A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on Is Evolving Wilds worth playing in 2 colour decks // Optimal land base for 2 colour deck
    Quote from Drain Life »
    There are so many great replies in here that I am hesitant to even add my own.

    I am a believer in using proxies if you own the card and it is an expensive staple. For example, I own one of each fetch land, especially thanks to Khans and Modern Masters 2 or what ever set it was. I keep them in a small binder with other powerful staples I proxy in multiple decks and can show them if needed. Having fetch lands changes the game. More so since check lands were printed. It took me a while I get my hands on them, but in my three and four color decks, the play line which involves a fetch land into a shock land and following that up with check lands is smooth. I cannot justify the cost of a full set of fetch lands for each deck, nor do I feel I should punish myself and only use them in one deck, nor do I want to swap them in and out between decks either, which I could and would just waste time. Especially for a kitchen table format without prizes.

    Lands are the perfect example of where MtG is "pay to win". Sure, you can use cheap commons and slow play, or use a ton of basics and suffer color screw, or you can buy expensive singles from the secondary card market and have a fast and smooth experience.

    So much of what I wanted to write was some variation of all the above, be it our holistic detective, Pokken the cat and others.


    Thanks for this post
    I personally dislike proxies and refuse to play with them. But that's just me. This is a good solution that I have seen by many people.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Angels Commander Thoughts
    I think the WB Innistrad angel will be in one of the precons this year.

    So basically, you need 5 colours.


    I would use Jodah. He is 5 colours, flies, and has some utility.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on New Website - MTGNexus
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Not only is it more convenient to stay, but I found the font and UI of Nexus to be miserable on PC, and only tolerable on mobile. Some of the people who made this site a good location are following the staff to Nexus, unfortunately. But given the attitude of the new owners so far, I am holding out hope that MTGS will have more continued support and possibly better features than Nexus. It could be that Nexus looks terrible because it's still in development, and the aesthetic nightmare will change. But currently I'm staying with the devils that I know.


    It has been a solid year that I only get alerts on 1/10 things that are supposed to generate alerts. I made a complaint and have heard nothing since.
    I am looking forward to the new site and to having the Mods also be the people responsible for making the site all we want it to be.

    If you have issues with the font and the UI maybe you can specifically mention the issues and they can work on them. I am also not huge on the font and would like to be able to change it to something else.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Awful, awful creatures with terrible downsides?
    Boldwyr Heavyweights

    I wish there was a way for me to put all these creatures into play under my opponents' control.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on New Website - MTGNexus
    Registered

    will have to get into the habit of checking it

    Will try to post any new threads there for sure.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Looking for a direction to take Oona, Queen of the Fae
    Run a lot of artifact ramp- 15-20 pieces. You want to get Oona out early and keep up protection
    Play a lot of two-card infinite mana combos. Probably all of them.
    Aggressively tutor for Urborg to make big black mana better.
    Ideally, you want to include Palinchron since it can go infinite with a lot of lands that tap for multiple mana.

    This is not a 75% deck. This is going to be cEDH or 90%. There is nothing about this deck that is fair, the only thing that differentiates the power level will be the number of tutors and the number of free counterspells you run.

    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you feel about promo foils instead of regular foils ?
    Quote from ox4 »
    i know its an old thread, but ive been wondering similar things lately as ive been foiling out my legacy burn deck....
    my general rule of thumb, both for my foil decks and non foils, is that the original printing is always the most desirable.
    im sure many of you realize that some of the burn cards were printed before there was such a thing as foils....
    so i pick up promos and reprints as close to the original as i can. the FNM magic fireblasts, the fire and lighting price of progress, i cant afford the judge lighting bolts, but they exist and are on my mega millions wish list.
    the only card in my deck that doesnt exist in foil with its original art is chain lighting, and i probably couldnt afford it even if it did.

    so anyway, Light up the stage is giving my OCD fits.
    which printing is the original printing? is it the pack foil? or the FNM promo? they both have the original art, and they both have the ravnica allegiance set symbol. i believe the promo was a pre release and was available about a week before you could buy the packs, but it feels wrong to say that the card in the booster packs for the set is not the original printing.

    as to my own personal artistic eye, the promo is cool just in that it looks different from all the other cards in my deck, but i like that the pack version has the rules explanation for spectacle.
    its not a very expensive card, i might wind up buying both versions, but im curious as to what other people think.
    thanks for your thoughts



    1. Necro an old Commander thread
    2. Talk about Legacy


    I don't know what to tell you. Play the foils you like best. If you can't afford to foil out the hold deck, then don't waste your money foiling out part of the deck.

    Honestly, foiling out expensive cards is something I rarely do. I prefer to foil out jank commons that are EDH all-stars.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Commander July 8th Banlist Update
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Quote from joejack8445 »
    Is Resevoir all that good in Urza decks without Paradox Engine?


    All you need is cloudstone curio esc card and 2 0 cost artifacts that’s it


    Cloudstone Curio doesn't combo with artifacts. Urza only taps artifacts. I don't see how this works.

    There are plenty of infinite mana combos, even without PE.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Paradox Engine
    Quote from RedGauntlet »
    Quote from Buffsam89 »
    Quote from Dunharrow »
    Well now I guess I am forcing PE in Modern.

    Banned because it wins seemingly out of nowhere. No other criteria mentioned.
    While other cards also meet this criteria, it seems they leaned on the fact that it requires little deckbuilding focus to be effective.

    I believe this is the first card to be banned because it wins seemingly out of nowhere since Coalition Victory. I do not know if this means other cards will start being more heavily considered for banning... but that seems like the logical conclusion.


    Certainly shocked, that’s for sure. There’s precedent now for similar cards gaining traction for potential bans. Tooth and Nail being the first card I think falls into a similar category.


    You know that tooth and Nail can be sued to tutor anything else that isn't combo right? Tell me what does Paradox Engine offers other then straight up combo? Untaping a couple of mana rocks to add more mana? Woow.

    Tough i think they could have explained more the reason why it was banned, but now people aginst the comitee will twist their words in this and used it as more ammuntion.


    I use it in two decks.
    Phenax uses it to mill opponents - kinda like Intruder alarm.
    Maelstrom Wanderer is competitive and can use it to combo, but main use is being able to activate Crystal Shard and Tradewind Rider multiple times per turn.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Could use some help trying to make a Tribal Eldrazi EDH deck
    I don't understand how you can play the biggest creatures in magic and say you don't have a win condition. Is attacking with big creatures not good enough?
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Commander Philosophy Document Discussion
    I am very disappointed in the brevity of the philosophy document.

    Honestly, what is meant by 'commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card.' Not all decks are political decks. What is being suggested here? Don't be too competitive? I am sorry, but for the entirety of my experience playing magic, I have never met someone with the same idea of what is too competitive.

    Is me assembling a 6-card combo too competitive?
    Is playing Winter Orb and Auriok Transfixer too competitive?


    I understand the philosophy of commander - but the document itself should be a lot longer if it aims to be a guide for how to build in commander.
    Instead, the only specifics in the document are about banning criteria, and we are told not to focus on them. Okay.

    Where would you like me to focus? Give me something tangible.

    If it were up to me, I would have said:
    Commander seeks to increase game-to-game variability by being a 100-card singleton format. Cards that lead to repetitive game play, such as tutors, are not in the spirit of the format.
    2-card combos that win the game on the spot are also not highly desirable, as it gives the sensation of winning out of nowhere. As such, easy to assemble combos are not in the spirit of the format.
    Something similar about stax and MLD
    etc.
    etc.
    With these guidelines in mind, we suggest that prior to every game of commander with players you do not know, you ask if their decks run: Tutors, combos, stax, mld. This is suggested to be part of the social guidelines to make sure that commander games are fun and social experiences.



    I think it was a mistake to also ban two cards on the same day as the document was released, since the focus is on the banning criteria and not the philosophy.

    The Philosophy document should be the focus, but it isn't, because most of it is about reasons for banning cards. Ban criteria should be a small part of the document. An important part, mind you - not one we should just ignore.



    I was very hopeful about the CAG, but right now I am just kinda bummed because I feel like we have gotten the same amount of clarity as we had before (that is, barely any).

    Instead of being told I am focusing on the wrong part, I would like to have an interactive discussion. I would like to know why the RC considers T&N fair game but not PE. 'Because the RC said so' is frustratingly unclear.




    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Banning Criteria discussion: Allow players to win out of nowhere
    Quote from bobthefunny »
    I fear that too much emphasis and scrutiny will be placed on the banning criteria. For me, the single most important line in the Philosophy document is this one:

    Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where and individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format).


    The banning "criteria" list is merely a guideline to help identify things which go against this spirit. It isn't a ruleboard. A card could in theory hit every single category, but still not be banned because it doesn't fundamentally impact the enjoyment or social aspect of the game. That's what's important, not the bullets. The bullets are there to help identify, not to measure.


    "Play nice" is very far from a structured commander philosophy.
    Let's say I interpret this as 'maybe I should cut my Reveillark combos'.
    And you interpret it as 'I should not play Eater of the Dead in Phenax'
    But then player 3 looks at this and says 'I will cut stasis and winter orb and put Dead-Eye Navigator and Palinchron instead'.


    I am actually very disappointed by the philosophy document. It is very vague... so instead of thinking about it philosophically, all we can discuss is the criteria for banning cards.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Banning Criteria discussion: Allow players to win out of nowhere
    Quote from JqlGirl »
    Wins out of nowhere is why Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, and Worldfire are also banned, among other reasons.
    Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.

    What other reasons were Paradox Engine banned for? This was the only thing mentioned, and also that doesn't require very specific deckbuilding. Isn't Tooth and Nail in the same boat?
    Biorhythm, CV and Worldfire interact poorly with the rules of the format.

    Quote from papa_funk »
    The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.

    Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
    That was not one of criteria on the list. I understand it is not a checklist, but that is also not a criteria for banning - it just tipped the scale.
    I would say that T&N also just has for incentive cards that you are already incentivized to play - mana and impactful creatures.


    If PE is banned then it seems to me that there are other cards that also seemingly win out of nowhere with minimal deckbuilding restraints. I think T&N is obvious. I think Expropriate is probably close.

    I understand that Doomsday is not played enough to be in the same conversation - that there is a consideration for how much a card is played - and I am not saying any of the cards I mentioned need to be banned. It just seems to me that PE is really the only card to be banned solely based on this one criteria, and that it ought to warrant discussion about other cards that play similarly to PE.

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on July 2019 Ban List Update
    Quote from JqlGirl »
    I feel it's equally important for everyone to read the new philosophy document as well as take in the new bans, so please give it a read once the mtgcommander.net site gets back up.

    That said, I'm happy to answer questions anyone might have about the announcement, so hmu.
    Hey Charlotte - how influential was the CAG in these three bannings?

    Do you believe the banning of Paradox Engine 'because it seemingly wins out of nowhere' is consistent with previous bannings or if it is an indication of a newer philosophy?
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Banning Criteria discussion: Allow players to win out of nowhere
    From the new philosophy document posted today, the list of reasons for cards to be banned are more or less:

    • Cause severe resource imbalances
    • Allow players to win out of nowhere
    • Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
    • Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
    • Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
    • Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
    • Lead to repetitive game play.

    I believe that the second point is not one that has been enforced since Coalition Victory (though Biorythm probably hits this and 'interacts poorly with the rules of commander').

    However, the second point was the main cause for Paradox Engine's banning:
    Paradox Engine is a card that has proven to be intensely problematic. Not only does it provide easy wins seemingly out of nowhere, it has demonstrated the potential to unintentionally wreck games. Easily inserted into any deck, it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play, generating a great deal of mana with virtually no deck building cost. While we don’t ban cards which are only problematic if you build around them, Paradox Engine has clearly demonstrated that it doesn’t need to be built around to be broken.


    It would seem that it was banned for providing easy wins out of nowhere, but that also considered was the fact that it required little deck building focus - it could go into many decks.

    I would like to discuss this because I believe this is the first banning of a card for this reason since the banlist was originally conceived, and because I think it opens the door for other cards to be considered for banning.

    What cards do you think should now be examined for similar reasons?

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.