Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    yes, academy. fixed. Sorry, I was just searching for tolaria west's in my collection to sell at GP cleveland so had them on the brain. thanks amulet titan!:P
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    The thing to remember that's really hard to remember is that "too much mana too quickly" has to be assessed in its optimal state. At least, that is the conclusion I have reached by looking at the history of the banlist on that front--specifically tolarian academy being on there despite in its casual state being rather weaker than Gaea's Cradle or even Mana Crypt, and also how Metalworker was ever on there at all when it's basically completely harmless in a casual deck.

    In the 99 in its optimal state, Rofellos is surely not any worse than Metalworker in terms of mana production; MW is an order of magnitude stronger in well tuned decks meant to take advantage of it.

    In the command zone, Rofellos is significantly stronger than MW, since the Rofellos deck creates a basically 100% chance of +3 mana on turn 3 and +4 on turn 4 which is a crapload. I'm just not sure if that's worse than Mana Crypt still or not, since even a 10% chance or so of +2 mana on turn 1 is quite powerful.

    When the argument becomes about how easy it is to do or how much support it requires it slips into "problematic casual omnipresence" by virtue of fitting into too many scenarios/decks.

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Challenge: Break This Rule
    (after tons of noodling on this over the years) I think in order for the command tower rule to work the exile needs to be random, to punish greedy keeps. or alternatively reveal and someone chooses one.

    And even then I'm not sure Smile
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Challenge: Break This Rule
    The biggest issue is that lean mana decks can run <20 lands and just count on this to get them back into it, instead of needing to run closer to 30.

    I've tried and tried to think about how we could just allow Command Tower to live in the command zone for example but any sort of free land just runs roughshod over deckbuilding, especially on the edges of the spectrum. Even with 2 lands behind as the rule, decks that only need small amounts of land will be able to adjust their land counts significantly (and gain a large advantage).

    It's frustrating but I cannot think of a way to fix mana screw without benefitting spikier decks too much.

    Decks that play a ton of non-land ramp also benefit, which is a big problem.

    Even fiddling with the mulligan rules much (e.g. allowing another free mull if your hand is <=1 land) will do the same thing.

    It's possible some kind of rider can be placed for "If your available mana production is less than" but that becomes quite fuzzy--where does Grim Monolith factor, and how does a Voltaic Key or Unwinding Clock factor in? It'd create a lot of annoying corner cases.

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from LouCypher »
    So weirdly I think that dork decks would see play but they'd mostly be worse than Ezuri. But it would see play and contribute to seeming omnipresence.


    As someone who has played dork decks under both Selvalas, I can safely say that they're not directly worse, just different. They trade a bit of explosiveness in for more stability, and that's exactly what I fear will happen if Rofellos is allowed to roam free on the format. Dorks do add to Rofellos in that you now have 7 mana T3 instead of 6, and there are certain cards sitting at 7 mana t


    Selvala is MUCH different than Rofellos with respect to dorks, because a turn 1 accelerant puts her out on turn 2. Rofellos does not come out earlier from a t1 dork.

    Decks are essentially mandatory in Selvala because casting her on turn 3 is pretty medium. If Rofello cost 3, I would obviously think differently.

    The difference between 7 and 6 mana is much smaller than the difference between 8 mana on turn 3 and not untapping with selvala til turn 4 Smile

    Quote from Taleran »
    Speaking of Sevala 2.0 I think in Mono-G there are a lot of situations where she can make more mana quicker than Roff ever could. So I see where the idea comes from to take a look at him again.


    I think that you can make the argument that selvala is at least comparable in some ways. Rofellos offers more raw power to cmc but selvala brings some card advantage and more explosiveness with a more flexible manabase.

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Theres also the fact that he scales pretty well with commander tax, since the longer the game goes the more mana he produces, so recasting him for... i dunno, 10 isnt that bad if hes going to tap for 8+ mana next turn.


    Definitely a legitimate point.

    I surely noticed that with Maelstrom Wanderer decks, they tended to cover the spread whenever he died just on cascading into more ramp.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from cryogen »
    I dunno. Elfball is a think and being able to have reliable large quantities of mana would just empower those decks even more.


    So weirdly I think that dork decks would see play but they'd mostly be worse than Ezuri. But it would see play and contribute to seeming omnipresence.

    I'm still kinda noodling on it but I think rof's design lends himself to playing more, better, higher impact cards and less ramp - really you don't need to play much ramp at all, except maybe a handful of the better land search spells (the 3 cmc and 4 CMC ones that are + cards).

    (edit: though of course people would play the stronger 0 cmc rocks in competitive builds, I don't expect you'd see a lot of lotus petals in most rof decks).

    He basically is like having a high powered dork in the command zone, so the value added from having dorks goes down quite a bit. Kind of the same way that creature tutors are less valuable in a Momir Vig deck, and card draw less valuable in Prime Speaker Zeg, etc.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    The durdles were referenced as part of the issue with Prophet of Kruphix so I think taking an extremely long nondeterministic "combo" turn definitely violates problematic game states in some fashion. Taking very long turns is honestly one of the worst offenses in my mind.

    Re: Roffelcopter
    I think he's really borderline; he violates the too much mana too quickly ban criteria and none other, but being in the command zone exacerbates it.

    Rofellos generates +3 mana on turn 3, which I don't think is really that big of a deal because there are a number of decks that can do this in more colors fairly consistently; most artifact ramp decks and most mana dork ramp decks will do this. Rofellos gets to play fewer bad supporting cards, but at the cost of not playing more than a handful of utility lands, which is a real cost, though arguable whether it's worse than having to play a bunch of ramp spells.

    However, BW inspired me to run the math, and, assuming you play:


    Your odds of a turn 1 Rofellos are pretty disturbingly high especially with mulligans (~30% pre-mulligan). I think I just assumed that would be rarer than it was for some reason.

    I'm not sure if that changes the calculus or not, since a turn 2 Azusa is significantly more likely (~60% with 10 turn 0 or 1 ramp sources, which is pretty common, 40% with 6).

    My suspicion is that if Azusa is not currently a blight on the format, Roffelcopter wouldn't be much worse. He does have a few ways to be more annoying casually (enabling a fairly budget elf deck that'd be very powerful, for example), but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

    I think I would need to see it in practice but I think the game has changed quite a bit since Primeval Titan and then Sylvan Primordial ruled the format. Multicolored bombs have really changed the color dynamic a bit, and they've actually printed a crazy number of bombs in other colors in recent years that didn't previously have stuff like Sylvan Primordial

    (Stuff like thousand-year storm, swarm intelligence, Sunbird's invocation, and so on).

    On the flipside of that, the colorless bombs from the latest Zendikar block are kinda scary, adding newlamog to the Rofellos deck maybe is scary? It doesn't seem to have fundamentally broken Azusa decks, but I dunno. Rof can be a hair faster than her.

    ------------------------

    My summary thinking at this point is that at the very least the comparison to Azusa is very fair. Both have extremely high odds of generating 8-10 mana on turn 4, which is actually fairly comparable to Metalworker or PE--though their offense goes way down outside of the command zone obviously.

    There're pros and cons of each commander, but Rofellos can do it in more ways (medium lands elves, heavy lands, low lands with land search) and with less support (playing 30+ forests vs. needing a 45+ lands and a somewhat tailored decklist to finding them). And probably slightly more consistently.

    I think that might be the dealbreaker, honestly, that shoves Rofellos into problematic casual omnipresence and makes him worse than Azusa. He makes at least 2 or 3 discrete deck archetypes, where Azusa really only has one (other than total casuals), maybe one and a half if you stretch it and split "green fatties" from "brown fatties."



    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    4/10 outside of the command zone seems a scoche high to me. Definitely less explosive than metalworker though more consistently - in optimized state probably +5 total by turn 4, which is good but not materially better than bloom tender or priest of titania, or even exploration. Definitely worse than metalworker to me and probably by a lot. Again talking optimized.

    I think he's functionally nearly equivalent to azusa, and she rates maybe a 2 for me.

    The main thing I guess is he might be an issue in casuals. But I'm pretty sure those game groups get rolled by a medium azusa.

    Eh, not sure on the land count. I suspect it might be right to play 34 or even fewer and lots of basic search spells. Unlike azusa you're not getting any value out of extra lands so you may be better off running stuff like like cultivate et al, and avoiding the extra land drop stuff since it is kinda winmore again I haven't really brewed at it but I'm always leery of flooding when commander makes mana.

    Anyone remember what the early rofellos decks played?
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Generally speaking I'd expect a rofellos deck to not want to run a lot more than 33 or 34 lands just because you really want payoffs and your commander is relatively cheap.

    I can think of a few ways to build, ranging from high land count eldrazi, to elves w dorks, to land ramp spells, to even a good number of busted rocks (moxen at least).

    I'm not sure enough of what the optimal build is to really guess. But I do not see it as a strictly better mono green commander.

    Yisan, selvala, azusa and several others offer their own styles.

    I do think he'd be the second best green fair ramp commander (with azusa being better by virtue of being more resilient and getting to play 20+ utility lands).

    I do think that 30 forests in a deck is a lot. I have 17 basics in my lands deck and a typical monocolor deck will run 24 or so. Which is not enough.

    Having 6 mana on turn 3 is a lot but it's not particularly uncommon and requires untapping so is somewhat telegraphed.

    Lots of scenarios where a single opportunistic removal will set you back quite badly.

    Eh. I dunno, maybe I've just been inured to ramp a bit.

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Hey, can we shift gears for a bit and discuss Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary?

    I was just thinking when I did the paradox engine and metalworker math that Rofellos is probably not much of a big deal anymore. There are plenty of green commanders that are just as bad now, with Azusa, Lost but Seeking, Selvala, Heart of the Wilds and Yisan, the Wanderer Bard representing comparable mana amounts in their own way.

    There is a true deckbuilding cost to Rofellos, in that you essentially need to be playing 30 basic forests to stand even a 63.5% chance of having +3 mana on turn 3, and with that only have a 44% chance of having +4 mana on turn 4.

    The mana production of a rofellos deck will only exceed Azusa consistently by playing at least 30 basic forests, whereas Azusa can play much higher ratio of great lands, and can be ramped into because of her flexible mana cost. Selvala has similar benefits, but also can significantly exceed Rofellos in the mid game and is more likely to go infinite.

    Playing 30 forests is a serious deckbuilding consequence.

    If you cut it to 20 forests, your chances of drawing >=3 forests drop to a weak 33% without some sort of forest fixing (that really has to cost 1, 2, or 3 mana to be relevant).

    Anyway, I'd love to hear a counterpoint there but I can't really see any point for Rofellos to sit on the banned list with the options we have out there. The format's come quite a long way in terms of speed and power in general.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Discussion Thread for the Rules Committee Commander Advisory Group
    I am going to try to get this out in a meaningful fashion but it's a somewhat slippery point, so bear with me.

    I do think that there was something in the spirit of your point that is why I upvoted it, which is that there is a distinction between the comment of a writer who contributes to a forum for free vs. a public content producer who often is trying to monetize it in some way.

    There's a lot more you can tell about a person by their public discourse on the internet than by their behavior while recording videos or carefully edited writing.

    Something of the difference between extemporaneous speech and a prepared speech, or between say, chatter at a party vs. remarks for a broader audience.

    Similarly, I think unscripted interviews are a far stronger way to determine someone's perspective than the content they have produced. And I assume you guys are interviewing people in a fashion, I just thinking content production is a very poor gating mechanism when what you're looking for are people with good opinions.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a second ad mostly unrelated point I wanted to attempt to make)

    Opinions that people like reading are not necessarily good opinions. Probably 90% of the things content producers have to say about modern (the format for which I have consumed more content, historically, so where I Have a frame of reference) is somewhere on the spectrum between half-informed nonsense and complete drivel.

    My limited experience reading about commander has suggested that this is fairly similar in that content arena.

    You're looking for smart people with good ideas who are in contact with a lot of the community, and very few of those things are connected with production of magic content, for a variety of reasons.


    * The types of smarts it takes to write entertaining content are not necessarily those that create a long term fun format. Content is attempting to grasp bits of fleeting attention not necessarily cultivate something strategically - you get a narrow focus on people with marketing expertise and miss out on artists, fiction writers, game designers/developers, sociologists, statisticians, mathematicians, strategists, etc. Not to say there isn't some overlap there of course, but the cross section of that society is way different than the general public.

    * People who like attention are different than people who do not. Focusing your search in an area with a higher percentage of people who crave attention is going to get you certain biases.

    * Famous/well known people experience the world (and their communities) differently than others do.

    A lot of that is speaking in generalities so please don't take it as specifics but the bottom line is you're limiting yourself to a cross-section of society that is not representative of your audience.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion I believe you would do far better with random sampling than selecting content producers (or anyone else, really, in a way that is subject to existing biases) and that this experiment is a mistake. But if you must, I strongly suggest you widen your net.

    (apologies if the tone comes off as arrogant or condescending there, it is not my attention - you guys surely have done a good job running the format, so you deserve a lot of rope)
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Phelddagrif: Show Weakness to Hide Your Strength
    It's a pretty good metaphor in my opinion. Keep it Smile

    There are probably some other parallels with the human problem of dealing with long term problems (we just never think they are going to happen, it's a psychological issue almost all people have), but this one is fine. And overwhelmingly supported by science regardless of which side of the aisle you're on.

    Fundamentally the science is close enough to settled so I don't think it's a political issue anymore (other than what to do about it, which is where the relationship comes in with Pheld)--and there are tons of scientific parallels in EDH!
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Commander Damage Discussion Thread
    It's fiddly but it's the smoothest way to achieve what is intended I think (a way to make each commander relevant in a game and also limit the value of arbitrarily large life totals in the absence of board control).

    Every suggestion I hear for changing it just makes it less relevant or more fiddly or both.

    15 damage in one turn arbitrarily limits it to commanders with pump effects or decks designed to boost the commander; I've played decks where all I wanted to do was get my commander to 7 so I could kill in 3 hits, because it was primarily a control shell otherwise.

    In my Ephara deck I will often kill one person with commander damage and another with creature damage, just because my commander represents a 3 turn clock with Elesh Norn out.

    Anyway, I think if brainstorming a replacement the first thing to do is note down requirements; what're we trying to achieve with the mechanic?
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Ghave, Guru of Spores
    here're some reference decks for CEDH Ghave that I could find:

    http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/ghave-edh-sorted/

    ...and that's it. I don't think Ghave is particularly competitive, so it's a tough build, but I'd start there. Basically everything has to change for this to be a CEDH deck unfortunately.
    Posted in: Competitive Commander (cEDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.