There is a big difference between functional errata and templating. The only cards that I can think of that still have functional errata are Lotus Vale/Scorched Ruins/Mox Diamond making their ETB into a replacement effect.
Don't forget Candelabra of Tawnos. Adding in that tap symbol is pretty darn functional.
Ordinary Pony also got one less than a week ago, though silver borders are always exceptions.
But yeah, pretty few functional errata. Would rather have as few as possible
I think we need to agree on one thing, Erata is an active part of the game. Saying it isn't is being dishonest. Saying you "remember" doesn't count when in fact the cards words don't dictate how it works. Great we all have great memories, so errata text on a commander card shouldn't be more of an issue since everyone in this thread has no issue remembering everything about every card already. It is a sort of self defeating logic. This is only an issue since wizards stepped in and made commander an actual format vs EDH, a player format. Only matters since they started making commanders, new mechanics, and introing new broken cards.
I'm talking about simply listening to player base, looking at the low to no impact on competitive and realizing this would simply allow people to build decks in line with the formal rules to bring into a card shop with confidence. Winning a game with said commander and their not being a disagreement because it isn't official.
There is a big difference between functional errata and templating. The only cards that I can think of that still have functional errata are Lotus Vale/Scorched Ruins/Mox Diamond making their ETB into a replacement effect.
Don't forget Candelabra of Tawnos. Adding in that tap symbol is pretty darn functional.
Ordinary Pony also got one less than a week ago, though silver borders are always exceptions.
But yeah, pretty few functional errata. Would rather have as few as possible
It always tapped when it was used; Mono artifacts were able to be used once per turn round and the "tap" symbol was inherent to the Mono type. So no, adding the tap symbol to any Mono artifact was not functional errata.
Like every planeswalker prior to ixalan is Errata'd, lol. Do you play physical cards or just MTGO? I don't know anything about MTGO but I wonder how it handles errata and how many of the people commenting on here play MTGO. If it works as I suspect then it would explain the relative ignorance to Errata in a legacy format.
You're current on stuff but players who aren't online following the rules changes and Errata shifts don't internalize this stuff. I'm my play group I'm the guy who informs people, then they want me to google it and show them. Every, and I mean every game that goes past turn 5 has a ruling we need to lookup for a rare card interaction where errata or rulings are needed to see if the play works.
I'm not saying every legendary permanent needs to be a general, lol. Just that this house format has unofficial gen's who get lots of play. They frequently are not even competitive cards and so it would behoove Wizards to listen to the community. If they want to be lazy about it, they could simply do Errata. If they want to be cool they could make a commander from the vault product with new text on the cards in question.
It seems that the major sticking point for most people on this idea is the concept of Erata being bad, when in fact it is part of the format through and through. It's a legacy format. But if that is really the issue then wizards could cash in with a product for these fan favorites to print them, problem solved. I'm just saying wizards could listen to the audience here rather than making more game breaking generals in their precon products.
Like how many stinking generals don't even have their creature type on the card, seriously guys! Cromat thinks you all are silly.
I play exclusively with physical cards and almost exclusively Commander, so trust me, I see a lot of older cards (been playing Magic for 15 years and EDH/Commander for over 8 of those). I'm certainly not ignorant to the amount of errata - I just think you're making a bigger deal out of it than there is.
Let's look at your example of all pre-Ixalan Planeswalkers having errata. Is this true? Yes. But how does it affect gameplay and a player's understanding of how the card functions compared to how it was printed?
- Individual card level (looking at it in a vacuum): Planeswalkers are now legendary - easy to remember, but doesn't affect an individual card in any way. It does affect an individual card if played in multiples, but the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule (which also wasn't printed or referred to on the card) already handled that. I can't have two Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaohs on the battlefield now, but neither could I before, and not only because we're talking about a singleton format. Verdict: No change on this level.
- Other Planeswalker interactions: By doing away with the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule and adding the supertype Legendary, Wizards has simplified the rules - they've actually lowered rules complexity. How so? Before, we had to remember that you could have any number of versions of the same legendary creature as long as they had a different name, while planeswalkers had their own special rule that blocked it not only by name but also by type. Now, they all follow the same rule, and only the name matters. But again, the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule was never printed on the card, and neither are the rules regarding the supertype Legendary. I can now have Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker and Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh on the battlefield at the same time while I couldn't before - but nothing printed on the card ever made the previous situation apparent. Verdict: Minimal effect on this level in favor of the new changes making gameplay easier when looking at how the card was printed.
- Other card interactions: Adding the supertype Legendary does make slightly different gameplay with nine specific cards: Captain Sisay, Empress Galina, Honor-Worn Shaku, Lay Bare the Heart, Minamo, School at Water's Edge, Reki, the History of Kamigawa, Thalia's Lancers, Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper, and Yomiji, Who Bars the Way. The interactions do increase if you find yourself animating planeswalkers, as most cards that care about legendary refer to legendary creatures, but most interactions will be with these nine cards. And in all cases, the easy to remember "All planeswalkers are legendary" has it covered. Verdict: Some changes on this level - not too complex.
So, do you have specific examples from all of these games that go past turn five and require research and discussion because of errata? I'd really like to see a handful of examples because I rarely experience such a thing.
it would behoove Wizards to listen to the community
And who is the community? Do you have any evidence that the majority think things need to change? If a massive poll were somehow conducted and every single commander player was asked their opinion, what if it turned out the majority like it how it is?
I'm not saying errata is bad. I am saying errata is a tool that should be used as sparingly as possible. Cards should not keep changing from how they are printed unless absolutely necessary. Simplicity is a virtue that should be adhered to when possible. And I personally like where the format is at.
You still haven't addressed some of the questions I posed: What does the format gain by adding such rules? And is it worth the added complexity?
I still say "not enough" and "no."
Like every planeswalker prior to ixalan is Errata'd, lol. Do you play physical cards or just MTGO? I don't know anything about MTGO but I wonder how it handles errata and how many of the people commenting on here play MTGO. If it works as I suspect then it would explain the relative ignorance to Errata in a legacy format.
You're current on stuff but players who aren't online following the rules changes and Errata shifts don't internalize this stuff. I'm my play group I'm the guy who informs people, then they want me to google it and show them. Every, and I mean every game that goes past turn 5 has a ruling we need to lookup for a rare card interaction where errata or rulings are needed to see if the play works.
I'm not saying every legendary permanent needs to be a general, lol. Just that this house format has unofficial gen's who get lots of play. They frequently are not even competitive cards and so it would behoove Wizards to listen to the community. If they want to be lazy about it, they could simply do Errata. If they want to be cool they could make a commander from the vault product with new text on the cards in question.
It seems that the major sticking point for most people on this idea is the concept of Erata being bad, when in fact it is part of the format through and through. It's a legacy format. But if that is really the issue then wizards could cash in with a product for these fan favorites to print them, problem solved. I'm just saying wizards could listen to the audience here rather than making more game breaking generals in their precon products.
Like how many stinking generals don't even have their creature type on the card, seriously guys! Cromat thinks you all are silly.
I play exclusively with physical cards and almost exclusively Commander, so trust me, I see a lot of older cards (been playing Magic for 15 years and EDH/Commander for over 8 of those). I'm certainly not ignorant to the amount of errata - I just think you're making a bigger deal out of it than there is.
Let's look at your example of all pre-Ixalan Planeswalkers having errata. Is this true? Yes. But how does it affect gameplay and a player's understanding of how the card functions compared to how it was printed?
- Individual card level (looking at it in a vacuum): Planeswalkers are now legendary - easy to remember, but doesn't affect an individual card in any way. It does affect an individual card if played in multiples, but the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule (which also wasn't printed or referred to on the card) already handled that. I can't have two Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaohs on the battlefield now, but neither could I before, and not only because we're talking about a singleton format. Verdict: No change on this level.
- Other Planeswalker interactions: By doing away with the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule and adding the supertype Legendary, Wizards has simplified the rules - they've actually lowered rules complexity. How so? Before, we had to remember that you could have any number of versions of the same legendary creature as long as they had a different name, while planeswalkers had their own special rule that blocked it not only by name but also by type. Now, they all follow the same rule, and only the name matters. But again, the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule was never printed on the card, and neither are the rules regarding the supertype Legendary. I can now have Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker and Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh on the battlefield at the same time while I couldn't before - but nothing printed on the card ever made the previous situation apparent. Verdict: Minimal effect on this level in favor of the new changes making gameplay easier when looking at how the card was printed.
- Other card interactions: Adding the supertype Legendary does make slightly different gameplay with nine specific cards: Captain Sisay, Empress Galina, Honor-Worn Shaku, Lay Bare the Heart, Minamo, School at Water's Edge, Reki, the History of Kamigawa, Thalia's Lancers, Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper, and Yomiji, Who Bars the Way. The interactions do increase if you find yourself animating planeswalkers, as most cards that care about legendary refer to legendary creatures, but most interactions will be with these nine cards. And in all cases, the easy to remember "All planeswalkers are legendary" has it covered. Verdict: Some changes on this level - not too complex.
So, do you have specific examples from all of these games that go past turn five and require research and discussion because of errata? I'd really like to see a handful of examples because I rarely experience such a thing.
it would behoove Wizards to listen to the community
And who is the community? Do you have any evidence that the majority think things need to change? If a massive poll were somehow conducted and every single commander player was asked their opinion, what if it turned out the majority like it how it is?
I'm not saying errata is bad. I am saying errata is a tool that should be used as sparingly as possible. Cards should not keep changing from how they are printed unless absolutely necessary. Simplicity is a virtue that should be adhered to when possible. And I personally like where the format is at.
You still haven't addressed some of the questions I posed: What does the format gain by adding such rules? And is it worth the added complexity?
I still say "not enough" and "no."
Very well formulated. I respect your opinion here.
FTR, I'm not a fan of the changes they've made to legendary rules or planeswalkers in the past 10 years. I have other issues with flavor of now having multiple jace's on the board... as if planeswalkers weren't already super powerful... The original gamble of legendary and planeswalker cards that naturally inhibited their power especially in a limited environment is now near completely gone. I think these rules are contributing to the downturn of standard and the rise of legacy type formats. There are lots of zero cost opportunities in rulings alone for wizards to right its own ship in this regard.
I think remembering if a card is ruled a commander while looking like one but not technically being one, or not being printed as partner is same as all the legendary permanents missing sub types. I think its not really an issue plane and simple any more than all other game relevant errata. But apparently that is just me. I will refute the original popular assertion on here that errata isn't really a thing simply because most hardcore magic players (and if your on this forum your harder than most) can internalize so much errata passively. Planeswalkers are simply an easy example of a small rules change that had a massive impact on errata for cards printed in the modern block. Cards that interact with legendary permanents now interact with planeswalkers. If I cared to put more time into debating this we could dive into modern and standard rulings and errata but it seems the opposition has their minds set.
Maybe its cause of when I came of age in magic but I'm simply used to the text on the card being a teaser for what it does not the determinant. I grew up in magic with wizards banning cards in standard, making game changing rulings on cards, and on card text being a bit of a mess. But I still look around today and watch wizards make rules changes seemingly because they can when it breaks as much or more than it fixes... inviting errata into current formats... and I'm just sort of jaded about it.
I hear about Genju of the realm all the time. I used to know 5 people with Genju decks pre commander in the days of EDH. Might just be my circle of influence. I know EDH rec has only 75 decks for that unofficial gen, but clearly there is interest. I feel like there is opportunity here, seems to bother everyone else though.
I think the reason we(as a community) and WotC(for the most part) want/try to keep things simple/non-erratad can be summed up in one word:
Banding.
HEY! I still dream of making a banding deck just to see if i can get everyone else to give up due to confusion of how it works....
I also like the fact that now my token deck can benefit from allthreeElspeths at the same time
I didn't say it wasn't good, just that it definitely hurts the flavor of the cards as well as crippling the balance already designed into those cards. Sure some planes walkers were OP, but not every deck could run them for fear of running into a deck with them... same thing with other legendary focused decks. Their application was naturally limited by design. Then they went and changed the rules changing the balance and power of said cards in one foul swoop. Not to mention undoing the entire design of the "legend" and Planeswalker "partner" dynamic of the cards as they were conceived. Two thumbs way down on that front. Might as well start changing the casting costs of cards after they are printed if you want to re-balance them so badly.
I'm sorry, I'm pretty passionate about the legends and planeswalker rulings. I run a Empress Galina deck, all this has benefited me a lot in game... but darn it the flavor! Plus I'll admit clones were allot more fun of a card back under the old rulings, now they kinda suck.
In regards of allowed vs not allowed commanders, on some level I'd rather any creature be allowed to be a Commander. One of the most annoying aspects of EDH for me personally, is I am unable really able to build around my favorite card; Underworld Cerberus. The reason I love the card is he is a Grave Hate and Grave Matters all at the same time. You cannot really run most reanimation spells, and your limited with what removal spells you can and cannot play. But he is all grave protection. It truly a fascinating card.
This isn't to say said card couldn't result in dumb things, sense his interaction with Commander rules, makes his death ability reusable. It wouldn't fix everything, see Brothers Yamizaki and the shadows, Gisela and Bruna. Or the various totally not Legendary Creatures, Legendary Creatures (see Genju). However it would mean that we are no longer waiting for certain archetypes to get explicit support with Legendary Creatures (U/R Artifacts for example). The other issue is that it makes troublesome creatures, that aren't legendary, Prophet of Kruphix when it was legal, all the worse.
I guess comes down to as is often said 'ask your playgroup' and 'don't be an ass'. I think personally if a card became a known problem, Commander such as Narset. It would become pseudo banned, by many playgroups anyways even with that kind of rule change. I will admit, its partly because I do just really want to build an EDH deck around Underworld Cerberus, sense its a card that doesn't really fit into constructed 60 card. And casual 60 has died, replaced by Commander. So take that for what it is. (Through I will admit that Dwarf Onslaught Legend, plays similarly at least aesthetically. But the issue is for me, he doesn't provide as interesting deckbuilding questions Cerberus does).
In regards of allowed vs not allowed commanders, on some level I'd rather any creature be allowed to be a Commander. One of the most annoying aspects of EDH for me personally, is I am unable really able to build around my favorite card; Underworld Cerberus. The reason I love the card is he is a Grave Hate and Grave Matters all at the same time. You cannot really run most reanimation spells, and your limited with what removal spells you can and cannot play. But he is all grave protection. It truly a fascinating card.
I feel your sentiment, though I see how that sort of fundamental shift would be a new format entirely. (less so I guess with the legendary rules revision, legend is more a fluff status now than something of meaningful significance.)
For me part of the issue is desiring that Wizards should listen to the commanders people want. 5 color angel commander please! Goofy stuff like that. Making cards like Brisela w/o considering partner generals when they are cards designed at the same time. Not even considering melding itself when making the partner generals...
Better yet the flip commanders we have I'm surprised they haven't done something with that. Arlin Cord and other Legendary Flip cards, many are fun but few are good for EDH. Given how players love them, do something with them!
But now I'm getting into the realm of designing things and they have people on pay roll for that. I simply wanted some fan favorite commanders that are unofficial legendary's to be made official with Erata because wizards can and it would cost nothing.
I've been playing MTG since July 2017. I have no idea realy what errata is other than I'm guessing based of this thread it means cards that have been reprinted with updated rules text. Aside from that, planes walker commanders terrible idea, making single card exceptions out side of house rules terrible idea i don't even like the partner rule either. Keep it simple, if it's not a legendary CREATURE then no.
I've been playing MTG since July 2017. I have no idea realy what errata is other than I'm guessing based of this thread it means cards that have been reprinted with updated rules text.
Close. An erratum is a correction to published text, not necessarily accompanied with a reprint of that text. While a card which receives errata and is later reprinted will have the corrected text printed on the new version, receiving errata is not sufficient to get a reprint. The point of the Oracle database is to be a reference for errata.
I know this is probably late to the discussion. I'd just like to add unequivocally that Brisela is very much NOT hard to assemble. I run the higher CMC half of the meld, and there are several different ways to find Gisela and get that rolling. It's a reasonably strong build regardless, but it is by no means difficult to achieve the meld.
I honestly think the less involvement WOTC has in rulings for commander the better. The RC has a light touch with a lot of flexibility and it works smoothly, aside from a small, vocal part of the community that want to play competitive - so be it, they can do what they like.
Like many things in life the answer seems to be 'keep it simple'.
I feel like there is plenty of creativity within the format that we need not worry about every legendary permanent being able to be a commander. Think of the different combinations the partner commanders allow ALONE - it's enormous. Then there's a whole lot of archetypal decks with similar commanders, vorthos builds, commanders with versatility in build style - really, we're already spoiled for choice, is there really a need for more from any perspective, whether it be competitive or creative? To my mind the answer is no. There are creatures out there that I'd love to build around (looking your way Empyrial Archangel) but as it is I have at least a dozen decks of various types - enchantress, token, group hug, combo, reanimator, 4 different vorthos, I really don't need more. Not to mention that there are literally thousands of cards that can be arranged in different ways for different synergies; even if you don't find the perfect commander by some strange chance, there are literally myriad different cards you can use for a unique experience.
Let's not forget that even among the already legal cards, not all of them work properly as commanders. There are cards like Jiwari, the Earth Aflame that require compromising on how they're designed and poor Haakon, Stromgald Scourge which can't do anything at all. While I'm OK with someone wanting to house rule whatever random card as a commander, I would rather a discussion about the official rules entertain the possibility of improving the use of the already existent pool before looking to expand it with additional cards.*
*Perhaps a rule that says "You may pay your commander tax to put the card from your command zone into your hand"? Who knows?
Command Beacon solves all of the problems with commanders that really want to be in your hand at some point. (Once he's in your hand, Haakon is pretty easy to get into the graveyard.) Command Beacon was the reason I built Iname as One.
Not being able to use a number of legendary creatures as commanders without being forced to include, tutor, and spam one very specific card only echoes the problem. The rules should never make someone feel like a certain portion of their deck is pre-decided for them if they want to use any of these in the command zone.
Remember that cards are not designed specifically with Commander in mind. A lot of these cards might make a splash in other formats, but not fire well in EDH. That's not WOTC's problem, as it's not their format. I get the argument, I just think there's plenty of choice already, and if you're absolutely dedicated to playing a deck with an obscure commander or one that requires hoops to be jumped through, then you'll clear the hoops or find another option.
Remember that cards are not designed specifically with Commander in mind. A lot of these cards might make a splash in other formats, but not fire well in EDH. That's not WOTC's problem, as it's not their format.
You misunderstand. When I mentioned about a card's design, I meant the card's rules text and nothing more. To wit, if a legendary creature says "does X", then having it in the command zone should allow it to do X. Under normal circumstances there are some legendary creatures where this isn't possible under the current rules and that's my point. (Well, part of my point. The other part is that I don't agree with the orignal poster's idea of allowing all of their purposed cards as legal commanders.)
Weather or not a card as a commander is any good strategy wise is a player issue is not relevant to my argument.
I get the argument, I just think there's plenty of choice already, ...
I doubt there will too many players who would agree they don't need more cards to play with. Besides, I'm not asking more cards be added to the pool the way the original post purposes (because technically all of these can already be put into the command zone), but rather to allow more accessibility to what's already present (so you can actually do the cool thing that your card is supposed to do).
... and if you're absolutely dedicated to playing a deck with an obscure commander or one that requires hoops to be jumped through, then you'll clear the hoops or find another option.
Jumping through hoops to make a legendary creature worth playing as a commander is one thing. Jumping through hoops to use it as a commamnder at all is quite another.
The whole point of the format is that you have this legendary creature you really like and now you can build your entire deck around it. If the rules make it unnecessarily difficult (by cornering you into playing a specific card or subset of cards for example) or even impossible, that's an issue with the the format itself and not the card specifically.
Jumping through hoops to make a legendary creature worth playing as a commander is one thing. Jumping through hoops to use it as a commamnder at all is quite another.
The whole point of the format is that you have this legendary creature you really like and now you can build your entire deck around it. If the rules make it unnecessarily difficult (by cornering you into playing a specific card or subset of cards for example) or even impossible, that's an issue with the the format itself and not the card specifically.
You're looking at it backwards. It's not the rules that make it unnecessarily difficult to run a handful of the 739 legendary creatures - it's those creatures. The other 700+ have no problems with the rules as they exist.
You would be correct if the rules caused an issue with the majority of legendary creatures, but they don't. Therefore, you have to look at the specific problem cards as exceptions, rather than the rule. And that means that it is a problem with the card specifically and not with the format.
I can agree with this. If there were a large number of legendary creatures missing out I'd be concerned. But this isn't the only area in life in which a rule doesn't have at least a small number of exceptions.
With regards to the small few who simply are too difficult to build around reading the card as it is written, I'd suggest that house rules could be devised to work around them as needed.
For the record, there are seven legendary creatures that care about whether you cast it from your hand (five of which can be supplemented with That Which Was Taken and one of which can additionally be supplemented with Kindred Boon), plus Haakon (can only cast from 'yard) and Ith (can only suspend from hand). I'm not aware of any other commanders that have the problems these nine share, so that's 9/703 cards the Command Zone doesn't work perfectly for; 1.28%
Don't forget Candelabra of Tawnos. Adding in that tap symbol is pretty darn functional.
Ordinary Pony also got one less than a week ago, though silver borders are always exceptions.
But yeah, pretty few functional errata. Would rather have as few as possible
I'm talking about simply listening to player base, looking at the low to no impact on competitive and realizing this would simply allow people to build decks in line with the formal rules to bring into a card shop with confidence. Winning a game with said commander and their not being a disagreement because it isn't official.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
Let's look at your example of all pre-Ixalan Planeswalkers having errata. Is this true? Yes. But how does it affect gameplay and a player's understanding of how the card functions compared to how it was printed?
- Individual card level (looking at it in a vacuum): Planeswalkers are now legendary - easy to remember, but doesn't affect an individual card in any way. It does affect an individual card if played in multiples, but the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule (which also wasn't printed or referred to on the card) already handled that. I can't have two Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaohs on the battlefield now, but neither could I before, and not only because we're talking about a singleton format. Verdict: No change on this level.
- Other Planeswalker interactions: By doing away with the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule and adding the supertype Legendary, Wizards has simplified the rules - they've actually lowered rules complexity. How so? Before, we had to remember that you could have any number of versions of the same legendary creature as long as they had a different name, while planeswalkers had their own special rule that blocked it not only by name but also by type. Now, they all follow the same rule, and only the name matters. But again, the Planeswalker Uniqueness rule was never printed on the card, and neither are the rules regarding the supertype Legendary. I can now have Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker and Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh on the battlefield at the same time while I couldn't before - but nothing printed on the card ever made the previous situation apparent. Verdict: Minimal effect on this level in favor of the new changes making gameplay easier when looking at how the card was printed.
- Other card interactions: Adding the supertype Legendary does make slightly different gameplay with nine specific cards: Captain Sisay, Empress Galina, Honor-Worn Shaku, Lay Bare the Heart, Minamo, School at Water's Edge, Reki, the History of Kamigawa, Thalia's Lancers, Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper, and Yomiji, Who Bars the Way. The interactions do increase if you find yourself animating planeswalkers, as most cards that care about legendary refer to legendary creatures, but most interactions will be with these nine cards. And in all cases, the easy to remember "All planeswalkers are legendary" has it covered. Verdict: Some changes on this level - not too complex.
So, do you have specific examples from all of these games that go past turn five and require research and discussion because of errata? I'd really like to see a handful of examples because I rarely experience such a thing. And who is the community? Do you have any evidence that the majority think things need to change? If a massive poll were somehow conducted and every single commander player was asked their opinion, what if it turned out the majority like it how it is?
I'm not saying errata is bad. I am saying errata is a tool that should be used as sparingly as possible. Cards should not keep changing from how they are printed unless absolutely necessary. Simplicity is a virtue that should be adhered to when possible. And I personally like where the format is at.
You still haven't addressed some of the questions I posed: What does the format gain by adding such rules? And is it worth the added complexity?
I still say "not enough" and "no."
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Very well formulated. I respect your opinion here.
FTR, I'm not a fan of the changes they've made to legendary rules or planeswalkers in the past 10 years. I have other issues with flavor of now having multiple jace's on the board... as if planeswalkers weren't already super powerful... The original gamble of legendary and planeswalker cards that naturally inhibited their power especially in a limited environment is now near completely gone. I think these rules are contributing to the downturn of standard and the rise of legacy type formats. There are lots of zero cost opportunities in rulings alone for wizards to right its own ship in this regard.
I think remembering if a card is ruled a commander while looking like one but not technically being one, or not being printed as partner is same as all the legendary permanents missing sub types. I think its not really an issue plane and simple any more than all other game relevant errata. But apparently that is just me. I will refute the original popular assertion on here that errata isn't really a thing simply because most hardcore magic players (and if your on this forum your harder than most) can internalize so much errata passively. Planeswalkers are simply an easy example of a small rules change that had a massive impact on errata for cards printed in the modern block. Cards that interact with legendary permanents now interact with planeswalkers. If I cared to put more time into debating this we could dive into modern and standard rulings and errata but it seems the opposition has their minds set.
Maybe its cause of when I came of age in magic but I'm simply used to the text on the card being a teaser for what it does not the determinant. I grew up in magic with wizards banning cards in standard, making game changing rulings on cards, and on card text being a bit of a mess. But I still look around today and watch wizards make rules changes seemingly because they can when it breaks as much or more than it fixes... inviting errata into current formats... and I'm just sort of jaded about it.
I hear about Genju of the realm all the time. I used to know 5 people with Genju decks pre commander in the days of EDH. Might just be my circle of influence. I know EDH rec has only 75 decks for that unofficial gen, but clearly there is interest. I feel like there is opportunity here, seems to bother everyone else though.
Banding.
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)
HEY! I still dream of making a banding deck just to see if i can get everyone else to give up due to confusion of how it works....
I also like the fact that now my token deck can benefit from all three Elspeths at the same time
That is a cool mechanic that is too confusing in the actual rules text, lol.
I didn't say it wasn't good, just that it definitely hurts the flavor of the cards as well as crippling the balance already designed into those cards. Sure some planes walkers were OP, but not every deck could run them for fear of running into a deck with them... same thing with other legendary focused decks. Their application was naturally limited by design. Then they went and changed the rules changing the balance and power of said cards in one foul swoop. Not to mention undoing the entire design of the "legend" and Planeswalker "partner" dynamic of the cards as they were conceived. Two thumbs way down on that front. Might as well start changing the casting costs of cards after they are printed if you want to re-balance them so badly.
I'm sorry, I'm pretty passionate about the legends and planeswalker rulings. I run a Empress Galina deck, all this has benefited me a lot in game... but darn it the flavor! Plus I'll admit clones were allot more fun of a card back under the old rulings, now they kinda suck.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This isn't to say said card couldn't result in dumb things, sense his interaction with Commander rules, makes his death ability reusable. It wouldn't fix everything, see Brothers Yamizaki and the shadows, Gisela and Bruna. Or the various totally not Legendary Creatures, Legendary Creatures (see Genju). However it would mean that we are no longer waiting for certain archetypes to get explicit support with Legendary Creatures (U/R Artifacts for example). The other issue is that it makes troublesome creatures, that aren't legendary, Prophet of Kruphix when it was legal, all the worse.
I guess comes down to as is often said 'ask your playgroup' and 'don't be an ass'. I think personally if a card became a known problem, Commander such as Narset. It would become pseudo banned, by many playgroups anyways even with that kind of rule change. I will admit, its partly because I do just really want to build an EDH deck around Underworld Cerberus, sense its a card that doesn't really fit into constructed 60 card. And casual 60 has died, replaced by Commander. So take that for what it is. (Through I will admit that Dwarf Onslaught Legend, plays similarly at least aesthetically. But the issue is for me, he doesn't provide as interesting deckbuilding questions Cerberus does).
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
I feel your sentiment, though I see how that sort of fundamental shift would be a new format entirely. (less so I guess with the legendary rules revision, legend is more a fluff status now than something of meaningful significance.)
For me part of the issue is desiring that Wizards should listen to the commanders people want. 5 color angel commander please! Goofy stuff like that. Making cards like Brisela w/o considering partner generals when they are cards designed at the same time. Not even considering melding itself when making the partner generals...
Better yet the flip commanders we have I'm surprised they haven't done something with that. Arlin Cord and other Legendary Flip cards, many are fun but few are good for EDH. Given how players love them, do something with them!
But now I'm getting into the realm of designing things and they have people on pay roll for that. I simply wanted some fan favorite commanders that are unofficial legendary's to be made official with Erata because wizards can and it would cost nothing.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I honestly think the less involvement WOTC has in rulings for commander the better. The RC has a light touch with a lot of flexibility and it works smoothly, aside from a small, vocal part of the community that want to play competitive - so be it, they can do what they like.
Like many things in life the answer seems to be 'keep it simple'.
I feel like there is plenty of creativity within the format that we need not worry about every legendary permanent being able to be a commander. Think of the different combinations the partner commanders allow ALONE - it's enormous. Then there's a whole lot of archetypal decks with similar commanders, vorthos builds, commanders with versatility in build style - really, we're already spoiled for choice, is there really a need for more from any perspective, whether it be competitive or creative? To my mind the answer is no. There are creatures out there that I'd love to build around (looking your way Empyrial Archangel) but as it is I have at least a dozen decks of various types - enchantress, token, group hug, combo, reanimator, 4 different vorthos, I really don't need more. Not to mention that there are literally thousands of cards that can be arranged in different ways for different synergies; even if you don't find the perfect commander by some strange chance, there are literally myriad different cards you can use for a unique experience.
*Perhaps a rule that says "You may pay your commander tax to put the card from your command zone into your hand"? Who knows?
There are also a number of cards with no color identity that can recur lands from your graveyard, if you want to reuse Command Beacon (Petrified Field, Crucible of Worlds, Reito Lantern, Junktroller, etc.)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
You misunderstand. When I mentioned about a card's design, I meant the card's rules text and nothing more. To wit, if a legendary creature says "does X", then having it in the command zone should allow it to do X. Under normal circumstances there are some legendary creatures where this isn't possible under the current rules and that's my point. (Well, part of my point. The other part is that I don't agree with the orignal poster's idea of allowing all of their purposed cards as legal commanders.)
Weather or not a card as a commander is any good strategy wise is a player issue is not relevant to my argument.
I doubt there will too many players who would agree they don't need more cards to play with. Besides, I'm not asking more cards be added to the pool the way the original post purposes (because technically all of these can already be put into the command zone), but rather to allow more accessibility to what's already present (so you can actually do the cool thing that your card is supposed to do).
Jumping through hoops to make a legendary creature worth playing as a commander is one thing. Jumping through hoops to use it as a commamnder at all is quite another.
The whole point of the format is that you have this legendary creature you really like and now you can build your entire deck around it. If the rules make it unnecessarily difficult (by cornering you into playing a specific card or subset of cards for example) or even impossible, that's an issue with the the format itself and not the card specifically.
You would be correct if the rules caused an issue with the majority of legendary creatures, but they don't. Therefore, you have to look at the specific problem cards as exceptions, rather than the rule. And that means that it is a problem with the card specifically and not with the format.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
With regards to the small few who simply are too difficult to build around reading the card as it is written, I'd suggest that house rules could be devised to work around them as needed.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)