One mana discount, draw off hitting walkers, and +1/+0 "costs": trickier mana, rarity bump, and crew: 2?
Sounds steep. Maybe the drawing of walkers was a bit too good in this set with so many walkers? Or perhaps, that the combination of 2 power and 2 mana means you are so much more likely to be able to attack into no good blocks as soon as you drop it, meaning it can snowball in limited?
Yes, but you compare Common vs Rare.
1/3 common for 3 vs 2/3 rare for 2, but you need to crew it.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
So, why not just ride it out and wait for the list of “can be your commander” PW’s to grow?
If anything, this proves that bringing all PW into the fold as playable generals isn’t the right move, because the list of legal ones will inevitably grow, and you won’t have to worry about poor format interactions or bans out of the gate.
So, yeah. Pretty poor point to try and make your argument.
I’d also like to add that, so far, there have been a lot of spoiled ‘walkers that are going to be problematic with their static abilities, and that list will also inevitably grow. Powerful, enchantment-like, abilities in the command zone are not good for the format, period. Forcing WOTC to take an additional format into consideration when designing their “flagship” cards is poor business sense. People who don’t understand business economics really shouldn’t try and bring them up in their arguments. But what do I know, I mean, I’m debating this point with people who think, and agree, that 36% is a majority...
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
There is a lot of poor interactions even now, so that's a bad argument.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right?
Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
Please, enlighten us how WOTC who with printing Commander products found a gold mine is forced into poor business sense.
Obviously you have PhD from the business economics so maybe you could teach us a thing or two here and explain it to us how does it work.
I am really curious for that.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
You can argue that 49.9 is minority. Because it's less than 50.1.
The minority in the poll is the 7.5% of undecided people. I wouldn't call the 36.8% a minority.
But if this is what bothers you and what you point out is playing with words, say it beforehand.
[quote from="Taleran »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/779507-poll-planeswalkers-as-playable-generals?comment=330"]I would agree with you if I felt your argument came in good faith, which is the post you are responding to right there.
Commander is about leading an army with a legendary creature, not a legendary whatever. No one takes arguments seriously that favor legalizing legendary lands, legendary enchantments, legendary artifacts, or legendary sorceries as a commander, and they shouldn't because these are really bad ideas. They are, in fact, equally as bad as legalizing legendary planeswalkers, which is why it makes such a great comparison and why you can't just dismiss it out of hand as a counterpoint.
Yes, somecards have extra text saying "this can be your commander." Yes, individual cards can trump normal rules. No, we shouldn't ever treat the exception as the rule
So a legendary creature can lead an army, but legendary Planeswalker can't?
What kind of logic is that?
And by the way, the one sentence says otherwise, there are already PW's leading the armies.
Yes, the sentence is only on a few PW's. But it is. With the current trend, the amount of PW's with the rule will grow, so you will end up with an increasing pool of PW's as playable generals.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
You cannot just pretend this is not an issue, will just vanish or is something that won't be questioned in upcomming years, because the pool of playable PW's will grow and grow.
As said before, only reason why Wizz did not include the specific sentence onto the current standard walkers is because it would confuse standard players. Otherwise it would be there...
Again, the pro planeswalker crowd seems to.miss that this is a format based around legendary creatures, so any argument for allowing walkers as commanders has to not only show that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but do so significantly enough to warrant major change to the rules of the format. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this, and most people still feel that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Edh originally only had 5 legal commanders.
Was it originally Elder DRAGON Highlander?
So shouldn't we only play with Dragons as generals?
Again, the pro planeswalker crowd seems to.miss that this is a format based around legendary creatures, so any argument for allowing walkers as commanders has to not only show that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but do so significantly enough to warrant major change to the rules of the format. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this, and most people still feel that the negatives outweigh the positives.
So far the arguments for pws come from people just wanting to play them, or play specific walkers. House rule them in or make your own format. There's no reason the format should change in a fundamental way to accommodate you when the majority is against it. Even if allowing planeswalkers were a wash in terms of cost benefit, that would be a reason to leaves things as they are. Even the fact that it would grow the banlist is enough to counteract the benefit of a handful of interesting commanders being added. We already have a commanderesque format where all planeswalkers are legal as commanders, and it's dead.
Seriously, it's threads like this that make me glad the RC has a major status quo bias. People posting they want a format defining change so they can play tibalt or Nahiri is just laughable. If you want to play a specific walker, ask your playgroup. Have a discussion. That's what house rules are for, to accommodate unpopular preferences without having to change the rules for everyone. The beauty of this format is that it can be whatever your group agrees on, without imposing that on everyone else.
The printed product over three seperate products already disagrees with you and already has put the most powerful most build around walkers into the format as Commanders. The change has slready been made the format is already bigger than just legendary creatutes.
Also again I disagree with your basis where showing positive qualities outweighs negative ones because that is not how anything else in this format is ever determined. This that have too many negatives are removed from consideration and a lack of positives is not the same as a wealth of negatives.
Look at the hundreds of cards added to format every year for proof of that.
Cards being added to the format is not the same at all as just changing the rules because a vocal minority feels like it.
The example that comes to mind was their response to requests to bring back banned as a commander so Braids and Rofellos could be legal in the 99. They explained that so little is gained from doing this that it does not outweigh the negative of a rules change and increased complexity.
It's not a good example, due only people on this site and subsection voted in this poll, yet there is almost 36% for and 56% against, with rest undecided.
Not sure about your view, but I don't think 36% of players can be called a minority.
As for the second, I never understood why "banned as commander" was removed. Did it make rules harder? Come on, that's not an argument. MtG has so many rules, that if you can't grasp the concept of "This cannot be your general but can be in your deck" you probably should not play the game...
What will you do on stack and layer interactions then?
Have they spoiled any walkers that has the rider "this guy/gal can be your commander" on it?
I've heard MaRo confirmed they won't add that line (although they could) to any standard product because it was confusing standard players.
Which is sad, because 90% of the spoiled PW's could be generals without any issue.
As for the Karn debate, let's assume you got the Lattice, Ramp and everything you need.
Magical Christmas land.
You need to cast it and hope it doesn't get destroyed.
You need to cast Karn, hoping enemies won't float mana to burn him/kill him or counter him.
Also by the Turn 3, some enemies will have creatures on board.
Yes you locked the board, but you are without cards or defense.
would you want a walker in the command zone with -8 each opponent with no legendary creatures or planeswalkers loses the game in the command zone
i don't think so
Still he needs 4 turns to activate.
Unless you play a lot of proliferate.
Also he doesn't have access to green, so no Doubling Season to ultimate off right away.
There are dozens and dozens generals who can end the game before Bolas even hits the battlefield.
Is he a weak card, no, definitely not. But there are a lot stronger and more consistent generals out there.
Yeah, no, I definitely don't want to see the new Tezzeret running around as a commander.
Mind to explain why?
Due to his passive ability?
Because when compared to Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas he looks weaker. He does not create card advantage, his - ability only returns to hand and his ultimate is barely game-winning. Also he cost 2 mana more.
So why you would not want to see him as general?
Uncommons have one minus ability.
Rares have one plus and one minus.
Mythics have one plus, one minus and an ultimate.
And all of them have one passive or static ability.
It would be nice to have a card that disrupts the parity of the game. Destroying lands, increasing mana costs, something which gives you the edge over the enemy.
For me it is the Boar > Kefnet > Bontu > Rhonas
Finale of promise looks promising. Kess will be happy.
Yes, but you compare Common vs Rare.
1/3 common for 3 vs 2/3 rare for 2, but you need to crew it.
That card is just plain bad...
Or why not to allow all of them?
Or why not ban them all if that's the case when they are braking the rule that only legendary creatures can be your general?
There is a lot of poor interactions even now, so that's a bad argument.
Yeaah, so to the highlighted...
We got unremoveable emblems in the command zone already (Oloro, Inalla, Arahbo, Ur-dragon or Edgar).
They aren't good for the format, should we ban them?
Oh, and then there are Theros gods, which are literary enchantments. Indestructible enchantments. Like 10x harder to remove them then any PW with a static ability.
We should ban them as well right?
Your argument about problematic PW's with static abilities is kind of falling apart...
Please, enlighten us how WOTC who with printing Commander products found a gold mine is forced into poor business sense.
Obviously you have PhD from the business economics so maybe you could teach us a thing or two here and explain it to us how does it work.
I am really curious for that.
Minority vs majority depends on the view. 49.9% vs 50.1%?
You can argue that 49.9 is minority. Because it's less than 50.1.
The minority in the poll is the 7.5% of undecided people. I wouldn't call the 36.8% a minority.
But if this is what bothers you and what you point out is playing with words, say it beforehand.
So a legendary creature can lead an army, but legendary Planeswalker can't?
What kind of logic is that?
And by the way, the one sentence says otherwise, there are already PW's leading the armies.
Yes, the sentence is only on a few PW's. But it is. With the current trend, the amount of PW's with the rule will grow, so you will end up with an increasing pool of PW's as playable generals.
So maybe in 3 years, there will be another 15+ playable PW's just from the Commander20XX editions, not counting things like Battlebond 2.0, which gave us PARTNER PLANESWALKERS.
You cannot just pretend this is not an issue, will just vanish or is something that won't be questioned in upcomming years, because the pool of playable PW's will grow and grow.
As said before, only reason why Wizz did not include the specific sentence onto the current standard walkers is because it would confuse standard players. Otherwise it would be there...
Was it originally Elder DRAGON Highlander?
So shouldn't we only play with Dragons as generals?
It's not a good example, due only people on this site and subsection voted in this poll, yet there is almost 36% for and 56% against, with rest undecided.
Not sure about your view, but I don't think 36% of players can be called a minority.
As for the second, I never understood why "banned as commander" was removed. Did it make rules harder? Come on, that's not an argument. MtG has so many rules, that if you can't grasp the concept of "This cannot be your general but can be in your deck" you probably should not play the game...
What will you do on stack and layer interactions then?
I've heard MaRo confirmed they won't add that line (although they could) to any standard product because it was confusing standard players.
Which is sad, because 90% of the spoiled PW's could be generals without any issue.
As for the Karn debate, let's assume you got the Lattice, Ramp and everything you need.
Magical Christmas land.
You need to cast it and hope it doesn't get destroyed.
You need to cast Karn, hoping enemies won't float mana to burn him/kill him or counter him.
Also by the Turn 3, some enemies will have creatures on board.
Yes you locked the board, but you are without cards or defense.
Still he needs 4 turns to activate.
Unless you play a lot of proliferate.
Also he doesn't have access to green, so no Doubling Season to ultimate off right away.
How is he stronger than Arcum Dagsson who can regularly combo out in T3 or T4 and end the game?
Or Yisan, the Wanderer Bard, Zur the Enchanter or Baral, Chief of Compliance?
There are dozens and dozens generals who can end the game before Bolas even hits the battlefield.
Is he a weak card, no, definitely not. But there are a lot stronger and more consistent generals out there.
And the reason?
Mind to explain why?
Due to his passive ability?
Because when compared to Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas he looks weaker. He does not create card advantage, his - ability only returns to hand and his ultimate is barely game-winning. Also he cost 2 mana more.
So why you would not want to see him as general?
Rares have one plus and one minus.
Mythics have one plus, one minus and an ultimate.
And all of them have one passive or static ability.
For now, any of those spoiled ones (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/807645-war-of-the-spark-preview-panel-from-pax#c6) don't look broken to be working as a general.
Also, was trying RB Daretti as general, was interesting, but nothing gamebreaking.