
Actually, it quite literally IS the point of the discussion. Legendary creatures as commanders is the established focus of the format, while allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is a new thing being suggested as a change. Thus, legendary creatures only get discussed in terms of being allowed in the format if they are bannable, or close to it, because they are allowed by default, while planeswalkers HAVE to be discussed if you want them added, because without discussion you default to the status quo, which is a no.
Carthage has a point that if something like Purphoros is OK from a power level perspectivet then something like Lili of the Dark Realms would be as well. But he tried out an I'll advised rhetorical flourish that Bloody Wednesday easily cut into. It's one thing to point out that people shouldn't be concerned about Lili as a commander from a power level standpoint, but another to suggest that it's a double standard that we would discuss the impact of individual planeswalkers being allowed as commanders but not new legendary creatures. The former is a proposed rule change that needs to be justified, with the positives being weighed against both the negatives and the inherit value of the status quo and coming out on top, while the latter is a basic facet of the format. You debate, critique, and analyze potential changes more than keeping things as they are, especially if the way things are works really well.
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!
It doesn't matter if the cards exist, are people running them? Are they playable when purphoros isn't at the table?
Because almost every deck out there runs a myriad of ways to interact with a planeswalker. Any creatures, bounce, burn, planeswalker removal and/or permanent removal will all make it much harder to execute a planeswalker plan.
That holds true for Planeswalker removal as well, and bounce and permanent removal (in the form of exile) all work against purph too.
Burn is also rarely played.
For Example Out of the top 100 played Cards on edhrec(Anecdotal evidence since stuff like that is subject to change if PW's would be allowed still)
One Burnspell (Boros Charm) one bouncespell (Cyclonic Rift). 15 Spotremoval+Counter (Which helps to get rid of Regular commanders AND if you allow PWs as commanders help protect those) 6,5 Massremovals out of which only one has the posibillity to kill pws, yet they can regularly kill most regular commanders and protect PW ones.
10 Things thet get rid of pw's.
10 things that get rid of purphoros, As an Enchantment.
(+4 if it is a creature which most purph decks tend to not let happen)
Yes Attacking PW's is a thing you can do but most decks run removal for creatures already, most decks run creatures of their own to block so that is not a reliable/effortless answer to pw's, in addition to that a lot of pw's have abilities to protect themselves too (esp. From Creatures) so by the time your opponents can kill your PW you should be able to recast him rather easily, even if you dont get to the ultimate alot of the incremental value of the good ones is pretty strong. Loot/Rummage for two per turn by plussing Daretti or Dack is a bit better that phyrexian arena if you are not graveyard based and if you are its insanely better than phyrexian arena.
It doesn't matter if the cards exist, are people running them? Are they playable when purphoros isn't at the table?
Because almost every deck out there runs a myriad of ways to interact with a planeswalker. Any creatures, bounce, burn, planeswalker removal and/or permanent removal will all make it much harder to execute a planeswalker plan.
That holds true for Planeswalker removal as well, and bounce and permanent removal (in the form of exile) all work against purph too.
Burn is also rarely played.
For Example Out of the top 100 played Cards on edhrec(Anecdotal evidence since stuff like that is subject to change if PW's would be allowed still)
One Burnspell (Boros Charm) one bouncespell (Cyclonic Rift). 15 Spotremoval+Counter (Which helps to get rid of Regular commanders AND if you allow PWs as commanders help protect those) 6,5 Massremovals out of which only one has the posibillity to kill pws, yet they can regularly kill most regular commanders and protect PW ones.
10 Things thet get rid of pw's.
10 things that get rid of purphoros, As an Enchantment.
(+4 if it is a creature which most purph decks tend to not let happen)
Yes Attacking PW's is a thing you can do but most decks run removal for creatures already, most decks run creatures of their own to block so that is not a reliable/effortless answer to pw's, in addition to that a lot of pw's have abilities to protect themselves too (esp. From Creatures) so by the time your opponents can kill your PW you should be able to recast him rather easily, even if you dont get to the ultimate alot of the incremental value of the good ones is pretty strong. Loot/Rummage for two per turn by plussing Daretti or Dack is a bit better that phyrexian arena if you are not graveyard based and if you are its insanely better than phyrexian arena.
If you are red, you are probably just running chaos warp to answer it.
If you are green, similar thing, only song of the dryads
If you are black, you might have an artifact board wipe that can answer it, but I would bet that there is no black card for dealing with purphoros at all
So you could be playing a 3 color deck and have maybe 2 cards to deal with purphoros.
Also please don't so casually disregard the #1 way people take out planeswalkers. Every color has creatures, and maintaining a strong enough defense to keep people from attacking your planeswalker is a very difficult task. And recasting a walker is not even remotely problematic for edh, the format can handle much stronger incremental advantages. consecrated sphinx is legal remember.
Yeah but consecrated sphinx cant be your commander and can be answered easier and pw's are easier to defend. Again Since commander is mainly based on creatures the answers to those are plentyful and since you can block for your pws that heps defend it to.
And the problem is that it is the #1 way to get rid of pw's as it is inefficient and alot of time just not possible to do when needed. Im not disregarding the way I am saying there need to be better ways.
As for Purphoros: No Mono black card that deals with it as is no mono black card for any enchantment. If It turn into a creature though there are plenty of answers. Similar to Red.
Green has answers white has answers and blue has answers. And I agree all in all there are not many answers for purhoros excluding certain scenarios just as I think there aren't enough for PW's.
To reiterate I don't think most PW's planeswalkers are a problem. I do think the majority would be fine powerlevel wise, but I do think most dont add anything new to the table. I think more people would dislike the change than like it, thus making the format worse for more people than better.
I do think better PW removal would help as it is a hard permanent type to get rid of efficiently, making it so that people feel they cant do much against them. And for the Problematic one's that holds true as their Incremental advantage and self protection drains the other players resources more than yours. The (IMO) unproblematic ones that do bring new stuff to the table are to few to make a change globally.
I do think there should be a global testrun for a couple of reasons.
1. To see how numbers in format popularity go up/down. (If the potential growth in players that start because of this is bigger than the people who will quit because of this)
2. To see how much is added gameplay wise due to that (New types of decks, decks getting played less, How many different PWs will see play etc. )
3. To Help some playgroups to decide if they want to play witn PW commanders and to houserule if it doesn't happen after the test.
4. For the RC to make a sound desicion based on 1 and 2, (which IMO will be a no, but without the numbers alot is just speculation)
For now.
You never know, the opinions can change with time.
If not now, then when? I feel like this was the best shot that PW commanders had.
The moment has passed, and things only go down from here. If you want PW commanders, then make an exception with your playgroup or play Oathbreaker or the like.
For now.
You never know, the opinions can change with time.
If not now, then when? I feel like this was the best shot that PW commanders had.
The moment has passed, and things only go down from here. If you want PW commanders, then make an exception with your playgroup or play Oathbreaker or the like.
You never know.
Wasn't there times where people said Metalworker will never leave the banlist?
I know it's not the same comparison.
But EDH started as Legendary creatures. Now you can have indestructible enchantments as general and people are ok with that. You have emblems in command zone which you don't ever need to cast. You have flip-walkers and some planeswalkers which can be your generals.
I doubt that when the format was created, they thought about these things as playable generals.
So that's why I said "for know".
You never know what Wizards will come up with. PW's are too popular and I have the feeling this was not the last set where there was so many PW's.
There will be more PW's printed with the line "can be your general".
maybe once we reach the point where all the PW's will be added. Maybe not.
But one thing that I learned though my life was "never say never".
If not now, then when? I feel like this was the best shot that PW commanders had.
The moment has passed, and things only go down from here. If you want PW commanders, then make an exception with your playgroup or play Oathbreaker or the like.
I dunno. I think that there is also the possibility that with the new set coming out you would see a LOT of excited people and the hype train would skew the numbers. So there would be a higher number of players making planeswalkers decks since a) they were just legalized, and b) they are excited about the new set coming out. Give this set time to sink in and settle, and you might find the actual number of players who want to build planeswalker decks to be lower.
If not now, then when? I feel like this was the best shot that PW commanders had.
The moment has passed, and things only go down from here. If you want PW commanders, then make an exception with your playgroup or play Oathbreaker or the like.
I dunno. I think that there is also the possibility that with the new set coming out you would see a LOT of excited people and the hype train would skew the numbers. So there would be a higher number of players making planeswalkers decks since a) they were just legalized, and b) they are excited about the new set coming out. Give this set time to sink in and settle, and you might find the actual number of players who want to build planeswalker decks to be lower.
I think it is insulting to think that those who want to play with new cards "don't count"
Regarding Purphoros vs PWs. Purphoros was at one time extremely present in the meta and pretty much always was the same kind of deck. I have definitely seen discussions about it being banned.
The thing to remember is that cards are not banned solely because of power level. If they were, you would see a lot more banned cards. Cards are banned because they are overwhelmingly present in commander and are either too powerful or too centralizing or too warping or interact poorly with commander....
Purphoros is no longer played that much. It is no longer a part of the discussion.
But, should we legalize planeswalkers, any one of them could become bannable. I listed some of them. Ugin the Spirit Dragon, people don't seem to want to debate. But Liliana of the Dark Realms people are debating. I am not saying it needs to be banned. I am saying that it would have to be on the RCs radar for 3 reasons:
1. Any planeswalker who's 'build-around' ability is the ult is a problem as all decks will basically play to force that ult
2. All decks will basically be Control and stax.
3. The Ult basically wins the game (black has a lot of tutors).
I am not saying Liliana will 100% be banned for these reasons. She would only be banned if she became ubiquitous enough. I just think that if you look at all the monoblack decks around, most of which are trying to go big on mana, she makes the most sense as the general and this is a potential problem.
If you want to compare it to something, don't choose Purphoros, choose Derevi. I would say that 95% of Derevi decks I have seen are tuned stax decks. Derevi is on the RC's radar, as Sheldon once mentioned that if Banned as a Commander came back Derevi would probably be on the list.
Like Leovold - if the only thing someone does with a general is broken, then the general will need to be banned. The new Kefnet is a potential problem... because how can you not fill the deck with extra turn spells and effects to put your cards back on top of the library? If everyone starts playing Kefnet infinite turns it will be banned....
I am not prophetic. Liliana of the Dark REalms would probably not be that much of a problem. But I think that any planeswalker with a gamewinning ultimate would need to be heavily considered for banning - NOT BECAUSE OF POWER - because a majority of their decks will be stalling and staxing to ultimate, and I think that it would hurt the format.
Regarding Charlotte's prediction that now would have been the time to unban planeswalkers.... I think the timing was bad. The CAG (which you are on) was newly formed. I think it will be years before we could imagine it happening, but I think as the philosophy of the format and the current banlist get fleshed out, it will become more of a consideration.
Insulting or not, the objective answer is "no". Not that they should feel the need to restate why so many of the CAG and RC have publicly suggested PWs as commanders was a bad idea, but maybe it should have been lengthier to address why for those who need it spelled out for them.
Another thing to consider is the vast difference in design between most PWs for standard sets when compared to the ones in C18. The mono colored PWs included only 3 instances of an emblem, but arguably Daretti has the only one that can close the game out the following turn. Teferi emblem is not what makes him the strongest PW commander for EDH, with Ob Nixilis being a bit hard to take seriously leading a deck too. By comparison the C18 Walkers have no emblems whatsoever, a clear move to prevent them having an oppressive effect no one can interact with. Their ultimates also require some setup rather than just being outright wins. There have been plenty of instances in game I've played with or against Saheeli and Windgrace where using their ult is not beneficial or lacking in sufficient targets. Estrid you could and probably should always ultimate. Aminatou is a similar case to Teferi, where her ultimate is rarely useful and nowhere close to what a solid build around her even wants.
Now for standard set PWs, just use Ob Nixilis Reignited or Jace, Unraveler of Secrets as examples for how dull the design for the vast majority of them were for years. Race to emblems that lock the game down without ANY way to remove them possible regardless of how obscure you like to get with your card choices for some other problem permanents, card advantage on a plus, removal on a minus. There isn't anything these types of PWs bring to the format outside of encouraging builds that slow the game to a crawl and rush their emblem, board wipe forever and wait for the concessions to roll in. Now with WAR releasing, some of these could have been a nice option, but something about siting across from either Narset or Karn just screams "boring lock down incoming". Again, as the player base has proven in the past, the less benign builds of the most broken of commanders are the most commonly played (see Leovald).
I think it is insulting to think that those who want to play with new cards "don't count"
There is a.trend with most new releases to see something get hyped and played a lot because it is brand new, only to not get played as much once the dust settles and people grow bored and move onto something else or the metagame adapts to it. We see this when a card is spoiled/newly released and the community panics over the card and wants it banned. So me saying "hey maybe we will get a more accurate representation of how planeswalkers impact edh if it doesn't coincide with a new set being released that contains three dozen new ones" is a far cry from me saying to disregard an entire set of data.
I feel like the argument was at least given a subtle nod with the implementation of what’s always been around covertly in rule 0. It’s a master stroke to make this explicit and formalized, in that it gives people who want to play these sort of variants leeway to play the format the way they want to. They always could in the right time and place of course, but now it’s a little more easy to have that discussion. It’s not a win for the ‘yes’ crowd, but it is middle ground that both sides of this debate can use to test the waters, and no one needs to feel any way for bringing it up as an option.
Regarding ‘if not now, when?’, I agree. If it were ever to be formalized, now would’ve been the time. The hype is up, there’s now focus on walkers than ever and plenty of choices. The fact that the RC and CAG unanimously decided against speaks volumes - allowing a global concession for all walkers would be ill advised. Regardless, the option was always there if you wanted it and now that’s made more obvious. It might not be formal and binding in every game you shuffle up, but does it really matter? Your meta is your meta, so long as they’re cool with it you’re good to go.
I feel like the argument was at least given a subtle nod with the implementation of what’s always been around covertly in rule 0. It’s a master stroke to make this explicit and formalized, in that it gives people who want to play these sort of variants leeway to play the format the way they want to. They always could in the right time and place of course, but now it’s a little more easy to have that discussion. It’s not a win for the ‘yes’ crowd, but it is middle ground that both sides of this debate can use to test the waters, and no one needs to feel any way for bringing it up as an option.
Regarding ‘if not now, when?’, I agree. If it were ever to be formalized, now would’ve been the time. The hype is up, there’s now focus on walkers than ever and plenty of choices. The fact that the RC and CAG unanimously decided against speaks volumes - allowing a global concession for all walkers would be ill advised. Regardless, the option was always there if you wanted it and now that’s made more obvious. It might not be formal and binding in every game you shuffle up, but does it really matter? Your meta is your meta, so long as they’re cool with it you’re good to go.
To anyone who plays commander outside of a kitchen table setting, nothing has changed. Official rules are the only rules.
To anyone who plays commander outside of a kitchen table setting, nothing has changed. Official rules are the only rules.
Well, that's just not true. Either your meta plays with only the most ironclad of rules or they're sticklers for officialdom. Either way, if they don't allow house ruling, that's a shame for you and I sympathise, but this scenario is far from the norm, in my experience.
Besides which, while there's official rules, we're talking about a casual format here. The prize you're playing for is nothing more or less than enjoyment, no prize money, no trophy, just a good time. If your meta doesn't allow house rules for walkers in the CZ, find another meta. Better yet, make your own and invite people. Rule 0 now makes it explicit that if you decree this is legal in your meta, it's legal in your meta. It's a small victory, but in a lot of ways it's enough of a victory to count. Take the win for what it is, I'd say. If you're after a hard and fast global allowance you're obviously left wanting, but this gives you enough to keep your preferred meta happy.
I feel like the argument was at least given a subtle nod with the implementation of what’s always been around covertly in rule 0. It’s a master stroke to make this explicit and formalized, in that it gives people who want to play these sort of variants leeway to play the format the way they want to. They always could in the right time and place of course, but now it’s a little more easy to have that discussion. It’s not a win for the ‘yes’ crowd, but it is middle ground that both sides of this debate can use to test the waters, and no one needs to feel any way for bringing it up as an option.
Regarding ‘if not now, when?’, I agree. If it were ever to be formalized, now would’ve been the time. The hype is up, there’s now focus on walkers than ever and plenty of choices. The fact that the RC and CAG unanimously decided against speaks volumes - allowing a global concession for all walkers would be ill advised. Regardless, the option was always there if you wanted it and now that’s made more obvious. It might not be formal and binding in every game you shuffle up, but does it really matter? Your meta is your meta, so long as they’re cool with it you’re good to go.
To anyone who plays commander outside of a kitchen table setting, nothing has changed. Official rules are the only rules.
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support. You are saying that you want the rules changed to cater to your tastes at the expense of the enjoyment of the majority of players. Because you cannot rely on house rules, you want to force your own, unpopular preferences to be the mandated rules.
It sounds uncharitable, but that is what your comments are actually saying. Maybe you really believe this, maybe you don't realize this is what you actually want, or maybe you are just reacting to arguments without thinking through the implications of how your responses add up.
Your obvious rebuttal would be that just because a majority feel one way doesn't make it right. I agree, I think the general feelings of the playerbase matter but that if that was all that mattered the format would have been ruined long ago. That's why there's value in having the format managed by people who take the opinions of the playerbase into account but who are change averse, knowledgeable, and willing to put their own preferences aside when making decisions. That ensures that while changes may not come as often or as quickly as they would in an optimized format, they are able to avoid bad decisions pretty well and its almost only changes that positively effect the format that sneak through.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
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!
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support.
.
.
.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
Onering, you've brought the poll up on more than one occasion, but I think your interpretation of it isn't all that great.
First, this isn't a detailed poll. It doesn't afford any room for caveat or for voter explanation. It merely provides two binary options and one apathy option. That's it. There's no indication of voter confidence. There's no "I don't know" option. It's just a crummy poll, only useful for a surface reading of what outcome voters think they prefer. And most folks, regardless of how they voted, probably put less than a gut's reaction into whatever they ultimately decided to vote for. You keep referring to this poll like it's sacrosanct, but it appears to me like something that should only be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, the apathy option is effectively a second yes vote. Those voters are saying they're perfectly fine with the rules being changed. To lump those voters in as "not yes," while technically true, is a bit misleading. As such, what you're really looking at isn't 33% of people supporting change. It's 47% of people saying they're fine with change.
Third, MTGS is practically the old guard of Commander. Between Facebook, Reddit, and other more prevalent platforms, MTGS sees only a tiny fraction of the total Commander discussion. The folks who do engage here tend to be among the most loyal and most enfranchised Commander players out there though. Combine that with the fact that the Commander Rules Discussion subforum has a reputation for being one of the most virulent parts of the board, and what you get is even fewer casual faces even making it to the poll to begin with. It hardly represents what the actual Commander playerbase thinks.
Now, I don't know how the Commander community at large feels about making planeswalkers commanders. I suspect less enfranchised players will be much more likely to favor that change, but that's only a suspicion. But to read this poll as "only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support.
.
.
.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
Onering, you've brought the poll up on more than one occasion, but I think your interpretation of it isn't all that great.
First, this isn't a detailed poll. It doesn't afford any room for caveat or for voter explanation. It merely provides two binary options and one apathy option. That's it. There's no indication of voter confidence. There's no "I don't know" option. It's just a crummy poll, only useful for a surface reading of what outcome voters think they prefer. And most folks, regardless of how they voted, probably put less than a gut's reaction into whatever they ultimately decided to vote for. You keep referring to this poll like it's sacrosanct, but it appears to me like something that should only be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, the apathy option is effectively a second yes vote. Those voters are saying they're perfectly fine with the rules being changed. To lump those voters in as "not yes," while technically true, is a bit misleading. As such, what you're really looking at isn't 33% of people supporting change. It's 47% of people saying they're fine with change.
Third, MTGS is practically the old guard of Commander. Between Facebook, Reddit, and other more prevalent platforms, MTGS sees only a tiny fraction of the total Commander discussion. The folks who do engage here tend to be among the most loyal and most enfranchised Commander players out there though. Combine that with the fact that the Commander Rules Discussion subforum has a reputation for being one of the most virulent parts of the board, and what you get is even fewer casual faces even making it to the poll to begin with. It hardly represents what the actual Commander playerbase thinks.
Now, I don't know how the Commander community at large feels about making planeswalkers commanders. I suspect less enfranchised players will be much more likely to favor that change, but that's only a suspicion. But to read this poll as "only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something.
Its far from a perfect poll, but its still better than blatantly asserting that its a popular choice. The only evidence we have, while not great, points to it being unpopular. I've seen reddit polls that have varied between similar results, and pws being universally allowed as commanders getting a plurality, but not a majority. I have not pointed to the poll unless responding to a poster that claims, without a shred of evidence, that allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is something the majority of the player base is behind.
But even though the poll isn't particularly great (but still better than what the pro side has), I do have a quibble with this: "'only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something." The former interpretation simply states the facts, that only slightly more than a third favor the change, while the latter stretches to editorialize and make the pro side seem significantly stronger. All the poll shows is a majority, a little over half, being flat out against it, and a little over a third being for it, with the remainder, about 10%, not caring and thus not counting. They aren't an argument against allowing pws, nor are they an argument for it. Sure, they'd be fine with it, but just as fine without it. Lumping them in with the pros artificially inflates those numbers. And there's a big difference between not minding a change and actually wanting the change. Since one of the biggest arguments the pro side is making is that the public wants this change, they should actually demonstrate that. Making a change of this nature shouldn't be open to simple majority rule in the first place, but rather on what's best for the format, but it certainly should not be made based on what percent would merely be ok with the change. That less than half of the respondents are ok with making the change, not in favor but just ok, doesn't bode well for making the change.
And your last point "especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something" just isn't true at all. Studies have repeatedly shown that people are significantly more likely to vote yes than no and unsure combined when answering polls or voting on ballot initiatives. There's a significant yes bias, just like there is a significant first choice presented bias. Its easier to get things approved by the public than denied, and people who don't particularly care a more likely to break yes, even if an unsure option is available.
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!
What if they just created a new supertype called commander and used it instead of legendary for planeswalkers. That the rules with a commander planeswalker is that they follow the same rules as a legendary creature, but they can also be in the 99. However they can't be played in Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and Standard. Then they just do functional reprints of past versions of planeswalkers with this type that they reprinted before like those from the three mythic editions.
What if they just created a new supertype called commander and used it instead of legendary for planeswalkers. That the rules with a commander planeswalker is that they follow the same rules as a legendary creature, but they can also be in the 99. However they can't be played in Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and Standard. Then they just do functional reprints of past versions of planeswalkers with this type that they reprinted before like those from the three mythic editions.
Too many issues with that:
- type line spacenis limited and would limit what other card type info you included
- what do you do with the 700+ generals already? If you add the super type then you're doing functional errata
What if they just created a new supertype called commander and used it instead of legendary for planeswalkers. That the rules with a commander planeswalker is that they follow the same rules as a legendary creature, but they can also be in the 99. However they can't be played in Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and Standard. Then they just do functional reprints of past versions of planeswalkers with this type that they reprinted before like those from the three mythic editions.
Too many issues with that:
- type line spacenis limited and would limit what other card type info you included
- what do you do with the 700+ generals already? If you add the super type then you're doing functional errata
Well if it was applied to every creature instead of legendary, the word commander is the same number of letters, 9 for 9. But I wasn't speaking of adding that to creatures, just using it on "new" planeswalkers that are a functional reprint of an older one but only legal for the commander format. Perhaps a simple visual demonstration of what I meant?
Jace, Sculptor of Minds2UU Commander Planeswalker - Jace (MR)
+2: Look at the top card of target player's library. You may put that card on the bottom of that player's library.
0: Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.
-1: Return target creature to its owner's hand.
-12: Exile all cards from target player's library, then that player shuffles his or her hand into his or her library.
[3]
Basically Jace, the Mind Sculptor but legal only for this format and can be the commander of a deck.
What if they just created a new supertype called commander and used it instead of legendary for planeswalkers. That the rules with a commander planeswalker is that they follow the same rules as a legendary creature, but they can also be in the 99. However they can't be played in Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and Standard. Then they just do functional reprints of past versions of planeswalkers with this type that they reprinted before like those from the three mythic editions.
Too many issues with that:
- type line spacenis limited and would limit what other card type info you included
- what do you do with the 700+ generals already? If you add the super type then you're doing functional errata
Well if it was applied to every creature instead of legendary, the word commander is the same number of letters, 9 for 9. But I wasn't speaking of adding that to creatures, just using it on "new" planeswalkers that are a functional reprint of an older one but only legal for the commander format. Perhaps a simple visual demonstration of what I meant?
Jace, Sculptor of Minds2UU Commander Planeswalker - Jace (MR)
+2: Look at the top card of target player's library. You may put that card on the bottom of that player's library.
0: Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.
-1: Return target creature to its owner's hand.
-12: Exile all cards from target player's library, then that player shuffles his or her hand into his or her library.
[3]
Basically Jace, the Mind Sculptor but legal only for this format and can be the commander of a deck.
What purpose does this serve? Letting Wizards do an end run around the RC to force all PWs to be commanders? It's a worse idea than wizards just stepping in and forcing the issue. It's downright cowardly, doing something (overruling the RC to change the rules of the formst) but trying to pretend like they aren't. Why would wizards want to do that when they could just force the change and stand by it to show confidence in it? Another issue is that this would effectively mean that every PW can be ran as a 2 of in commander, undermining an additional aspect of the format. This seems like it just adds more issues without actually solving any.
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.
Actually, it quite literally IS the point of the discussion. Legendary creatures as commanders is the established focus of the format, while allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is a new thing being suggested as a change. Thus, legendary creatures only get discussed in terms of being allowed in the format if they are bannable, or close to it, because they are allowed by default, while planeswalkers HAVE to be discussed if you want them added, because without discussion you default to the status quo, which is a no.
Carthage has a point that if something like Purphoros is OK from a power level perspectivet then something like Lili of the Dark Realms would be as well. But he tried out an I'll advised rhetorical flourish that Bloody Wednesday easily cut into. It's one thing to point out that people shouldn't be concerned about Lili as a commander from a power level standpoint, but another to suggest that it's a double standard that we would discuss the impact of individual planeswalkers being allowed as commanders but not new legendary creatures. The former is a proposed rule change that needs to be justified, with the positives being weighed against both the negatives and the inherit value of the status quo and coming out on top, while the latter is a basic facet of the format. You debate, critique, and analyze potential changes more than keeping things as they are, especially if the way things are works really well.
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!
That holds true for Planeswalker removal as well, and bounce and permanent removal (in the form of exile) all work against purph too.
Burn is also rarely played.
For Example Out of the top 100 played Cards on edhrec(Anecdotal evidence since stuff like that is subject to change if PW's would be allowed still)
One Burnspell (Boros Charm) one bouncespell (Cyclonic Rift). 15 Spotremoval+Counter (Which helps to get rid of Regular commanders AND if you allow PWs as commanders help protect those) 6,5 Massremovals out of which only one has the posibillity to kill pws, yet they can regularly kill most regular commanders and protect PW ones.
10 Things thet get rid of pw's.
10 things that get rid of purphoros, As an Enchantment.
(+4 if it is a creature which most purph decks tend to not let happen)
Yes Attacking PW's is a thing you can do but most decks run removal for creatures already, most decks run creatures of their own to block so that is not a reliable/effortless answer to pw's, in addition to that a lot of pw's have abilities to protect themselves too (esp. From Creatures) so by the time your opponents can kill your PW you should be able to recast him rather easily, even if you dont get to the ultimate alot of the incremental value of the good ones is pretty strong. Loot/Rummage for two per turn by plussing Daretti or Dack is a bit better that phyrexian arena if you are not graveyard based and if you are its insanely better than phyrexian arena.
If you are red, you are probably just running chaos warp to answer it.
If you are green, similar thing, only song of the dryads
If you are black, you might have an artifact board wipe that can answer it, but I would bet that there is no black card for dealing with purphoros at all
So you could be playing a 3 color deck and have maybe 2 cards to deal with purphoros.
Also please don't so casually disregard the #1 way people take out planeswalkers. Every color has creatures, and maintaining a strong enough defense to keep people from attacking your planeswalker is a very difficult task. And recasting a walker is not even remotely problematic for edh, the format can handle much stronger incremental advantages. consecrated sphinx is legal remember.
And the problem is that it is the #1 way to get rid of pw's as it is inefficient and alot of time just not possible to do when needed. Im not disregarding the way I am saying there need to be better ways.
As for Purphoros: No Mono black card that deals with it as is no mono black card for any enchantment. If It turn into a creature though there are plenty of answers. Similar to Red.
Green has answers white has answers and blue has answers. And I agree all in all there are not many answers for purhoros excluding certain scenarios just as I think there aren't enough for PW's.
To reiterate I don't think most PW's planeswalkers are a problem. I do think the majority would be fine powerlevel wise, but I do think most dont add anything new to the table. I think more people would dislike the change than like it, thus making the format worse for more people than better.
I do think better PW removal would help as it is a hard permanent type to get rid of efficiently, making it so that people feel they cant do much against them. And for the Problematic one's that holds true as their Incremental advantage and self protection drains the other players resources more than yours. The (IMO) unproblematic ones that do bring new stuff to the table are to few to make a change globally.
I do think there should be a global testrun for a couple of reasons.
1. To see how numbers in format popularity go up/down. (If the potential growth in players that start because of this is bigger than the people who will quit because of this)
2. To see how much is added gameplay wise due to that (New types of decks, decks getting played less, How many different PWs will see play etc. )
3. To Help some playgroups to decide if they want to play witn PW commanders and to houserule if it doesn't happen after the test.
4. For the RC to make a sound desicion based on 1 and 2, (which IMO will be a no, but without the numbers alot is just speculation)
Well its decided.
Nope.
For now.
You never know, the opinions can change with time.
If not now, then when? I feel like this was the best shot that PW commanders had.
The moment has passed, and things only go down from here. If you want PW commanders, then make an exception with your playgroup or play Oathbreaker or the like.
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
You never know.
Wasn't there times where people said Metalworker will never leave the banlist?
I know it's not the same comparison.
But EDH started as Legendary creatures. Now you can have indestructible enchantments as general and people are ok with that. You have emblems in command zone which you don't ever need to cast. You have flip-walkers and some planeswalkers which can be your generals.
I doubt that when the format was created, they thought about these things as playable generals.
So that's why I said "for know".
You never know what Wizards will come up with. PW's are too popular and I have the feeling this was not the last set where there was so many PW's.
There will be more PW's printed with the line "can be your general".
maybe once we reach the point where all the PW's will be added. Maybe not.
But one thing that I learned though my life was "never say never".
I dunno. I think that there is also the possibility that with the new set coming out you would see a LOT of excited people and the hype train would skew the numbers. So there would be a higher number of players making planeswalkers decks since a) they were just legalized, and b) they are excited about the new set coming out. Give this set time to sink in and settle, and you might find the actual number of players who want to build planeswalker decks to be lower.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think it is insulting to think that those who want to play with new cards "don't count"
The thing to remember is that cards are not banned solely because of power level. If they were, you would see a lot more banned cards. Cards are banned because they are overwhelmingly present in commander and are either too powerful or too centralizing or too warping or interact poorly with commander....
Purphoros is no longer played that much. It is no longer a part of the discussion.
But, should we legalize planeswalkers, any one of them could become bannable. I listed some of them. Ugin the Spirit Dragon, people don't seem to want to debate. But Liliana of the Dark Realms people are debating. I am not saying it needs to be banned. I am saying that it would have to be on the RCs radar for 3 reasons:
1. Any planeswalker who's 'build-around' ability is the ult is a problem as all decks will basically play to force that ult
2. All decks will basically be Control and stax.
3. The Ult basically wins the game (black has a lot of tutors).
I am not saying Liliana will 100% be banned for these reasons. She would only be banned if she became ubiquitous enough. I just think that if you look at all the monoblack decks around, most of which are trying to go big on mana, she makes the most sense as the general and this is a potential problem.
If you want to compare it to something, don't choose Purphoros, choose Derevi. I would say that 95% of Derevi decks I have seen are tuned stax decks. Derevi is on the RC's radar, as Sheldon once mentioned that if Banned as a Commander came back Derevi would probably be on the list.
Like Leovold - if the only thing someone does with a general is broken, then the general will need to be banned. The new Kefnet is a potential problem... because how can you not fill the deck with extra turn spells and effects to put your cards back on top of the library? If everyone starts playing Kefnet infinite turns it will be banned....
I am not prophetic. Liliana of the Dark REalms would probably not be that much of a problem. But I think that any planeswalker with a gamewinning ultimate would need to be heavily considered for banning - NOT BECAUSE OF POWER - because a majority of their decks will be stalling and staxing to ultimate, and I think that it would hurt the format.
Regarding Charlotte's prediction that now would have been the time to unban planeswalkers.... I think the timing was bad. The CAG (which you are on) was newly formed. I think it will be years before we could imagine it happening, but I think as the philosophy of the format and the current banlist get fleshed out, it will become more of a consideration.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Another thing to consider is the vast difference in design between most PWs for standard sets when compared to the ones in C18. The mono colored PWs included only 3 instances of an emblem, but arguably Daretti has the only one that can close the game out the following turn. Teferi emblem is not what makes him the strongest PW commander for EDH, with Ob Nixilis being a bit hard to take seriously leading a deck too. By comparison the C18 Walkers have no emblems whatsoever, a clear move to prevent them having an oppressive effect no one can interact with. Their ultimates also require some setup rather than just being outright wins. There have been plenty of instances in game I've played with or against Saheeli and Windgrace where using their ult is not beneficial or lacking in sufficient targets. Estrid you could and probably should always ultimate. Aminatou is a similar case to Teferi, where her ultimate is rarely useful and nowhere close to what a solid build around her even wants.
Now for standard set PWs, just use Ob Nixilis Reignited or Jace, Unraveler of Secrets as examples for how dull the design for the vast majority of them were for years. Race to emblems that lock the game down without ANY way to remove them possible regardless of how obscure you like to get with your card choices for some other problem permanents, card advantage on a plus, removal on a minus. There isn't anything these types of PWs bring to the format outside of encouraging builds that slow the game to a crawl and rush their emblem, board wipe forever and wait for the concessions to roll in. Now with WAR releasing, some of these could have been a nice option, but something about siting across from either Narset or Karn just screams "boring lock down incoming". Again, as the player base has proven in the past, the less benign builds of the most broken of commanders are the most commonly played (see Leovald).
There is a.trend with most new releases to see something get hyped and played a lot because it is brand new, only to not get played as much once the dust settles and people grow bored and move onto something else or the metagame adapts to it. We see this when a card is spoiled/newly released and the community panics over the card and wants it banned. So me saying "hey maybe we will get a more accurate representation of how planeswalkers impact edh if it doesn't coincide with a new set being released that contains three dozen new ones" is a far cry from me saying to disregard an entire set of data.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Regarding ‘if not now, when?’, I agree. If it were ever to be formalized, now would’ve been the time. The hype is up, there’s now focus on walkers than ever and plenty of choices. The fact that the RC and CAG unanimously decided against speaks volumes - allowing a global concession for all walkers would be ill advised. Regardless, the option was always there if you wanted it and now that’s made more obvious. It might not be formal and binding in every game you shuffle up, but does it really matter? Your meta is your meta, so long as they’re cool with it you’re good to go.
To anyone who plays commander outside of a kitchen table setting, nothing has changed. Official rules are the only rules.
Well, that's just not true. Either your meta plays with only the most ironclad of rules or they're sticklers for officialdom. Either way, if they don't allow house ruling, that's a shame for you and I sympathise, but this scenario is far from the norm, in my experience.
Besides which, while there's official rules, we're talking about a casual format here. The prize you're playing for is nothing more or less than enjoyment, no prize money, no trophy, just a good time. If your meta doesn't allow house rules for walkers in the CZ, find another meta. Better yet, make your own and invite people. Rule 0 now makes it explicit that if you decree this is legal in your meta, it's legal in your meta. It's a small victory, but in a lot of ways it's enough of a victory to count. Take the win for what it is, I'd say. If you're after a hard and fast global allowance you're obviously left wanting, but this gives you enough to keep your preferred meta happy.
It's funny that you bring that up, because if that is the case, then you are advocating for a change to those official rules that a majority oppose and only a bit over a third support. You are saying that you want the rules changed to cater to your tastes at the expense of the enjoyment of the majority of players. Because you cannot rely on house rules, you want to force your own, unpopular preferences to be the mandated rules.
It sounds uncharitable, but that is what your comments are actually saying. Maybe you really believe this, maybe you don't realize this is what you actually want, or maybe you are just reacting to arguments without thinking through the implications of how your responses add up.
Your obvious rebuttal would be that just because a majority feel one way doesn't make it right. I agree, I think the general feelings of the playerbase matter but that if that was all that mattered the format would have been ruined long ago. That's why there's value in having the format managed by people who take the opinions of the playerbase into account but who are change averse, knowledgeable, and willing to put their own preferences aside when making decisions. That ensures that while changes may not come as often or as quickly as they would in an optimized format, they are able to avoid bad decisions pretty well and its almost only changes that positively effect the format that sneak through.
Fundamentally though, the Crux of your argument for planeswalkers as commanders is that it's a popular idea and the RC is out of touch with players by not allowing it, but this poll, and others I've seen, suggest that the opposite is true.
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!
First, this isn't a detailed poll. It doesn't afford any room for caveat or for voter explanation. It merely provides two binary options and one apathy option. That's it. There's no indication of voter confidence. There's no "I don't know" option. It's just a crummy poll, only useful for a surface reading of what outcome voters think they prefer. And most folks, regardless of how they voted, probably put less than a gut's reaction into whatever they ultimately decided to vote for. You keep referring to this poll like it's sacrosanct, but it appears to me like something that should only be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, the apathy option is effectively a second yes vote. Those voters are saying they're perfectly fine with the rules being changed. To lump those voters in as "not yes," while technically true, is a bit misleading. As such, what you're really looking at isn't 33% of people supporting change. It's 47% of people saying they're fine with change.
Third, MTGS is practically the old guard of Commander. Between Facebook, Reddit, and other more prevalent platforms, MTGS sees only a tiny fraction of the total Commander discussion. The folks who do engage here tend to be among the most loyal and most enfranchised Commander players out there though. Combine that with the fact that the Commander Rules Discussion subforum has a reputation for being one of the most virulent parts of the board, and what you get is even fewer casual faces even making it to the poll to begin with. It hardly represents what the actual Commander playerbase thinks.
Now, I don't know how the Commander community at large feels about making planeswalkers commanders. I suspect less enfranchised players will be much more likely to favor that change, but that's only a suspicion. But to read this poll as "only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Its far from a perfect poll, but its still better than blatantly asserting that its a popular choice. The only evidence we have, while not great, points to it being unpopular. I've seen reddit polls that have varied between similar results, and pws being universally allowed as commanders getting a plurality, but not a majority. I have not pointed to the poll unless responding to a poster that claims, without a shred of evidence, that allowing all planeswalkers as commanders is something the majority of the player base is behind.
But even though the poll isn't particularly great (but still better than what the pro side has), I do have a quibble with this: "'only one in three people think this change should be made, so business as usual" isn't a great interpretation. If anything, this should be read as "nearly half of the old guard thinks it's okay for planeswalkers to be commanders." That, I think, is rather startling, especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something." The former interpretation simply states the facts, that only slightly more than a third favor the change, while the latter stretches to editorialize and make the pro side seem significantly stronger. All the poll shows is a majority, a little over half, being flat out against it, and a little over a third being for it, with the remainder, about 10%, not caring and thus not counting. They aren't an argument against allowing pws, nor are they an argument for it. Sure, they'd be fine with it, but just as fine without it. Lumping them in with the pros artificially inflates those numbers. And there's a big difference between not minding a change and actually wanting the change. Since one of the biggest arguments the pro side is making is that the public wants this change, they should actually demonstrate that. Making a change of this nature shouldn't be open to simple majority rule in the first place, but rather on what's best for the format, but it certainly should not be made based on what percent would merely be ok with the change. That less than half of the respondents are ok with making the change, not in favor but just ok, doesn't bode well for making the change.
And your last point "especially given just how easy it is for anyone to be against something but how hard it is to be for something" just isn't true at all. Studies have repeatedly shown that people are significantly more likely to vote yes than no and unsure combined when answering polls or voting on ballot initiatives. There's a significant yes bias, just like there is a significant first choice presented bias. Its easier to get things approved by the public than denied, and people who don't particularly care a more likely to break yes, even if an unsure option is available.
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!
Too many issues with that:
- type line spacenis limited and would limit what other card type info you included
- what do you do with the 700+ generals already? If you add the super type then you're doing functional errata
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Jace, Sculptor of Minds 2UU
Commander Planeswalker - Jace (MR)
+2: Look at the top card of target player's library. You may put that card on the bottom of that player's library.
0: Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.
-1: Return target creature to its owner's hand.
-12: Exile all cards from target player's library, then that player shuffles his or her hand into his or her library.
[3]
Basically Jace, the Mind Sculptor but legal only for this format and can be the commander of a deck.
What purpose does this serve? Letting Wizards do an end run around the RC to force all PWs to be commanders? It's a worse idea than wizards just stepping in and forcing the issue. It's downright cowardly, doing something (overruling the RC to change the rules of the formst) but trying to pretend like they aren't. Why would wizards want to do that when they could just force the change and stand by it to show confidence in it? Another issue is that this would effectively mean that every PW can be ran as a 2 of in commander, undermining an additional aspect of the format. This seems like it just adds more issues without actually solving any.
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!