MTG Salvation

Quote from Cardeokhan »

I'd certainly love the idea overall, as Planeswalkers are a fun card and most wouldn't be any more broken then the nastiest of legal Legends. The only problem I can see is that it "forces" Wizards to keep Commander in mind for their Planeswalkers. ALWAYS having access to a Planeswalker, as well as being able to "recur" them so easily for multiple attempts at an ultimate, can make several of them very powerful. But I doubt it'd break the format, and it allows for lots of fun, thematic decks.

The big problem is is that you need to convince the Rules Committee of this. You are not the first, and they seem to not want to budge, so I am uncertain as to what may be said to move them.

Oh, I know this has been debated to death over the years. The need is to refine the argument and show support, by having the ability to debate against those that are against the change.

However, they have been making changes to simplify and coordinate rules. This is greater rules simplification for the format. Along with one of the glaring problems, the marketing of Magic uses Jace as Mickey Mouse or Superman. So while "we" the "older players" see legendary creatures as a face, the greater push through marketing and storyline direction places emphasis on the identity of Planeswalker themselves for younger players. This is only going to snowball, and that's something that I'd like to really debate about with someone who has some finer points against it.

It's "not really a want" but more of the direction where Magic is going and has been going for sometime now and harmonizing the post Oath of the Gatewatchers world of Magic with one of now the most iconic formats of Commander.

The Rules Council is pragmatic, they were willing to change the name of the format from Elder Dragon Highlander to Commander. I feel that this change is similar in vein to some realities of the need for branding and being inclusive of the new movement in marketing direction of the game. With Kaladesh we're already seeing the gateway product as Planeswalker decks, this is the last step in harmonizing with this new reality to bring more players into the Commander fold.

"Cool I get to melt face with Chandra!"

That's the thing I'm looking at for younger players. Without younger players, this format dies and we need to get those youngsters they're marketing to into this format and not just Standard.

It's been a number of years since Commander has become a "large" format. We have one aspect of the game finally at a close with the new 4 color commander decks finally being released. This only leaves more than likely next year's Ally preconstructeds and sometime after that colorless and 5 color.

Magic is a very large and viable game and adaptable. Planeswalkers were not created whenever Commander was still known as Elder Dragon Highlander. Since them we have seen a cycle of 5 Planeswalker Commanders from 2014. Every year our Commander list grows, but there's a greater focus on planeswalkers now as a core identity of Magic. Arguably, this is something that comes up every so often. But if we take from the lead of Mark Rosewater, in that Planeswalkers are the big identity push of Magic and their direction with marketing from Magic herein. This does not limit what Magic is doing when it comes to new Legendary Commanders or nerfs what is acceptable for new precon Commanders.

However, from a design stand point is one of the maxim's for simplicity. Why do we need to have a commander with a special tag on it that says "Maybe used as a Commander" to make it special?

A. Magic's identity is legendary creatures and Planeswalkers, they are pushing harder to make the identity of Planeswalkers a larger part of Magic.


B. Planeswalkers needing a special tag to "bypass" the "legendary only rule" is against a few presets of the Rules Council. The primary is requiring a special "in" for the Commander themselves, which is similar to rules errataing the Nephilim Cycle just for convenience prior to the precons being released. It is requiring a special rule to exist on a card, whenever the elimination of such rules baggage on a card would allow more options into the field. There have been other changes to harmonize rule sets such as changes to the tuck rule among others to better simplify, streamline, and harmonize Commander. The biggest example would be the change in the mulligan rules to use the new mulligan rules for all of Magic. It creates unnecessary clunkiness and limits the direction of the game's identity; planeswalkers.


C. Planeswalkers have more weaknesses than legendary creatures.

D. For future preconstructed decks, allowing Planeswalkers would open up design space for Magic Commander preconstructeds. It would also give greater value to planeswalkers in general since they can become generals after Standard is out. Thus allowing people who start in Standard to migrate more easily into Commander as an eternal.

E. It harmonizes "kitchen table rules" that allow for Planeswalker Commanders already.

F. Allowing Planeswalker Commanders would open up "Commander challenged" color combinations. Namely colorless would gain Karn Liberated and Ugin, the Spirit Dragon. We would already have a new Bant Commander with Tamiyo, Field Researcher

G. As more planeswalker design space is mined, it would create more areas for more divergence in deck building strategies.

H. We would have Saheeli Rai and Dack Fayden as the Red/Blue artifact generals, among other deck types that are starved of legendaries for such color combination identities.

I. Werewolves would get Arlinn Kord as a Commander immediately running competition as a strong thematic choice.

J. Planeswalkers are people too and can be generals of an army, more so than some legendaries lorewise anyway.

K. They already exist as Commanders as a set of 5, and haven't created any rules set issue headaches and other such issues.


So adding new identity to color combinations, simplifying rules, and increasing the pool of commanders exponentially to open up more innovation is a key for the change. At the edge, since the creation of the Gatewatch Planeswalkers are central to Magic's marketing identity. As new players identify with Nissa or Jace, it becomes a rough question to justify why some Commanders can be planeswalkers and others cannot be when it only comes down a single rules text in a box. Adding simplicity and choice is one of the fundamental principals of harmonizing the rules for Commander.

Thank you.

What are your thoughts?

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Quote from Technomagus »

With the whole stance of "These are the rules we've laid out for the format. If you don't agree with any of them, you are free to modify them with your playgroup." All this does is enforce incompatibility with different playgroups.

Suppose you have Playgroup A, a relatively low-power, more casual-oriented group, that's fed up with Dead-Eye Navigator, so they decide to ban it. Then you have Playgroup B, a highly tuned playgroup that feel Primeval Titan is not the most powerful thing that can be done at 6 mana, so they unban it. Then there's Playgroup C, that views the text on MTGCommander.com as immutable holy scripture (yes, I am being hyperbolic here intentionally). What happens, then, if a member of Playgroup A meets a player from Playgroup B and Playgroup C, and they decide to play a "friendly" game with their decks, and none of them have informed the others about their playgroups' house rules? Let's not even get started on playgroups that allow off-color Hybrids trying to play outside their normal playgroup. What about those who don't agree with the Tuck rule?

Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.

As of November there will be officially 32 different color combinations in Magic for Generals. There is a wide variety of deck types and accessible game modes to play within that variance to build more than one Commander deck. This is why I always tell people, always. Build 2 decks for each format you play with any regularity, it avoids power level and metagame shift issues.

You have no idea how many times I've seen the power play discrepencies as well as players on this very forum after a ban be very angry that their one and only deck got banned or hated out. This is the gift of foresight and compromise. There are also times with flexibility, such as "oh you're playing a banned card" and people just say "we'll house rule that card as uh Counterspell tonight." It's not a big deal.

The bigger deal is whenever the attitude of the single player is at the forefront. I remember during Amulet Bloom one person was hardcore against, was a younger person with little money and saw their deck devalued over night. Perfectly legitimate, only liked playing Amulet Bloom for whatever reason which limited flexibility to play other decks such as Ad Nauseum and other similar combo decks from winnings.

But let's also be honest. The entry level for this format is really low. Next to pauper low, and mostly the first "real format" new players enter or at least try rather quickly. I mostly advise younger players to go into this format if they like battlecruiser Magic to start with and then branch off to Modern as Standard cards are reprinted in good order to build specific decks.

This sort of thing is educating young players about their options and long term affordability and the social problems they can face and to understand that there are different types of players. This is an imperative to us the people who indoctrinate new players. Inclusiveness yes, but also being realistic about challenges and affordability.

Which is why no matter the person. No matter the entire thing. People generally start with casual then move into Standard and/or Elder Dragon Highlander followed by Modern and Cube as the collection grows. There's a transition stage going from Standard to Modern, depending on income and temperament for formats if playing competitive. Most Cube players typically have at least 3-4 years playing and active collecting under their belt.

You need to educate your players around you.

Quote from dLANCER »

If I wanted to host a seriosu compettion for EDH multiplayer, not that 100card singleton vintage 1on1 crap, where are the rules for deciding a winner, is it always last man standing, what about going to time? The Rules Committee fails here.

This is where people who are wanton game designers can design new subroutines for the game. While I respect your opinion, I disagree with it immensely. There are enough primers on Commander to write wholesale books on the subject.

What the RC want is basically "Here's the source code, it's all Open Source have fun :)" it's up to us to "program" that open source program into what we need and want. Tiny Leaders, 1v1 and French Commander born out of something that started at a kitchen table is fairly good.

For competitive, my group on occassion usde a point system. Defeat a player get a point. Then go from there. There are several available via Google for ideas. This is about leadership as a player, it is up to ourselves to provide that leadership. If you crowdsourced a project to create a "viable rules set" for "competitive Commander" there are players that will contribute easily their opinion and experiences.

The fancy term here are thought leader. And believe me, people do not like to start things they will certainly follow and then if there is success criticize you while also looking at you as being a genius.

First off, I wouldn't bother with a four year university unless if people are offering you scholarships and grants that pay for the bulk of the education. If you are paying out of pocket, then community college and finally transferring to the better college.

With that said, there's a few points. Look at sports essays done as examples that exemplify team players, leadership, focus, design and so forth. Then if you engage a lot with teaching other players, that is a form of coaching. If you relate the social aspects of sports like leadership, training, discipline, and so forth that can assist. However, if you have designed say your own formats for Magic and the like that is a different skill. That is basically game design which is design using math and other forms of your own mind.

If you do anything like mod packs and the like for games, and are applying to a technical college then I would aim to reference structured design.

It really depends on your audience and what schools you're talking about. Most want the super student, you know the person with a point and the sports scholarships.

If you're a judge, heavily involved with a comic book shop as a worker, and so forth then that is more of the trade and business end of the deal. Being a "normal player" without a following and the like or going out of your way to design new formats that you play with your friends. I'm not really seeing anything strong out of it.

Quote from Jusstice »

[quote from="Frostdragon4 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/753856-u-s-legal-system-how-is-this-just?comment=13"]
1. When have you ever come across campaign ads for a Judge, or even a DA? The average cable news watching voter doesn't care at all about these offices, or even understand what they do. The only factor I see that could possibly weigh in here is whether they’re putting either a (D) or an (R) next to their name on the ballot, or leaving it off. With party affiliation, it only shifts the power of appointment from the executive (as it would be where the office it not elected) to the partisan machinery of the primary process. Without party affiliation, the vote is essentially blind.

2. As above, huh??? The US justice system compels the State to appoint a Public Defender for all criminal charges. And any economic factors that might be driving up the costs for legal services would only serve to raise the minimum standards for the profession, which are already the highest in the developed world.

3. I’ll grant that there is some intersection between the public health system and the justice system, but what’s the alternative? Besides, most people believe the opposite, that standards for “insanity defenses” are still too low.

Bwahahahaha, because public defenders suck at the state level. They used to be good at the federal level, until cut back started.

Debt is evil. It binds you, it's not an "incentive." It's more like, "I'm going to smack your butt with a paddle if you don't clean the dishes." Whereas more lawyers are motivated by "I got to help someone out!" or "This case is extremely complex, and I can use my analytical ability to think through all this paper work." Don't confuse disincentives with incentives. IF a person wasn't going to enter a field, they would have done so.

There's a demand for lawyers to fight local cases, and there's a demand for public defenders. What you seem to neglect is that I want more of a free market for young lawyers to prove themselves without having to be burdened by unnecessary debt.

70k'year in Canada is pretty good living.

You know what? Who I am to judge how much debt someone should have for an education? What really makes me feel special to say what people should pay for college.

Here's the thing. Lawyers are necessary to transmute legalistic garbage into practical results. Period.

Doctors being heavily encumbered by debt, makes then incentivized towards making money. Then we get more boob and ****** repair specialists than GP's.

Chasing money and raising the price of an attorney pr doctor fee per hour is ludicrous.

So we tried high debt with high education, created an education bubble. Let's go back to what works, capitalism without all the socialism. Low debt margins increases individual wealth, which then opens up people to spend more money to create other jobs.

We're using a "Sith mentality" for a "Jedi problem." Which means "greed" isn't the largest motivating factor here.

Debt is the problem, it creates fear and panic. The good side of self interest, that is the acquisitive towards resources to protect oneself against, well, poverty is natural to man.

Instead I see student debt like a gambling addiction. "Skin in the game" means nothing to me.

If the person is a fully actualized person by the time they graduate high school, then they will naturally want to be independent. "Giving" someone a discounted education is called grace and even then law degrees are overpriced and overpromised for results. This has been a continuing trend with colleges.

Society is already waking up to the college lie, parents are having children focus on STEM degrees.

But this is also a problem with Human Resources. No nontransferable skills, you must have the exact degree. Overqualified for an entry level job, blah blah.

The whole system is rigged.

Maybe it's time we stopped worrying about the students and looked at the employers and saying. "Hey the kids' got a law degree, might be worth hiring her for something above lettuce chopper."

The system is borked. Period. Defending it in its totality is confusion. There are fewer business being created by young people as compared to other depressions and recessions. That's because of the debt problem.

The issue with the legal field, is mostly that there's a cap on lawyers to limit the amount of lawyers so it does not bring down the average wage of a lawyer. If you saturate a market, wages go down. So there is protection being had at by holding back young lawyers with a paddle rather than freeing them to persue their trade.

So if something happen to Pia, we can assume that Chandra will reach the legendary status of Super Planeswalker?

Quote from Richard Arschmann »

Is this set still problematic with regards to cultural appropriation if Mark Rosewater comes from a culture that frequently interacted with the ancient Egyptians? What about the differences in culture between the people currently inhabiting Egypt and the modern ones?

Most people don't care.

The cultural appropriation only come whenever Selena Gomez wears Bollywood attire or Cher, of Armenian descent, wore Amerindian garb. Even then, the logic is flaccid because it is a part of artistic expression which heralds into aesthetics, what is art, and so forth.

Then there's the problem with the Red Skins football team, which is a legitimate complaint.

The other thing really here is that we need to look at something outside of our own culture. Japan. Japanese loved Kawigama, because it took an American company using Japanese lore to build a Japanese world with a game that is popular inside of Japan. Had Kawigama been designed better, we would have seen a return to Kawigama by now, but I digress.

Egypt has been used in media for decades, the ancient Egyptians don't exist to have any complaints. We have also had Arabian Nights as an expansion to the game, and thus far I have yet to really hear from any players who happen to be Muslim complain about Army of Allah or the fact that one of the most powerful planeswalkers in Magic is Arab and his name was Taysir.

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Taysir

Now, modernly Magic would not even touch anything to do with Islam or any real world counterparts. However, we can surmise simply that Taysir is an Arab and probably more than likely a Muslim that also happens to have been the most powerful or second to most powerful planeswalker in Magic next to Urza and Bolas.

So in short, Muslims seem okay with Magic because Magic has historically been rather respectful to source material.

Ancient Egyptians don't exist, but modernly whenever we do see ancient Egypt in modern culture everyone exploits it to their own artistic ends. Including people from modern Egypt.

And this is why respecting foreign cultures is great, but you can't appease everyone and that is why keeping diversity on the table and ironing out a few cross cultural problems when you approach them. This is similar to the issue that Japan has with the Swastika, that to their own culture the same symbol is seen as good luck to everyone else in the world it's Nazism. So homegrown they use the symbol, everywhere else it's either tucked away and not noticed or they edit it out.

Simplicity at it's finest. When you make a mistake, you own up to it and move on. Taysir isn't used, because he's dead. So they're able to dodge the issue of Taysir is a Muslim wizard problem as well as other issues of the past. And besides, we already saw Khans of Tarkir take on aspects of cultures who are Islamic. Abzan in short is the Ottoman Empire, and there hasn't been any real issue with Turks complaining about Abzan. Nor has there been any problem with Greeks complaining about Theros.

I feel it's safe to say right now, with the current formula. Magic isn't going to get hit with cultural appropriation. Even in the same way, we see so far that Kaladesh is steam punk merged with India. And frankly, there's been no large scale complaints. These people are rather conservative and are trying to develop their own products and worlds to protect their trademarks and branding purposes and expand the branch while being inclusive rather than exclusive.

So in short, they learned from Arabian Nights in both the good way that to be respectful of other cultures but also that you can't be scared of not using something by just being as original as you can while being faithful and respectful to the source materials.

In short, if we take Kaladesh as an example I would not hesitate that someone who is Indian would look at it as something cool. The same with people that are descended from ancient Egyptians. Just like I'm certain that many Greek Americans look at Theros, it's cool but it doesn't define their culture it just reflects it in a healthy manner.

Quote from MarkXero »

Quote from MidoriKiseki »

STORYLINE SPOILERS found in the Artbook:
In the confusion Nahiri takes the chance and seals him into a stone prison saying that he has no other choice now but to stay and die with his plane.
Nahiri planeswalks away after she locks Sorin and before emrakul is trapped, with a creepy smile on her face.

So we just need Ugin to turn up with a chisel? That sounds doable.
*ETA: Actually, seeing as Sorin freed Ugin from *his* stone sarcophagus, there'd be a neat symmetry there.

Or... Sorin could just planeswalk out of the stone? Definitely need to wait for more details on this one.

Nahiri's instability and Sorin's own lack of humanity is from their all powerfullness since human 'walkers tended to go insane after a while from that power and become disconnected to reality. Only really Ugin has dealt with this to any degree as a "person" but they all took a "large world view" rather than a small world view of the people around them.

It irritates me though that they killed off Olivia, Bruna, and Gisela.

Nahiri is basically their new Boros 'walker for the time being, and I think with her popularity she will probably be around for a while. The unresolved storyline right now is Sorin, Nahiri, and Ugin along with the consequences for killing Umalog and Kozilek.

The allusion to the older storyline with Urza and Serra's Sanctum is pretty straight forwards, they revisited the disconnectedness and inhumanity and madness within the various old 'walkers. Urza particularly was big picture focused and was not a nice person. Sorin is selfish, while Nahiri has been warped and lost her humanity. Her defining trait will be finding her personality, Sorin will have to find his less selfish side and learn empathy.

I feel that Ugin right now is basically Yoda while Nicol Bolas is the Emperor. That's where the storyline is going next when we see Tarkir again and bringing together all the smaller storylines into what is Bolas doing along with the Legion of Doom/Consortium coming back.

Quote from xecel »

sorry, I have not heard the word heterosexual used often, especially not used to describe a particular person (I am speaking from personal experienced)

You've not heard someone referred to as being heterosexual?

I am not quite sure why I feel uncomfortable, but I think that it feels unnatural and weird to me.

There are few things less unnatural and weird than heterosexuality.

It goes back to the idea of it feeling clinical.

Except you said that you feel uncomfortable with the word "straight" also, which is neither clinical nor uncommon.