MTG Salvation

Quote from SephX »

Quote from IcariiFA »

Blaming the players is a classic example of bad judgement when designing a fun format. If your players naturally feel they should be able to do something that goes against the rules, you should ask why and figure out how to meet their expectations. The expectation of commander is to be able to play their commander, and cards that kill or counter in a way that (essentially) permanently removes it from the game is simply...bad.

"If your players..." Whose players? Your players? The guys at my LGS never had an issue or question about the 'spirit' of Commander as it related to tucking. Some cards did it. Most didn't. When it happened, it was probably through a Terminus or Oblation. There was no mystery involved. And yes, the expectation is to be able to play your Commander. That expectation is met. Tucking applied to/was needed for Voltron'd up, Hexproof Indestructible Trample Commanders in almost every case where it was relevant, or collateral damage from a Terminus. Please don't make it sound like there's some poor sheep at the table that barely understood the rules of Magic that just 'doesn't get it because it doesn't feel natural'. If my Commander got tucked, there was probably a really good reason for it, and it's not like I didn't know it was a possibility. Hell, half the time I will say out loud to my group 'you guys have to do something about this before it ends the game'.[/qoute]

I'm just talking game design 101. I'm not looking to create a strawman of "player who doesn't know the rules." I'm looking at what expectations a format like commander creates, which I argue is the ability to attempt to play your commander.

Quote from IcariiFA »

You mean like the exceptions that when a commander is destroyed, you can put it in the command zone instead of the graveyard?

No, I don't mean like that. It's not cute, it's snide. The command zone had set interactions from the outset of Commander. This is taking a way cards were already played within the format and altering how they function.

Logical fallacy. Argument of tradition. Just because the destroy rule was from the games inception doesn't mean other rules can't be added to expand on it. The destroy rule was made the way it was so that when your general died you still had access to it, since it was a cornerstone of the format. Allowing the option to put your commander in the command zone when tucked just like when it is destroyed is obviously in the same spectrum of interests. It just didnt get as much attention becuase when the format was first conceived those effects were only on a couple cards, but now are more widely printed, known, and used.

Quote from IcariiFA »

You're right that tucking was never a loophole. You're wrong that that is in anyway relevant to the decision made. Which focuses on making the format where you have access to your commander.

Having access to your Commander at all times was never a promise or guarantee of this format. As a matter of fact, the only things the ever put that in check was tucking. As someone who has had to dismantle decks multiple times to maintain the balance of my local meta, I can assure you, there are some Commanders that need a 3 or 4 break turn while you have to dig them back up. I've never once been locked out of a game because my Commander was in the library somewhere. We're playing with the game's most powerful cards...if you don't have draw, tutor, or a backup plan, you're doing it wrong.

You're arguing balancing the format and I'm arguing the design of the format. We are on two different wavelengths here. The commander format inherently promises that your chosen commander should be "easily available" compared to other cards. Making tucking mandatory works against that, and that's a problem. The repercuations of removing them are a balancing cocern and is better covered by ban list, alternative ways to stop generals (as there are no generals that are all hexproof, indestructible, and exile proof to start) or the gentlemen's agreements among your players that certain generals are not ok.

Quote from IcariiFA »

Again, irrelevant. If anything, wizards adoption of the format has made it grow. If Commander is going to continue to do well, it will need to refine its rules to ensure the fun of the format, preserving what players expect a format to be about. You know, playing their favorite legend and smacking down with it.

Wizards didn't refine the rules, the RC did. Wizards made Sylvan Primordial, RC banned it. That's only irrelevant if you completely ignore they're two separate entities and ignore the remaining parts of my comment. After reading your other replies and the condescending way you come off, this wasn't much of a surprise.

The RC is now influenced by wizards, and is full of high level judges that support the game. Acting like the design methods and market strategies of wizards has no influence here is ignorant.

Quote from IcariiFA »

This is the difference between designing to make a good game and designing to satisfy people who want to make it so they don't have to interact with their opponents. The latter kills formats.

Not tucking Uril is like watching a Solitaire game. Go play against a Kaalia deck with no tucks, please. Tell me you're meaningfully interacting. You really have it backwards.

Considering the number of post directly refuting your claim here, I'm not the one who has it backwards.

If there are generals that are so powerful that the only way to combat them is by making it so a player isn't allowed to cast them by tucking, that should be a ban list concern, not an card design one. Allowing tucking nerfs other completely fair generals from every being able to be cast as well.

Quote from drakelordphil »

Quote from IcariiFA »

I just feel tucking a general makes the odds of you being able to play it again very low, and that works against the fun of the format. That's the major point I focus on because, as a game, that should be the point. Fun.

And even if it has been tucked, it never beat the fun of the game as people build decks that the commander can greatly benefit from, but isn't totally dependant. (Also, it never meant that you couldn't react to the swipe by getting rid of your commander yourself to protect him/her/it or countering it)

That's the thing though, for a number of people getting your commander tucked beat the fun of the game, because they play it to play with their commander.

For us, since EDH came out, it was about:
#1 the fun idea of choosing a figurehead creature that restricts your colors and building around those restrictions. That is "easily accessible" but not an "always available card". (I think that's also the point we won't agree on :pokerface:)
#2 having more life, thus being able to play the "big spells" you usually cannot.
#3 playing cards you usually wouldn't.
#4 being limited to one copy making the game more versatile.
#5 the politics (by that I mean following: if you know the people you play with and their decks, if someone plays something too hardcore - commander/combos/unfun strategies - the group will take him/her immediately down, anyway. Thus tucking is also irrelevant, as you'd have to "specate" anyways)

We don't agree on what is "easily available", that is true. I do agree with each of your points on the intent of the format, but I feel you're leaving out the picking a general wasn;t just to restrict your deck, but again to have fun playing your general card as a leader. That role has become more and more important as the game has evovled and legends have become more "build around me" cards. Acting like a large portion of the format isn't to use your general as a core aspect of your decks strategy isn't realistic. Tuck cards work against the spirit of playing your general.

Anyway, I'm done debating this point. I'm looking at it as much as a designer as a player, which is not the same standard I can expect of others. If you're unhappy with the change home rule differently, but I fully support it.

Quote from Flatline »

I'm a little surprised people are against my card transforming off of artifacts. The thought of doing it another way never even crossed my mind. I feel like, from a flavor stand point, there is no other good way to do it. In most of the "mummies coming to life stories", the reason the mummy comes to life is because his tomb is being robbed. The artifacts on the card are supposed to be the artifacts Jornel Ento and his team are pulling out of the tomb (stealing). When enough are stolen, the mummy awakes to protect its treasure. It still seems right to me.

I did think that was what you were going for, personally. However, for me playing artifacts didn't translate as stealing them. I'm not sold on the fact there is no other good way to do it either.

As far as the card not being "good", I understand why people would say this, and I too was a bit doubtful about it. The problem is, "good" is a subjective term. For Jornel Ento, the lead archeologist on the dig, finding the sarcophagus is a lifelong dream. From his perspective, the sarcophagus is better than good, it is what he has been working toward for most of his life.

I agree what being "good" is is subjective which is why I allowed all entries through. However, as the head judge this month I felt much better able to interpret my own intent on the flavor this round. I think you got caught up in looking at this from the excavation teams point of view, but your card wasn't the excavation team, it was the sarcophagus. The sarcophagus was not good. It was valuable and an amazing find for the team, but the object itself was clearly neutral at best if not evil to start. Perhaps if you would of made a card focused on the dig team, since that was where a lot of your flavor was focused on, it might of made more sense. A front side of a creature representing them and a back of them getting cursed or otherwise unleashing something might of fit better, since the team was certainly not evil. *shrug*

Regardless I stand by my interpretation on the matter.

Quote from Piar »

Just want to say that I really enjoyed this month. I knew to avoid the "Sorcery on the battlefield" thing and thought that having it happen in the same effect sufficed, but now I know to switch the order of the effects for other cards like these. Thanks for all the detailed and fair critiques. Looking forward to seeing what bravelion brings us next month!

I was very happy with your entry too and as I expressed in my judgement I was very pleased someone went the route you did, as I left that open on purpose. I'm glad you have enjoyed this months rounds and I know we both look forward to bravelion83's in April!

Quote from drakelordphil »

Quote from IcariiFA »

[quote from="drakelordphil »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/601132-dragons-of-tarkir-duel-commander-and-edh-banlists?comment=105"]
A) I said that it was impossible to get your general back if tucked (I didn't.)
B) I'm not aware that tucking is still possible (I am aware the rule gives you the option.)
C) Either of those things are really the main point I've made (they aren't.)

A) You did say impossible. But it vanished. (Should've quoted that part, my bad)
Thank you, you disqualified yourself from receiving any attention from my side and your credibility hit rock-bottom.

Less people have common sense than you think.

The irony in that

If you're suggesting I'm a liar who edited my post to make you look bad, the fact that my post shows it was last edited before your initial response proves that you're dead wrong. Own up to your mistake.

Quote from drakelordphil »

Again you neglect the fact, that the policy itself states that you USUALLY build your deck around your commander in a way that it's complements your deck with strategies, calling upon it's strength. Not being the uber-creature that solemnly is there to abuse every single card in your deck and must be there to make your deck playable.
Also, the main argument seems to be that tucking cards make up like 100% of all removal played in all decks, rather then being like 3-5 cards out of 99...

Objectively, there is also a significant STRETCH moving from "easily available" up to "always available" (you did the same with temporary by the way. It is by fact NOT impossible to draw your general again, or draw the tutor, using carddraw... to get your commander back). By being the card you chose beforehand and placing it in the command zone, it is BY fact more easily available than ANY other card in your deck right from the get-go. Even if it was destroyed or exiled, it is still MUCH more easily available than ANY other card in your deck.
Again you're totally oblivious of the fact that tucking is still possible and not abolished at all.

Wow. You're treating me like

A) I said that it was impossible to get your general back if tucked (I didn't.)
B) I'm not aware that tucking is still possible (I am aware the rule gives you the option.)
C) Either of those things are really the main point I've made (they aren't.)

Besides, if you consider tucking as still leaving a persons general "Easily" available, you're stretching, not I. It becomes no longer an easier to get creature then any other card in your deck. THAT's objective.

Also a quote from Bruce Richard:

Part of me is understanding to their plight. Who wants to play a game for an hour, hoping beyond hope to somehow draw your commander from your ninety-nine-card deck? In the meantime, you can do almost nothing and have little to no chance of winning the game. It is miserable.

The other part of me wants to say, "Suck it up, Buttercup."2 Tuck is a part of Commander and needs to be there. There are some commanders that just need to be gone. There are times in a game where your only shot is to stop your opponent from using his or her commander, and tuck is the most effective way. If your deck is so reliant on your commander that the deck cannot function without it, then you better have a way to search for your commander in your library.

That said, tuck is a potent weapon that carries plenty of ill will. Use it sparingly.

If not just keep bashing that excessive user over and over until he drops to an okay amount.... land destruction is also a tool and again you should only use it for those pesky cards that really need to be removed. Not killing all enemies lands, really taking him out of game.

That's thing I think you're bent on. You're looking at the original frame of the format in terms of how it was one of gentlemen agreements on how it should be played. But now that it's a larger supported format that's encouraged beyond the that frame, you can't realistically expect folks to follow your preferred playstyle at FNM and other more public forums. There has to be some core set of rules, and those rules should focus on making the format fun. A format where you general isn't "usually" available would make it unfun for more players than allowing otherwise. It's really that simple. The rules adjustments and repercussions are not as important as steering the format for being more fun when you go out and play it with others.

As if WotC or any other company, rules commitee or whatever NEVER made mistakes. Following what is said like an innocent lamb not questioning it at all is not healthy either.
The only consquent point is, the game designers know what they do, which is quite true, to some degree. They also need testing and sometimes, something they tested, turns out worse than they imagined after publicating it.

I agree the WotC makes a lot of mistakes... but less and less so then people tend to give it credit for. The fact is, despite their mistakes WotC know more about the game then any single one of us. I voice my suspicions on a lot of their decisions, but I wait to try them first after trying to understand why they made the changes.

This change is in a direction that promotes encouraging the fun of playing your commander, and as someone with a game development background, It's hard to fault the committee for that.

I guess, I'll let it go at this point, as pro- and contra-tucking people probably won't come to an agreement. I stay with my opinion, that it should be open to players to use this rule or not, according to the "gentlemen's agreement" idea of Commander (which they also left open for many other cards)

Fair enough.

In short:
Common sense, playgroup politics and gentlemen's agreement. No to the mandatory rules change

Less people have common sense than you think. But hey, within your playgroup, you can still make tucking Mandatory!

Quote from drakelordphil »

Why can't the game still make fun even if you lost your commander temporarily?

Tucking really isn't temporary unless you have a tutor immediately available. It basic creates a state for most decks where they can't access their general again for the match, and there is no way they can interact with you or the battlefield to change that. Defeats the point of the format.

I cannot disagree more to this. If they are niche cards, they already getting way more credit than they deserve and put the whole rules change discussion ad absurdum, because it is meaningless. Making changes that require further changes and restrictions in a casual fun format is good? Promoting deck-building without thinking about the meta nor adapting to certain cards is nobraining a format. Build something go autopilot, need further need to think about it. By what data or statistic do you tell what MOST players want? I can give you my own experience of some 40+ players that have never been bothered by it. Usually, it's by fact always the displeased minority that complains in forums, because happy people usually don't tend to bother.

It's not data or stats, it's basic game design. If you create a game, or in this case a format, based around the goal of getting people to base a deck around a specific card, you don't also include cards that make it impossible for the person the ever have access to it within your rules. Allowing cards that put it in your library makes the General almost permanently inaccessible and defeats the point of the format. You're arguing from the point of view of what you're used to, and not what is better for the format. Sure, things will have to be adjusted because those cards served to depower certain generals, but I rather have a format concerned about discussing what generals are fair then what cards make ALL generals unplayable.

This move just shows that they know what they need to do to make a better, more successful format as game designers. Making it more fun for the majority of folks who are jumping on board without rose colored glasses. People gripe about these kind of changes all the time and catering to the new players, but guess what? Doing that has made the game BETTER and HEALTHIER.

I can even hold

There have been no outrageously broken or fun-sucking cards printed in recent sets, and no older cards are currently approaching any kind of aggravating tipping point. Things are good and the format is healthy.

from the January changes against it.
And taking it a step further, they contradict their own philosophy of deck building that states

The Commander is the principle around which the deck is built. It is more easily available than other cards in the deck, and decks will ususally want to leverage their Commander's strengths in their plans.

It also never stated in the whole document, that they intended the commander to be always accessible, but more easily available than other cards.

So are you arguing that tuck cards leave commanders "More easily available than other cards in the deck"? Because I think an objective view makes it clearly the opposite... it makes it the same odds as drawing any other card in your deck, if not worse since many of those effects place it on the bottom.

Quote from SephX »

I couldn't disagree with you more, on every single point.

1) if you play a card like Hallowed Burial, and your opponents assume you're cheating, stop playing with idiots. The interaction is right on the card, I don't know why anyone would assume there's some rule out there in the aether they've never read that says ALL somehow means 'except this one'.

Blaming the players is a classic example of bad judgement when designing a fun format. If your players naturally feel they should be able to do something that goes against the rules, you should ask why and figure out how to meet their expectations. The expectation of commander is to be able to play their commander, and cards that kill or counter in a way that (essentially) permanently removes it from the game is simply...bad.

2) The above reason is exactly why I despise this change. They're extending the rules to create an exception that doesn't exist in the cards. (That, and some commanders get so degenerate a tuck is the best answer for everyone at the table).

You mean like the exceptions that when a commander is destroyed, you can put it in the command zone instead of the graveyard?

3) Tucking was never a loophole. Oblation existed before Commander did, it's not like it was a post-creation precedent. Since the birth of the format, Oblation has been a card, it did what was printed on the card, sometimes it was mean, sometimes it was necessary, but it's existence and other cards like was always known.

You're right that tucking was never a loophole. You're wrong that that is in anyway relevant to the decision made. Which focuses on making the format where you have access to your commander.

4) For the love of God, Wizard's needs to stay the hell away from Commander. Every time they touch it, we get Sylvan Primordial, Kaalia, Narset, Proshh, Nekuzar, Derevi, and a host of bad ideas. They've overblown the power level of legends in Commander almost to the point of ruining it as a casual format. They thought it'd be great to give across-the-board access to powerful (read: broken) commanders in every conceivable color pair. Except, it's not balance when everyone at the table has a rocket launcher. Some of these recent additions are so strong you almost can't help how much of a target you make yourself. Try building a Kaalia deck that doesn't feel broken. Build a Nekusar deck that doesn't make you either bleed everyone at the table in 20 minutes or get you targeted by everyone in the first 5.

Again, irrelevant. If anything, wizards adoption of the format has made it grow. If Commander is going to continue to do well, it will need to refine its rules to ensure the fun of the format, preserving what players expect a format to be about. You know, playing their favorite legend and smacking down with it.

This is the difference between designing to make a good game and designing to satisfy people who want to make it so they don't have to interact with their opponents. The latter kills formats.

In the format of Commander, where they goal is to build a deck based around your commander, they made a ruling to make it harder to permanently get rid of each others commander. It's a pretty obvious decision that promotes the entire goal of the format: having a awesome legendary creature lead you to victory. It's all about feeling good playing the game in the way that makes sense for the format's namesake.

Will this make certain commanders more powerful? Sure. Will this require some additional changes in the future? Likely, yes. But those aren't automatically bad things. The niche of cards that tuck away commanders become less important to the format and other cards will take there place as more valuable. In exchange, more people get to have more fun playing the format. You know, because games are about fun and getting the MOST possible players to have fun doing it. Pleasing a minority of players who enjoy tuck spells that in turn grief other players from doing what the format intends is unhealthy for a game and should be avoided.

Quote from bravelion83 »

Has anyone anything against me posting in a few hours the judge signup thread for April?

Not me!

How dare they change the rules of commander to allow people to have access to their commander!

...seriously folks?

This decision makes a lot of sense to me.

Pardon the delay in updating today as I was away from home and got ill. I'll have the judge brackets ready for tomorrow as I am still not well and am exhausted. There will be an extension on time to judge. Thank you for your understanding.

Thanks, Lion buddy!

Quote from IcariiFA »

Obelisk of Torment 4
Artifact
Whenever a player discards a card, ~ deals 1 damage to that player.
At the beginning of each players upkeep, ~ deals 2 damage to that player unless they have 3 or more cards in hand.

IIW: A lord for a creature type that has not had one printed by wizards.

I giggled.

Dang there are some good bear cards here. I don't stand a ghost of a chance.

This sounds like an exciting set. You can draw some ideas from the Ancient Egyptians (expert desert survivors), like having legendary creatures or planeswalkers be based off of Ra and Osiris. To show the brutality of the desert , you can have some kind of sandstorm-esque symmetry condition, i.e. "At the beginning of each player's turn, every creature on the battlefield is dealt 1 damage. Just some ideas. I'll subscribe to this post and try to keep up with this set.

Quote from admirableadmiral »

Yey broken keyboards

Judging when I wake up

must have been a nice, long sleep there

Quote from Atogaholic »

Ghoulish Necrophiliac 1B
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Ghoulish Necrophiliac can't attack or block if there are one or more creature cards in a graveyard.
T: Exile target creature card in a graveyard.
3/3


IIW: Dinosaurs

oh god

Quote from Atogaholic »

IIW: Return to future sight

"MaRo! You've gotta come back with me!"
"Where?"
"Back to the Future Sight."