A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on Paradox Engine
    Quote from Kelzam »
    I appreciate healthy debate and discussion over the format. BUT, it gets a bit ridiculous seeing months and months of discussion of the same handful of vocal people coming back and posting new anecdotal stories to try to crusade to make their case when the entire rest of the format has settled fine. Especially considering this card has been out in the wild for... *looks up the release date of Aether Revolt* ...almost 3 years, now. Because that's not enough, the argument is now "It's getting worse! New cards are being printed!" ...And? How many threads pop up here every set with a kneejerk reaction about the supposed power level of a card. Simic Ascendancy anyone? Narset, Parter of Veils? Razaketh, the Foulblooded? Please. Give the sensationalism a rest.

    Take a quick look at how long Sundering Titan was legal. Think about how it hits ban criteria. Do you think just because it went for so long it suddenly got worse?

    Consider a bunch of people actually have issues with PE, but don't post here.

    Yes there is, and always will be kneejerk. Panharmonicon was one from Revolt, but PE has actually been doing bannable stuff. You certainly do not have to discuss it, but please don't turn people who are into something else.

    Quote from Muspellsheimr »
    Paradox Engine is a 5 mana artifact that does literally nothing without both 1) an established board presence that benefits from untapping, and 2) spells to trigger it. It utilizes a triggered ability, and can be responded to.
    The card is a very strong enabler for a few, specific types of decks, and borderline unplayable everywhere else.

    If the card has been causing problems at your table, and you have still been unable to figure out how to deal with it, Paradox Engine is not the problem.
    You disliking a card is not valid grounds for banning.
    Dies to removal will always be a terrible argument
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Paradox Engine
    I think that's a pretty strong downplay of PE's ability, even in 'fair' decks. You really don't see untaping all your rocks and creatures that attacked or used abilities as very powerful? I think the level of it's brokenness may keep its use in check, not the idea it isnt good.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Paradox Engine
    Quote from WizardMN »
    I am not sure I agree that Paradox Engine should be banned simply because I think the bar for banning is, and needs to be, high. However, it is a miserable card to play against, for sure, for the reasons stated. And, while it does require "some" setup the setup it requires can basically boil down to "include, and play, mana rocks in your deck" which isn't a very limiting deck building "restriction". If it were ever to get banned, I would not miss it in the slightest.
    Sounds a lot like what got PoK banned.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Paradox Engine
    I know its been a year, but lets get some new feedback going here. I think PE just creates undesirable game-states. Its not even a combo, at least that kills me and we can get on with a new game. Too often this is the person casting two dozen things, then trying to figure out a way to win while taking a 30 minute turn. Free spells are bad, a bunch of free spells are worse.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on London Mulligan in Commander
    Quote from d0su »
    Back when Partial Paris was a thing, I did a lot of number crunching on different mulligan rules. In reality, Partial Paris was not the boogeyman that it was made out to be, since sculpting around a two-card combo was generally I’ll-advised. It mostly just improved the overall speed and importance of the early turns — though fewer games overall started with Sol Ring than with the “regular” mulligan rule.
    What data did you use to determine 1st turn Sol Ring was less prevalent with PP?

    Another thing PP allowed was shorting lands. People were often running ~30 because you could look at 10+ cards to get 3 lands.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Sacrifice outlet for karador
    Quote from Dunharrow »
    Disagree. I used to play it, long ago, but I realized that the inability to sacrifice more than one creature per turn cycle is a major problem. Spawning Pit is a bit better.
    The Pit does not draw cards, and Dais does not tap to use its second mode. 'Value Karador' in particular was where I saw its benefit the most.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on London Mulligan
    Quote from JqlGirl »
    Quote from cryogen »

    I found it off-putting that yesterday there was a noncommittal announcement that the RC was still taking feedback and hadn't made a decision yet, and today we got an official announcement. Not that it wasn't an unexpected decision.

    What did you find offputting about it? We sought input from the community, received overwhelming amounts of it very quickly, and came to a decision. We thought it would be best to not drag our feet on this decision as we didn't want to confuse the issue, so we made the announcement once everyone on the RC and CAG was in agreement.
    Less than 1 day isn't exactly a robust comment window. I was also pretty surprised the announcement came today, and wondered aloud 'why did they ask for input then?'. The RC/ CAG owe me nothing, but that timeline was off-putting.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Sacrifice outlet for karador
    Criminally underplayed is Culling Dais.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on hidden strings + ink-treader nephilim
    Thats a good catch, you can't use Hidden Strings with Ink Treader. You must choose 2 targets, but the tap/untap is optional.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on hidden strings + ink-treader nephilim
    "The decision whether or not to tap or untap is made on resolution." You can change each spell
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on London Mulligan
    Sheldon has posted on Social media they will decide by Core 2020 and is currently looking for input from the community
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Urza, Lord High Artificer
    Quote from umtiger »
    This card is obviously strong, but Urza isn't locking anyone out or being annoying (i.e. Erayo, Leovold). Urza just means your artifact deck is strong, kinda like how Rofellos means your forest deck is strong.
    You are aware Rofellos is banned? I don't think they really do the same thing, but thats a bad analogy if you mean Urza should not be banned.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Urza, Lord High Artificer
    I can't imagine anyone actually making you shuffle if you use his ability more than once without manipulation.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Immobilizer Eldrazi
    If Artifacts are part of your wincon, this needs to be in the deck
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.