Let me tell you. I really tried, but this deck does not fare well in a cutthroat meta.
I got really disheartened yesterday after my first few games with Selvala.
Game 1:
I resolve T2 Selvala, and T3 Big Green Critter (I think Soul of the Harvest).
Opponent1 T3: Lol. Destroy all nonbasic lands (I have 1 forest remaining - yey) Opponent 2: destroy all critters. Opponent 1 (with Daretti) Possessed Portal from the Yard. Me: sigh. scoop.
Game 2:
Opponent3: T2 The Abyss, T3 Tangle Wire + some mana rocks T4 Repeating Land Destruction (all scoop)
Etc. Etc. All night long.
I really like the concept of this deck, but I’m afraid it just tries to play too fair (if that means dropping very fast Eldrazi Titans) in a world full of “Not Letting My Opponents Play Magic”.
Have you considered attacking your opponent's mana? Cards like Null Rod, Titania's Song, Seeds of Innocence, Sphere of Resistance, and Bane of Progress make life difficult for fast opening opponents. Orb effects can also be useful in shutting down the board while you have Selvala and a large critter out.
Thanks for your suggestions, Swift2210. I'll certainly look into that.
Anyone having ideas on keeping oppponents ramping land in check? It's not uncommon for my opponents having T3 6 lands (+rocks) on the battlefield. I feel like I just can't keep up, even with Selvala mana.
Winter Orb is the obvious pick for slowing land ramp. Tangle Wire and Thorn of Amethyst could also be considered, in addition to Swift's recommendations, if you want more staxxy elements.
I'm thinking now about some of the better Yisan and Edric lists I've seen, and many of those include some light stax, geared to the purpose of sustaining tempo (read: not for locks). I'm not sure the stax would work quite as well here, as those decks supplement the stax with more direct control measures (Yisan: tutoring creature based removal. Edric: counterspells.) Here, with Selvala, the plan looks to be more direct in going over the top of other's plays, rather than interacting with them. Still, some stax might be fine here... worth a shot, at least, if you're struggling. I'd probably start with Null Rod, Winter Orb, and Tangle Wire as an initial suite (in effort to make creature-based mana the only mana... dorks rule, rocks drool), and later consider Sphere of Resistance and Thorn.
Edit: and then I go back to the decklist and realize that Null Rod turns off all our mana rocks (not a big deal with Selvala in play) as well as our equipment and Staff (ouch, wincons). Heh, well this deck really just wants to go over the top, doesn't it? Hmm.
The problem with running those lands is they need to tap for the mana. The only way Parallax Wave can blink lands is if Living Plane is out, and the lands don't have haste.
Oh yeah thats very true. Never mind those other cards. Don't think I can make room for vestige anyway with the land situation I have
Parallax Wave, Living Plane, and an Opalescence effect gives infinite mana from lands without needing a haste effect.
1. Use Wave to exile a land.
2. Use Wave to exile itself. Wave and the land return to play. (land is untapped)
3. Use Wave to exile Living Plane.
4. Tap land for mana.
5. Use Wave to exile itself. Wave and Plane return to play.
repeat as desired. (Let each exile activation resolve between steps, of course--the "hold priority" exiles are for problem permanents.)
If using Starfield to provide the Opalescence effect, then you need 6 total enchantments. In step 5 Living Plane is exiled, and Wave must still be a creature in order to target itself and continue the loop.
There are many reasons to play a game of EDH, and I think this topic benefits from retaining those contexts. I'd tentatively propose a preliminary categorization scheme of {competitive / for fun}. By no means are these comprehensive categories, and I'm certainly open to alternative lenses to sort out motivation. Still, these two bins cover the most common motivations for me personally, so hopefully they'll be enough to convey the thrust of my thinking.
Competitive play
By competitive play I mean games or tournaments with prizes on the line. I will immediately concede that multiplayer EDH has deep, pervasive collusion problems. E.g. a pod of 4, where 3 are friends and one is a stranger... well, the difficulty is obvious. There's plenty of opportunity for ambiguous, unprovable collusion during the course of the game.
Still, tournaments happen. Perhaps this is a bad idea, and the organizers should host something else. But as long as they're happening (and they are), and as long as we want to participate in them (and I for one do), we should talk about tournament-level rules to discourage collusion. This is a big umbrella, under which scooping mechanics are only one tiny item. Despite being only a small piece of a large difficult puzzle, there is this: scooping is low-hanging fruit. That is, it's easy to implement scooping rules in a tournament (easy relative to other collusion-prevention mechanisms), and it immediately addresses a class of collusion opportunities.
I would propose something like: There are no constraints on scooping, but if you do then you're out of the tournament, and forfeit all door/participation prizes. This isn't a hard-line proposal I'd fight for, and there's likely something better.
For fun
Stable playgroups will likely settle into either pro-scooping or no-scooping steady states, given enough time together. There's a lot of friction when the two sides clash--arguments and accusations from the no-scoopers when scooped upon, likely. I figure that after many conversations, maybe a big pile of salt, maybe a side-helping of game theory bull*****, eventually, anyway, a consensus is reached. Either the group determines that a tactical scoop is a welcome part of the game, and adds a fun meta-level ingredient to the game, or they find that the douche scoop is a spiteful and immature and won't stand for it. I don't think either of these stances is right or wrong--whatever the group enjoys should be implemented in the local social contract.
Local play in preparation for a tournament is a non-issue. I only mention it because, well, I'm doing exactly that tonight, and it's on my mind, and so I'm preempting any objections for that game motivation. If you've got a group that's testing together for competitive play, then you've already hurdled all the big social barriers, and should be able to quickly and calmly establish scooping protocols. In my test group we don't permit scoops, in anticipation of tournament rules (god, I hope the organizers have thought it through and it's not a cluster****).
Because I want to see more combo and control decks :
Perfect Transmutation UG
Instant
Search your library for a spell with converted mana cost 1 and cast it without paying it's mana cost.
This is absurdly broken. With Ancestral Visions in your deck it's practically Ancestral Recall at UG; and that's just one of many options. If that card was legal every deck in Modern, Legacy and Vintage would start with 4 Perfect Transmutation + x Ancestrak Visoins...
Have you considered running the new BUG commander, Leovold, Emissary of Trest, as your commander? I know this deck doesn't really depend on the command zone aside from the colors, but Leovold seems like he could provide some protection, and at least do more than The Mimeoplasm.
Mimeoplasm is nigh useless to the build, except as extremely niche graveyard hate. Still, Leovold has some problematic baggage for this deck due to his card draw ability. The combo becomes vulnerable to opponents targeting your permanents.
you: "Oath my deck into graveyard... Flashback Memory's Journey?"
them: "With that on the stack, Swords targeting your Leovold."
you: "Oh. Well..."
Edit: nevermind, Leovold's card draw is optional. I'll leave this post here to commemorate my shame anyway.
The sacrifice is a state-based ability so you won't be able to respond with Selvalas mana ability I'm pretty sure. I also don't like the other pump spells.
Phyrexian Devourer's sacrifice clause is a trigger, not state-based. It goes on the stack and can be responded to. Jarad decks use this exact mechanic as part of their combo.
Or consider using any other competitive format for your needs instead of trying to shoehorn social play guidelines into a competitive format.
I think that an expectation of players not playing up to the very edge of the rules in competitive play will continue to breed problems.
The OP refers to event play, not casual play. There are EDH tournaments and leagues with prizes. Maybe this is a bad idea, and the organizers of these events should stop hosting them. Or, alternatively, this just means that we don't need a one-size-fits-all answer to dealing with the issue. Off the cuff... Tournament? Scoop = out of the tourney, no prizes. League? Scoop = point deduction. Casual? Scoop = talking with the group about social contract.
I don't think it's right to force a player to sit in a game they can't win, and if that player decides that in scooping they can achieve some form of retribution against the player who's putting them in that position, who is anyone to fault them for that? It's not necessarily spite as much as it is roleplaying as a defeated planeswalker making one last strike to hinder his executioner.
Role-playing appeal surely doesn't favor scooping. We have the in-game fantasy of spells and creatures, etc, and a decidedly un-fantasy like subset of rules for dealing with real-life players that (need/want) to (leave the game/abort the fantasy). A player choosing to scoop specifically to deny triggers (or counter a spell that targets them, or whatever) is explicitly choosing to disrupt the core role-playing elements by exercising beyond-the-4th-wall rules. The retribution you're referring to here is the opposite of role-playing. It's a refusal to role-play your own death, and instead setting your character sheet on fire so that nobody can get the items off of your dead body (reaching a bit for this analogy, but hopefully it's close enough to make the point).
So yes, I would argue that the spite-scoop is a bug, and not a feature. I'm not sure how best to address the problem, but I do think it's important to first recognize that it's a problem. It's difficult for the obvious reasons: sometimes players have to leave, but the game must continue, and we can't assess a player's motivations for leaving. With the difficulty confessed, still I'd maintain that a mechanic that allows "you and another player lose" is not a desirable mechanic for a multiplayer game.
Re: forcing players to sit in unwinnable games. It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which this condition lasts for very long. Certainly "I scoop in response to lethal combat" or "I scoop with your post-Doomsday Gitaxian Probe on the stack" don't fit this category, as in these examples the game would be over in moments anyway (for you, at least). Even the extremely contrived Selvala example from a few posts back doesn't paint an unwinnable scene, as it breaks down due to random topdeck reveals or an opponent drawing into a Force of Will or whatever. Granted, there's surely some other prison-style example that could be imagined, but I struggle to think of one that requires opponents to remain in the game to function. But generally speaking, let's remember we're playing a format where Stasis, Nether Void, etc are legal cards. Moreover, EDH is notorious for taking longer than most other formats. "It's taking too long" seems like a thin complaint--this is EDH, it's part of what you sign up for when you play it.
I don't think anybody's advocating Grenzo as a potential slot in, say, Legacy burn. Not every deck subscribes to the philosophy of fire.
Grenzo looks like hot funsies for a few formats. Conspiracy draft and EDH immediately come to mind. For cubes, he offers plenty of potential interactions, depending on how it's built.
There appears to be approx 6 non-land flex slots in the list (if keeping the white splash, that is, obviously more changes if pivoted to a red splash). If I'm diffing correctly, then currently this is the variation between Shaper & Lupu's lists:
Any thoughts on Duress and/or Thoughtseize in a flex slot? These would seem to address some of the interactive problem cards (enchantment removal, counterspells).
Also, how's Extract been? I've goldfished the deck maybe 15 times--admittedly not a lot--but it seems to have no shortage of routes to exile a CfE guy. It seems the other exiling cards all provide more utility, so I'm thinking Extract might be the most expendable. I suppose it can target an opponent, which could occasionally be relevant against linear combo decks.
Anyway, this deck looks like loads of fun. I've been tinkering with a paper list, but lack the Timetwister, Grim Tutor, and Imperial Seal. These constraints would seem to reduce the explosive potential a bit, needing more time on average to draw into the combo. I'm thinking to port in the small hatebears package (Aven, Priest, maybe Survival) as early game control stopgaps to buy time--thoughts?
First of all, apologies if this is not the correct forum for this post. Before posting I browsed & searched several finance and software forums, but have been unable to find solid answers--and in fact have only added to my list of questions! I'm experiencing that uneasy nervousness of a noob dipping his toes in super deep waters. Please bear with me.
So I've been seeking a method to price decklists using TCG-market. (Full disclosure: at my LGS we're going to run some budget-constrained EDH, and we figured to use TCG market NM prices as our indicator.) After some tinkering with deck listing sites (tappedout, deckstats, deckbox, etc) it appears that none of them support TCG market prices... and in fact there's some variance in the prices that they pull. Maybe this is simply the result of TCG market being a relatively new price point, and TCG's API isn't yet stabilized / sites haven't updated their pull mechanisms?
Narrow question:
Is there a particular tool / site that I can use for pricing decklists using TCG market, to support my local playgroup's silly budget format? If not, then we'll probably just adopt one of the price benchmarks (one used by a decklist site already, likely).
General question:
What is the deal with software pricing? The status quo's got some unholy complexity issues, and this noob is getting the fear. Is there a primer somewhere that describes the differences between the software pricing? Maybe just something as simple as: here is the set of price creators, here's the array of prices created by each one, and here's a map showing which software links to which price.
I've been working to assemble a similar list, but don't see myself getting a Nether Void. How critical is this card to performance? Thoughts on Sphere of Resistance in that slot? The Sphere seems like the best budget fill-in for that function, at least that I can find. There are others... Trinisphere, Thorn of Amethyst, taxing hate bears, and so on.
My concern is running too many of the above fill-ins reduces the enchantment density. The front page list is currently at 22 enchantments, which to me appears to be around the minimum to justify the enchantress theme. Unfortunately there's precious few stax enchantments to bolt on that don't directly interfere with the deck's gameplans... Choke and Martyr'r Bond (ew 6 mana!) come to mind. Any other ideas? There are a lot of silver-bullet style (but not necessarily stax-y) enchantments that could fill in.
...Zooming out to 10,000 feet, and thinking about alternative build approaches within the space this deck occupies. Maybe a soft re-build could help smooth over the lack of Nether Void? Options:
Reach further into the bin and double-down on enchantments, hoping to gather more enchantress triggers. Add more silver bullets like Rule of Law, Choke, Solitary Confinement, etc to arrive in the 30s count of enchantments. Probable cuts: some instant/sorcery removal, maybe a bit of the ramp. Seems slower and higher variance: less early interaction, more late game once bullets get online. Not too enticing.
Stay tight to the front-page build, just replace Nether Void. How much is lost without Nether Void?
Abandon enchantress, run more broad-spectrum stax. Thing is, most of the currently included enchantments would be retained for their value anyway. Maybe just the enchantress effects, Doomwake, and Starfield go out. But wait, if all the rest of the enchantments stay, then why not keep the enchantress stuff, too? How's the current deck perform if you never draw/tutor into an enchantress effect?
So yeah, I guess that illustrates the tension I'm feeling while putting together my own paper list. Budgeting is annoying, even if it's only one card lacking. Sorry if this became a bit of a ramble--I'd love to hears some outside thoughts.
I am not sure if this is mean so if it comes off as this I apologize.
Having read your posts on Commander I honestly have to ask if you are just trolling these forums? Every time is the same formula, a thing no one else thinks is that big a problem a bunch of reasons explaining why the problem is not a problem and then you ignoring all of those reasons and continuing from square one.
It feels intentional after more than 2 examples of it.
I believe the average commander player doesn't pay attention to what's actually going on in their games. What's winning, what's useless, what appears broken but isn't and what is actually absurd. I also believe it is extremely difficult to properly construct a casual commander deck that leads to fun games, well beyond the design skill of most players. It takes me days of thought and careful compromise to try and come up with a balanced commander deck, and that's with more than a decade of multiplayer experience.
The fact that people disagree with me does not bother me. I believe they will eventually realize I am right.
For example, I've recieved dozens of "just run more removal" replies. I ignore those outright.
Emphasis mine. You were not called out for failing to be bothered by rebuttals. You were called out for failing to engage with them. I'd say your stance is some sort of manifesto, except it lacks supporting arguments. Rather than simply hope people eventually realize you're right, you could instead argue the point. My dad bought all the shares of "Trust me, I'm right" when I was a kid, and that market's been ruined ever since.
As for the original question: No, I don't think printing additional haymakers is killing the format. I'd start by saying that Commander is nebulous--it's lots of different things to different people. As it applies to me personally, well, there aren't many haymakers in my local meta. In a typical game I'd expect decks that seek to seize control of the board (or combo out) earlier than the haymakers would come online. E.g. trying to ramp to an 8-drop on turn 5? Ok, have a Winter Orb and/or Null Rod/whatever... Adding more haymakers to the card pool isn't relevant, to me, at least not so relevant that it would kill the format.
It seems that you're not enjoying your games. Clearly lots of other people are. It'd seem you would get more benefit from working on improving your own experience, rather than posting about the impending doom of the entire format.
Another creature I'm considering is Loyal Pegasus. Thoughts?
Reconnaissance works just fine with Infiltration Lens. Lens is triggered upon blockers being declared, and goes on the stack. You can use the Reconnaissance ability immediately after putting the Lens trigger on the stack, and you'll still get to draw the cards since Lens won't check to see that your creature is still in combat when it resolves. Or, you can activate the Recon ability after the Lens trigger resolves, and that's fine, too. As long as you don't pass priority on an empty stack, the game won't progress to the Damage step.
The Loyal Pegasus seems pretty good. Not sure how it stacks up to your other dudes--honestly I'm not familiar with all of the creatures in the list. I've only skimmed through them to get the flavor of things. I definitely couldn't identify the weakest of them for a possible cut.
Actually, probably best to check out existing lists and mine them for ideas. Here are two colorless primers:
Karn: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/multiplayer-commander-decklists/217093-karn-silver-golem
Kozilek: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/multiplayer-commander-decklists/477463-kozilek-butcher-with-juice
Winter Orb is the obvious pick for slowing land ramp. Tangle Wire and Thorn of Amethyst could also be considered, in addition to Swift's recommendations, if you want more staxxy elements.
I'm thinking now about some of the better Yisan and Edric lists I've seen, and many of those include some light stax, geared to the purpose of sustaining tempo (read: not for locks). I'm not sure the stax would work quite as well here, as those decks supplement the stax with more direct control measures (Yisan: tutoring creature based removal. Edric: counterspells.) Here, with Selvala, the plan looks to be more direct in going over the top of other's plays, rather than interacting with them. Still, some stax might be fine here... worth a shot, at least, if you're struggling. I'd probably start with Null Rod, Winter Orb, and Tangle Wire as an initial suite (in effort to make creature-based mana the only mana... dorks rule, rocks drool), and later consider Sphere of Resistance and Thorn.
Edit: and then I go back to the decklist and realize that Null Rod turns off all our mana rocks (not a big deal with Selvala in play) as well as our equipment and Staff (ouch, wincons). Heh, well this deck really just wants to go over the top, doesn't it? Hmm.
Parallax Wave, Living Plane, and an Opalescence effect gives infinite mana from lands without needing a haste effect.
1. Use Wave to exile a land.
2. Use Wave to exile itself. Wave and the land return to play. (land is untapped)
3. Use Wave to exile Living Plane.
4. Tap land for mana.
5. Use Wave to exile itself. Wave and Plane return to play.
repeat as desired. (Let each exile activation resolve between steps, of course--the "hold priority" exiles are for problem permanents.)
If using Starfield to provide the Opalescence effect, then you need 6 total enchantments. In step 5 Living Plane is exiled, and Wave must still be a creature in order to target itself and continue the loop.
Competitive play
By competitive play I mean games or tournaments with prizes on the line. I will immediately concede that multiplayer EDH has deep, pervasive collusion problems. E.g. a pod of 4, where 3 are friends and one is a stranger... well, the difficulty is obvious. There's plenty of opportunity for ambiguous, unprovable collusion during the course of the game.
Still, tournaments happen. Perhaps this is a bad idea, and the organizers should host something else. But as long as they're happening (and they are), and as long as we want to participate in them (and I for one do), we should talk about tournament-level rules to discourage collusion. This is a big umbrella, under which scooping mechanics are only one tiny item. Despite being only a small piece of a large difficult puzzle, there is this: scooping is low-hanging fruit. That is, it's easy to implement scooping rules in a tournament (easy relative to other collusion-prevention mechanisms), and it immediately addresses a class of collusion opportunities.
I would propose something like: There are no constraints on scooping, but if you do then you're out of the tournament, and forfeit all door/participation prizes. This isn't a hard-line proposal I'd fight for, and there's likely something better.
For fun
Stable playgroups will likely settle into either pro-scooping or no-scooping steady states, given enough time together. There's a lot of friction when the two sides clash--arguments and accusations from the no-scoopers when scooped upon, likely. I figure that after many conversations, maybe a big pile of salt, maybe a side-helping of game theory bull*****, eventually, anyway, a consensus is reached. Either the group determines that a tactical scoop is a welcome part of the game, and adds a fun meta-level ingredient to the game, or they find that the douche scoop is a spiteful and immature and won't stand for it. I don't think either of these stances is right or wrong--whatever the group enjoys should be implemented in the local social contract.
Local play in preparation for a tournament is a non-issue. I only mention it because, well, I'm doing exactly that tonight, and it's on my mind, and so I'm preempting any objections for that game motivation. If you've got a group that's testing together for competitive play, then you've already hurdled all the big social barriers, and should be able to quickly and calmly establish scooping protocols. In my test group we don't permit scoops, in anticipation of tournament rules (god, I hope the organizers have thought it through and it's not a cluster****).
Ancestral Visions has CMC 0.
Mimeoplasm is nigh useless to the build, except as extremely niche graveyard hate. Still, Leovold has some problematic baggage for this deck due to his card draw ability. The combo becomes vulnerable to opponents targeting your permanents.
you: "Oath my deck into graveyard... Flashback Memory's Journey?"
them: "With that on the stack, Swords targeting your Leovold."
you: "Oh. Well..."
Edit: nevermind, Leovold's card draw is optional. I'll leave this post here to commemorate my shame anyway.
Phyrexian Devourer's sacrifice clause is a trigger, not state-based. It goes on the stack and can be responded to. Jarad decks use this exact mechanic as part of their combo.
The OP refers to event play, not casual play. There are EDH tournaments and leagues with prizes. Maybe this is a bad idea, and the organizers of these events should stop hosting them. Or, alternatively, this just means that we don't need a one-size-fits-all answer to dealing with the issue. Off the cuff... Tournament? Scoop = out of the tourney, no prizes. League? Scoop = point deduction. Casual? Scoop = talking with the group about social contract.
Role-playing appeal surely doesn't favor scooping. We have the in-game fantasy of spells and creatures, etc, and a decidedly un-fantasy like subset of rules for dealing with real-life players that (need/want) to (leave the game/abort the fantasy). A player choosing to scoop specifically to deny triggers (or counter a spell that targets them, or whatever) is explicitly choosing to disrupt the core role-playing elements by exercising beyond-the-4th-wall rules. The retribution you're referring to here is the opposite of role-playing. It's a refusal to role-play your own death, and instead setting your character sheet on fire so that nobody can get the items off of your dead body (reaching a bit for this analogy, but hopefully it's close enough to make the point).
So yes, I would argue that the spite-scoop is a bug, and not a feature. I'm not sure how best to address the problem, but I do think it's important to first recognize that it's a problem. It's difficult for the obvious reasons: sometimes players have to leave, but the game must continue, and we can't assess a player's motivations for leaving. With the difficulty confessed, still I'd maintain that a mechanic that allows "you and another player lose" is not a desirable mechanic for a multiplayer game.
Re: forcing players to sit in unwinnable games. It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which this condition lasts for very long. Certainly "I scoop in response to lethal combat" or "I scoop with your post-Doomsday Gitaxian Probe on the stack" don't fit this category, as in these examples the game would be over in moments anyway (for you, at least). Even the extremely contrived Selvala example from a few posts back doesn't paint an unwinnable scene, as it breaks down due to random topdeck reveals or an opponent drawing into a Force of Will or whatever. Granted, there's surely some other prison-style example that could be imagined, but I struggle to think of one that requires opponents to remain in the game to function. But generally speaking, let's remember we're playing a format where Stasis, Nether Void, etc are legal cards. Moreover, EDH is notorious for taking longer than most other formats. "It's taking too long" seems like a thin complaint--this is EDH, it's part of what you sign up for when you play it.
Grenzo looks like hot funsies for a few formats. Conspiracy draft and EDH immediately come to mind. For cubes, he offers plenty of potential interactions, depending on how it's built.
Shaper's:
Lupu's:
Any thoughts on Duress and/or Thoughtseize in a flex slot? These would seem to address some of the interactive problem cards (enchantment removal, counterspells).
Also, how's Extract been? I've goldfished the deck maybe 15 times--admittedly not a lot--but it seems to have no shortage of routes to exile a CfE guy. It seems the other exiling cards all provide more utility, so I'm thinking Extract might be the most expendable. I suppose it can target an opponent, which could occasionally be relevant against linear combo decks.
Anyway, this deck looks like loads of fun. I've been tinkering with a paper list, but lack the Timetwister, Grim Tutor, and Imperial Seal. These constraints would seem to reduce the explosive potential a bit, needing more time on average to draw into the combo. I'm thinking to port in the small hatebears package (Aven, Priest, maybe Survival) as early game control stopgaps to buy time--thoughts?
So I've been seeking a method to price decklists using TCG-market. (Full disclosure: at my LGS we're going to run some budget-constrained EDH, and we figured to use TCG market NM prices as our indicator.) After some tinkering with deck listing sites (tappedout, deckstats, deckbox, etc) it appears that none of them support TCG market prices... and in fact there's some variance in the prices that they pull. Maybe this is simply the result of TCG market being a relatively new price point, and TCG's API isn't yet stabilized / sites haven't updated their pull mechanisms?
Narrow question:
Is there a particular tool / site that I can use for pricing decklists using TCG market, to support my local playgroup's silly budget format? If not, then we'll probably just adopt one of the price benchmarks (one used by a decklist site already, likely).
General question:
What is the deal with software pricing? The status quo's got some unholy complexity issues, and this noob is getting the fear. Is there a primer somewhere that describes the differences between the software pricing? Maybe just something as simple as: here is the set of price creators, here's the array of prices created by each one, and here's a map showing which software links to which price.
My concern is running too many of the above fill-ins reduces the enchantment density. The front page list is currently at 22 enchantments, which to me appears to be around the minimum to justify the enchantress theme. Unfortunately there's precious few stax enchantments to bolt on that don't directly interfere with the deck's gameplans... Choke and Martyr'r Bond (ew 6 mana!) come to mind. Any other ideas? There are a lot of silver-bullet style (but not necessarily stax-y) enchantments that could fill in.
...Zooming out to 10,000 feet, and thinking about alternative build approaches within the space this deck occupies. Maybe a soft re-build could help smooth over the lack of Nether Void? Options:
So yeah, I guess that illustrates the tension I'm feeling while putting together my own paper list. Budgeting is annoying, even if it's only one card lacking. Sorry if this became a bit of a ramble--I'd love to hears some outside thoughts.
Emphasis mine. You were not called out for failing to be bothered by rebuttals. You were called out for failing to engage with them. I'd say your stance is some sort of manifesto, except it lacks supporting arguments. Rather than simply hope people eventually realize you're right, you could instead argue the point. My dad bought all the shares of "Trust me, I'm right" when I was a kid, and that market's been ruined ever since.
As for the original question: No, I don't think printing additional haymakers is killing the format. I'd start by saying that Commander is nebulous--it's lots of different things to different people. As it applies to me personally, well, there aren't many haymakers in my local meta. In a typical game I'd expect decks that seek to seize control of the board (or combo out) earlier than the haymakers would come online. E.g. trying to ramp to an 8-drop on turn 5? Ok, have a Winter Orb and/or Null Rod/whatever... Adding more haymakers to the card pool isn't relevant, to me, at least not so relevant that it would kill the format.
It seems that you're not enjoying your games. Clearly lots of other people are. It'd seem you would get more benefit from working on improving your own experience, rather than posting about the impending doom of the entire format.
Reconnaissance works just fine with Infiltration Lens. Lens is triggered upon blockers being declared, and goes on the stack. You can use the Reconnaissance ability immediately after putting the Lens trigger on the stack, and you'll still get to draw the cards since Lens won't check to see that your creature is still in combat when it resolves. Or, you can activate the Recon ability after the Lens trigger resolves, and that's fine, too. As long as you don't pass priority on an empty stack, the game won't progress to the Damage step.
The Loyal Pegasus seems pretty good. Not sure how it stacks up to your other dudes--honestly I'm not familiar with all of the creatures in the list. I've only skimmed through them to get the flavor of things. I definitely couldn't identify the weakest of them for a possible cut.