2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on April 2019 Banlist & Rules Updates
    Quote from Dormammu »
    [quote from="CrimsonWings3689 »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/809264-april-2019-banlist-rules-updates?comment=45"]

    Any debate involves positing opposing viewpoints but I find this particular list to be subjective to the point of uselessness. The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.

    That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.

    If someone had accurate numbers that would become a lot easier. But as someone already said since we dont have the numbers its all speculation of what the majority wants. I Personally wouldn't mind wishboards but I do see the multiple points brought up against it, and since I think the gains are minimal and not clear. I'd rather have them not work universally.

    Wizards is solely in control of all MtG formats it chooses to be. In the case of EDH, it rebranded it Commander and allowed the RC to continue to maintain the rules because it serves their purpose. If the RC ever made a decision that WotC perceived to be against their own interests, they’d yank that authority in no time.

    While technically correct in a legal sense, If wizards change the Commander rules to differ from the RC ones and people like the RC ones better they would still be playing the RC rules anyway, as for stuff like unsanctioned/kitchentable play neither has the authority people play what they like.


    Quote from Dormammu »
    The truth is, many people have been using wishboards in EDH for years and I rarely if ever see discussion of it in places like these forums. So it can’t be causing that much trouble.

    That alone argues in favor of making them legal by default, in my opinion.


    I too used to be in a group with wishboards, and I actually wouldnt mind if this became the standard but that argument alone doesn't say much. Lots of people still play with cards that are on the banlist and have no problem with it should we now all do that? I don't think so. It is always easier to do stuff in Individual groups than make it a reality for everyone.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.


    The odds of that are low to start with im most instances (as you stated) and would only get smaller (at least in my playgroup) as that threaten to scoop implies to me (the player who your threatening) and the other players (the ones that might benefit) that you are still a threat to be recognized and its more likely that 1. I kill you and get a deal with the others for doing so. 2. If I don't kill you the other people still know that you are a threat and will likely kill you. 3.So to not loose to each other they will kill you together. 4. Keep you alive with the ability to kill you any instant.

    So I get why its tactical and see why you don't deal with it but even if you were besides the ire of someone else you don't really get much out of it.

    Even though I Personally wouldn't like to play in Fenrirs Group (I really don't like active Kingmaking) there is no reason to attack him (or his way of doing things) personally if you are not part of his group. "Closed" Groups can do what they want and if everyones happy why not.

    Also for me this is only an issue in pick up groups or "open groups" where houseruling is difficult due to ever changing group constellations. And In those I wish people would refrain from "speed scooping".
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Yeah but consecrated sphinx cant be your commander and can be answered easier and pw's are easier to defend. Again Since commander is mainly based on creatures the answers to those are plentyful and since you can block for your pws that heps defend it to.
    And the problem is that it is the #1 way to get rid of pw's as it is inefficient and alot of time just not possible to do when needed. Im not disregarding the way I am saying there need to be better ways.

    As for Purphoros: No Mono black card that deals with it as is no mono black card for any enchantment. If It turn into a creature though there are plenty of answers. Similar to Red.
    Green has answers white has answers and blue has answers. And I agree all in all there are not many answers for purhoros excluding certain scenarios just as I think there aren't enough for PW's.

    To reiterate I don't think most PW's planeswalkers are a problem. I do think the majority would be fine powerlevel wise, but I do think most dont add anything new to the table. I think more people would dislike the change than like it, thus making the format worse for more people than better.
    I do think better PW removal would help as it is a hard permanent type to get rid of efficiently, making it so that people feel they cant do much against them. And for the Problematic one's that holds true as their Incremental advantage and self protection drains the other players resources more than yours. The (IMO) unproblematic ones that do bring new stuff to the table are to few to make a change globally.
    I do think there should be a global testrun for a couple of reasons.
    1. To see how numbers in format popularity go up/down. (If the potential growth in players that start because of this is bigger than the people who will quit because of this)
    2. To see how much is added gameplay wise due to that (New types of decks, decks getting played less, How many different PWs will see play etc. )
    3. To Help some playgroups to decide if they want to play witn PW commanders and to houserule if it doesn't happen after the test.
    4. For the RC to make a sound desicion based on 1 and 2, (which IMO will be a no, but without the numbers alot is just speculation)


    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Looking for a card
    Rakdos Charm Deadly Tempest Incite Rebellion Netherborn Phalanx Stronghold Discipline

    Scryfall advanced search tool is pretty usful for Stuff like that.
    Posted in: Casual & Multiplayer Formats
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    It doesn't matter if the cards exist, are people running them? Are they playable when purphoros isn't at the table?
    Because almost every deck out there runs a myriad of ways to interact with a planeswalker. Any creatures, bounce, burn, planeswalker removal and/or permanent removal will all make it much harder to execute a planeswalker plan.


    That holds true for Planeswalker removal as well, and bounce and permanent removal (in the form of exile) all work against purph too.
    Burn is also rarely played.
    For Example Out of the top 100 played Cards on edhrec(Anecdotal evidence since stuff like that is subject to change if PW's would be allowed still)
    One Burnspell (Boros Charm) one bouncespell (Cyclonic Rift). 15 Spotremoval+Counter (Which helps to get rid of Regular commanders AND if you allow PWs as commanders help protect those) 6,5 Massremovals out of which only one has the posibillity to kill pws, yet they can regularly kill most regular commanders and protect PW ones.
    10 Things thet get rid of pw's.
    10 things that get rid of purphoros, As an Enchantment.
    (+4 if it is a creature which most purph decks tend to not let happen)


    Yes Attacking PW's is a thing you can do but most decks run removal for creatures already, most decks run creatures of their own to block so that is not a reliable/effortless answer to pw's, in addition to that a lot of pw's have abilities to protect themselves too (esp. From Creatures) so by the time your opponents can kill your PW you should be able to recast him rather easily, even if you dont get to the ultimate alot of the incremental value of the good ones is pretty strong. Loot/Rummage for two per turn by plussing Daretti or Dack is a bit better that phyrexian arena if you are not graveyard based and if you are its insanely better than phyrexian arena.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    there are literally more ways to get rid of purphoros than planeswalkers unconditionally, and purphoros is already a problem for alot of groups.
    Edit: Not true if Purphoros isn't a creature but point still stands as lack of removal is to be considered.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    I agree Liliana of the dark realm is one of the ones I wouldn't see as problematic my problematic list would be shorter in general, but my list of interesting (read new/unique ) build arounds would also be shorter by alot.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Exclusion Ritual --> Total lockdown on the selected PW Ixalan's Binding --> Total lockdown on the selected PW
    It kills them but doesnt lock them out since they can just be put in the command zone negating the imprint exile.
    Thats 20 cards either pretty much color specific (only 2 of those arent white) or Pretty expensive answers(Legacy Weapon, Ashen Rider, Scour from Existence, Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger). And still only 20 answers. In a commander game alot of the time you need to answer a commander multiple times. You need a lot more answers in all colors and possibly cheaper than that.
    Direct Damage needs to be at least 4 to be even able to kill half of the existing PWs and that only if they didn't use the +Abilities (Remember they have priority)

    Keeping them alive isn't that threatening to a table. It's similar to leaving something like a phyrexian arena sitting on the table, a noticeable but not gamebreaking persistent bonus.
    Depends on the walker alot of them have way bigger bonuses that are threatening, add to the fact that you can't leave alone of them alone due to ultimates, so I do think that is an unfair comparison.
    Can you consistently ultimate is the real question, and if the answer to that is yes, I would say your deck is so far above your table that it doesn't matter what general you play, because they are unable to answer a single card
    See the thing is there aren't that many answers so it doesn't neccesarly mean your deck is way above them it just means there are to little answers.

    Quote from Anachronity »
    Commander is already a flat busted pay-to-win format when taken to its extreme. If you're worried about Tezzeret combo decks then you're worried about the wrong thing.

    It's a casual format for people to have fun with, and from that perspective there's really no reason that PWs can't be allowed.

    I agree with the there are many busted things and the casual format for people to have fun with, but because of those reasons I think its a bad Idea to make the change for everyone. The reason is PUGs and stuff like magic online there are people who don't like PWs as commanders (or even in general) and I think there are more who dont like them as generals as those who do (see poll) and for those people you will ruin their fun. Thats what I meant with the smaller group can always Houserule it is more difficult with the larger Group.

    But I do agree about the Trial they coul test it out

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    While I agree that people would play more PW removal if they would become legal, I don't agree that there is plenty of removal for PWs a quick scryfall search reveals that there are <15 cards that deal with planeswalkers directly (and (semi)unconditionally) Mostly all in black.
    Bounce doesn't really help as it's a delay and not many decks play many single target bounce cards anyway oh and those tend to be all blue just like the counterspells.
    Direct damage is also limited in color and the ability to deal lethal damage to PW's.
    Add in that most kinds of removal you will still get atleast one activation in anyways.
    With creatures you have alot more ways to deal with them conditionally and unconditionally with pw's most of it is conditionally pretty much color limited. The few unconditional answers are even more color limited and alot of them aren't really playable.

    Edit:
    I dont even come close to the 18 you said looking through WAR
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from Taleran »
    Planeswalkers do not live that long in the Commander games I play now, I don't think peoples desires to keep them down will lessen at all if you make them the Commander.
    That is true, but I never had a problem of keeping daretti alive sililar with a friends freyalise. And by the time they are able to kill them you can play them again anyway maybe even twice. Without adequate numbers of PW removal it's easy to defend them long enough with blocks. If your deck is built around PW's you know to protect them if you only run pws in your 99 you are less likely to focus on their protection, just like with every other commander. If you build a Meren or a krenko deck you try to keep them alive and spend deckspace for exactly that, if you only run them in your 99 and your commander doesn't need the protection you are less likely to do so.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    It should be meaningless but the RC has specifically stated that interest in building around them matters, thus creating an unquantifiable reason to continue letting the format stagnate.


    Also, even if interest in building around them matters, this poll has indicated that just under 40% of people who have seen this thread are interested in building around walkers.

    Due to pollwording that statement could be incorrect one can be for/against pws as commander and still be un/interested in building around pw's.

    Quote from Ph03niX »
    So according to you Tezzeret the Seeker should be banned, yet Arcum Dagsson staying legal? Arcum is cheaper then Tezz and searches ANY artifact compared to max 4 CMC for Tezz.

    I Think you got that backwards as arcum can only look for noncreature artifacts, you need an artifact creature already out need to be able to resolve the trigger of arcum to get anything at all you need to tap him so you need to wait one turn or give it haste (Upside is easy Paradox Engine enabling). While Tezz can be used the turn it comes down can look for any artifact cmc<= 4 that turn, or untap 2 mana rocks, less stipulations and more abilities and without help both usable on turn 5. In my Opinion Tezzeret is the stronger card. Furthermore Tezz decks and arcum decks would look similar so no new deck just a slightly different flavor. That being said this is an individual comparison. I also think not that many commanders would need to be banned, but most of the ones that don't need to be banned don't add much. And those that add much tend to be more on the bannable end. (Of course Generally Speking as Tezzeret the Seeker doesnt add much but is more on the bannable end and Dovin, Grand Arbiter adds much but is rather weak)
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    Not happy with the Vote options.
    If you gotta leave you gotta leave go whenever.
    If you don't have fun and your leaving has little to no impact on the game concede.
    If you CLEARLY don't have a way to win (As in out in a few rounds due to no outs and other peoples outs just delay the inevitable) cencession is fine.
    If You leaving would have a big impact on the game and you still have a chance to win, if you want to quit at least give a heads up.
    (So no stuff like stay in wait for the attack against you and then leave without saying that you will to that) This can be considered a "tactical concession" (If you attack me i will concede)
    I think thats fine even though I would not consider that a "tactical" move because I fail to see how that Improves your chance of winning.

    Keep in mind that in PUGs especially Online it takes time to set up and find people and If you are prone to early concessions you are probably viewed in a negative light as you just wasted their time.

    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Point is, out of all the PW's (140 now, 37 incomming), I could find around 20 which I find interesting and make a deck for them (11%+). I hardly find 11% (93 creatures) out of all the 844 which I find interesting.


    That is personal preference if we knew that everyone has the same the argument on that front would be over. Also the 11% will most likely fall since now it still has the advantage of not even having 1/4 of the numbers the creatures have and technically design space is rather limited on PWs.

    IMO Hardly any PW really opens new doors. So usage comes down to personal preference or power reasons. Like Dovin, Hand of Control vs. grand-arbiter-augustin-iv both helm the same kind of deck. (And I think Grand arbiter does it better)

    Dunharrow also makes another good point PWs hurt aggressive decks which already don't have the greatest of times in edh.

    Edit:
    elpokitolama So much This Grin
    What's fun to you may not be fun to other people

    But unfortunately that can't really be used as an argument for or against PWs. But I wish more people would reckognise this.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    ... I think the statement is sort of heavily stunted towards the fact we're mostly in groups of people who were with the format for already so long, plus we don't actually question enough why some newer players who choose to not continue the format after a short trial (or start the format at all). I honestly won't be surprised if a lot of newer players don't start / barely try the format because their favorite planeswalker ... can't be a Commander


    I think this is a very valid argument unfortunately as you said we don't know if for the majority of people new to the format this is the case. I know only a few people who never tried/ tried and didn't continue so my sample size is waaay to small to conclude something from it. (4 people 2 of them just started playing magic altogether one rarely plays and one (the one who tried) has a self imposed limit of only cards up until and including mirrodin block and he really didn't like his options, and all of those 4 exclusivly play in the same playgroup)
    My Own reason why I didn't like/try EDH at first was both the singleton aspect as well as the fact that I thought that you either couldn't use the commander meaningfully or basically just cast your commander over and over thus turning it more into a one card game. I changed when WWK came out and I really wanted to build a Omnath, Locus of Mana deck and none of my 60 card decks worked that well so I gave EDH a try and played ever since.



    The clincher? Ultimately EDH is a casual format and we don't need the growth, so everything I said could be potentially treated as pointless - EDH has a stable active player base and doesn't need the growth and neither is the lack of growth "hurting" the format (because at this stage, the RC/format doesn't really benefit from growth, to be blunt), but at the same time I sometimes sit back and think, but even if it does not harm the format like it does for a lot of cases of "old boys' clubs collapsing" (hence I say it isn't negative for our case), it doesn't mean this line of thinking/inaction isn't considered one.


    Even though I am still more on the "No Change" side I actually think needing growth should not be underevaluated but unfortunately as you stated before we don't know why people don't try it/stick with it. If it is the PW debate for the majority and the growth trumps the losses I would be all for it, even though I don't think that it opens much more doors gameplay wise, and those opened may be on the moe obnoxius side.
    EDIT:
    Because it is always easier for the smaller group to Housrule stuff so if we gain more people than we'd loose the ones who don't like the change can still use houserules. It is however more difficult to houserule the bigger group.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Ah sorry if that came out wrong that was not the intend of me pointing that out. Time wise it's just a bit more than my reg. playgroup when we are just 3 people.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.