2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Rules committee narrow minded?
    We have such, and the results are an exercise in the practical differences in balancing for competition and balancing for fun. Your banned list would strive to set an equal playing field. Their banned list strives to baby-proof the house where baby Timmies are growing up. Keeping the tide pods on a high shelf won't stop an adult from having a bad day if one so chooses, but it'll stop a kid from thinking its candy. That's how the current banlist works - or my impression of it. They'll never make commander unbreakable, so they don't try. Think of the children.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Rules committee narrow minded?
    The "combo players should play somewhere else" stance is definitely foolish coming from anyone against counterspells. You can't be both an advocate for interactivity, and of the position that if you cast a spell, you are 100% entitled to its effect/ETB. Imagine the confidence of looking at your hand and never having to worry about when to cast it, because you know that doing anything about it is wrong.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Rules committee narrow minded?
    Not to derail further, but I like that both cEDH and Commander exist - oil and water - and the interplay between the two in the power levels where they can reasonably intermingle are some of the most interesting to me. Taking the ideas generated in cEDH and attempting to casualize it is a lot of fun to me - taking objectively uncompetitive strategies and commanders and attempting to dial them up to 11 with a cEDH mindset. Casual ideas built competitively. I don't know that I'd enjoy as much, the echo chamber that would develop without controversial outside viewpoints.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Rules committee narrow minded?
    Every logical bone in my body agrees with your premise that casual Commander should be just fine with a social contract and house rules, and that the banned list need only pluck a handful of utterly format-breaking cards. That said, sometimes life isn't logical, and I think things are better the way they are now than they would be if I were running the show and deregulated the format into a wild west 100 card vintage with additional deck construction rules, with the caveat that players would have my permission to agree with their friends on other changes if they're playing Commander in their homes.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Rules committee narrow minded?
    Quote from Cranky »
    [quote from="BaronCappuccino »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/818857-rules-committee-narrow-minded?comment=42"]Meanwhile the poor neglected cEDH crowd literally had to beg the RC to fix their own mistake and ban Flash after unleashing Protean Hulk into the meta for no discernible reason.


    No more neglected than the poor casual Legacy or Modern player as WotC won't do anything about netdecking and forcing creativity at their events (absurd, of course and I'm not vouching for this because it's dumb). The player in your post was of course, entirely out of line, but we know, as evidenced by all the other formats, what happens when casual isn't heavily defended. Poor neglected cEDH swore that banning Flash would solve their problems with homogeneity, but rumor has it, now they're grumbling about partners. Homogeneity is as much an inevitability as the sun going red giant and swallowing everything through Mars. There's almost no room for compromise. The middle ground of 2010 between a casual deck and a tryhard deck and the middle ground of today are so far apart that you could likely fit the entire spectrum of 2010 in between the middle ground and each extreme. Without drawing a line in the sand, the results are inevitable.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Rules committee narrow minded?
    One of the reasons Commander is successful, is because an influential force pushes back against the natural trend towards cEDH, and that force is the RC. Commander is unique because competition naturally breeds improvement, which trends towards a singular endpoint, and the RC have accumulated the gravitas to tell people willing to listen, "not here". I don't know that cEDH wouldn't be the norm if not for a relentless PR effort to the contrary. Casuals are a large voice in MtG, but they're a quiet voice. I feel like the RC is their megaphone. By "staying in 2010", the RC prevents the so called Overton Window from constantly redefining what casual is, as what competitive is consistently pushes ever forward.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on What Are you using for a Deck Box?
    I've stayed pretty loyal to Ultra Pro's Satin Tower. They hold all the cards I need, and, though I don't double-sleeve, I do try and supply the tokens for cards that donate such to my opponents, as well as my own, and they hold about 42 mini dice. It's really everything I need.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on July 2019 Ban List Update
    Quote from Hermes_ »
    I love the salt coming from r/MTGfinance for example

    "I think PE should be banned, that being said, I don't think Sheldon should be the final say on bans anymore but I also think the ban list should be binding and not a suggestion.

    I don't know what the right answer is but it def feels bad having a singular PLAYER be able to cut or add millions of dollars from/to magic collections world wide with a tweet."


    As far as I know, that's not even how it works. I'm under the impression the RC is more democratic. I'm sure Sheldon's opinion carries a whole lot more, maybe the most, gravitas behind it, but that only goes so far. The idea of King Menery and his Court of Merry Men dictating bans from a single mind doesn't really add up to the impressions the RC gives at each B/R update.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on July 2019 Ban List Update
    Yes, there is absolutely no reason to get an extra one to two mana at all *rolls eyes*


    Genius post. Do people think you believe that an extra one or two mana is all you get from Paradox Engine? Do they assume you're being sarcastic towards folks who don't support the banning of Paradox Engine? Do they know your post was made as a reply to mine? Did you take it literally-- ostensibly regarding my comment about Sol Ring and Birds? Were you just playing along? The people need to know.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Banning Criteria discussion: Allow players to win out of nowhere
    The only other card in recent memory that evoked a similar notion of breakability on release is Bolas's Citadel, and I'm hoping requiring colored mana saves it from a similar fate.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on July 2019 Ban List Update
    Quote from shivxxx »
    Wow. Banning Paradox Engine, that requires alot of setup to actually go nuts, but keeping various A+B Combos in the Format. I seriously don't get Sheldon. I think both bans are utter nonsense.


    That's what I was thinking - Paradox Engine requires so much outside the box thinking to work. You'd need to be playing it in a deck that ramps, for example. Given that high cost of inclusion, the ban caught me off guard as well. Now that Paradox Engine is banned, there's really no point in playing cards like Sol Ring or Birds of Paradise anymore, which'll please the folks who don't like fast mana.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Podcast: May 16th Commander Advisory Group
    Quote from umtiger »
    I agree about Lightning Bolt. I mean, the best strategy to combat being locked out is to win-faster or have good, appropriate low-cmc answers.

    However, I just don't feel that population who complain about stax pieces and people who actually want to play Lightning Bolt overlap.

    My point about Narset is just that in the grand scheme of how many decks get built:
    1.) Narset + Wheel of Fortune played back to back
    2.) Leovold + Wheel of Fortune played back to back

    I believe that #2 would be easier for decks to interact against.


    I'm not sure people who don't want to play "good, appropriate low-cmc answers" as you very accurately described them, deserve to be factored into complaints about the cards they actively choose to be helpless against. Is a card oppressive against people who are willing to try? Those are the cards to worry about. If I ever complained about artifacts and enchantments as a mono black EDH guy who actively opts against the off-pie artifact removal or generic artifact-based artifact and enchantment removal, I would hope nobody would give me any attention. My choice not to run appropriate answers doesn't make threats more worthy of consideration. I see it fairly often that people shouldn't have to run answers, and they're free to make that choice, but they can't be free from the consequences. Now, cards that can be commanders clearly aught to be held to a different standard, because not even I would advocate that decks run nothing but efficient answers for a threat that can't go away.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Mystic Forge - Eternal Central
    It looks like it would be good in Commander, but the lack of a "Should we ban this before it comes out?" thread at MtGCommander's forums leads me to wonder.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Treasured Memories: Captain Lannery Storm
    They're definitely on the short list if Lannery fails to perform. Truth is, by the time I included everything on my mind when I had the idea, I ran out of space. In fact, hitting 40 nonland cards caught me off guard in deck construction. Also on my shortlist are cards to protect the good Captain as she attacks - probably the biggest vulnerability I see right now. Fortunately, I don't have to ride Lannery home all in one go, because she's pretty cheap. I hope to threaten on the artifact and burn fronts simultaneously. I can't say I really take stock in the commander damage option outside of a duel, and even then, I'd call it a long shot, but one thing I'm sure of is that this deck isn't grinding out a victory in the combat step like a Boros deck.
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Treasured Memories: Captain Lannery Storm
    The Captain’s primary objective is to acquire 20 artifacts and protect the Hellkite Tyrant for a turn. Her backup plan is to resolve a lethal Fireball variant with the help of treasures and damage doublers. A more challenging tertiary option is to win with commander damage using the same doublers in conjunction with her triggered ability.

    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.