Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
  • posted a message on The Boros Commander Problem
    It certainly won't be broken in EDH. In legacy and modern, perhaps.
    It's a 3 drop with a conditional can't play lands ability that emphasises basics, AND is stapled to a 2/1 body that's pretty easy to kill (note that territorial dispute, limited resources and worms of the earth are all enchantments which are harder to deal with).


    It would be banned before it even saw play. There are so many casual edh decks that run almost no basic lands.

    Simply: Land, chrome mox, simian spirit guide, general, you can't play lands for the rest of the game because I was on the play.

    The card would be broken in half for casual and competitive play in the worst way, denying people the ability to play their decks.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Can PoK return after a few years in exile?
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from Pokken »
    Quote from Sephon19 »
    The reason PoK is a problem is that it warps the whole game to Archenemy unless answered before the turn ends. For five mana, without any other real supporting cards needed.

    Such a card should never be legal.
    There're a few cards that low key do the same thing, e.g. consecrated sphinx and sire of stagnation, even PE and Panharmonicon can do similar things.
    Paradox Engine and Panharmonicon do literally nothing without "other real supporting cards".


    If we are going to nitpick like that you might as well say PoK requires creatures and instants to do anything
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Can PoK return after a few years in exile?
    Quote from Sheldon »
    It's an extremely format-warping card. If you have to either play with it or be prepared to play against it, then it's an easy ban.


    ummmm...dozens of currently legal cards meet this criteria
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from cryogen »
    I would agree that you have cognitive dissonance, because you are afraid of generals that sometimes encourage stax but want to not the multiple planeswalkers which can do the same. Or a group hug general but not a planeswalker that resets the game. Or one that combos with ONE card to set someone at one life, but not planeswalkers that have "player loses the game" in their ultimate. I could continue, but I think you get the point.

    I have played and/or played against most of those generals and I do not disagree with your assessment that they are strong (except K&T because come on, really?) They do turn the game into arch enemy very early on, but they are all beatable and I haven't run into one yet that i would advocate to ban. Since I haven't played against any of the planeswalkers as generals (that aren't currently legal), I can only speculate on their strengths. I can say that the legal walkers require constant attention and are more difficult to remove that regular creatures, and I can't imagine that would change by introducing 140 more to the format, except it would warp deckbuilding since there are more options available.


    See, this is the problem. You acknowledge that their are a ton of existing archenemy style generals already, and they are even quite popular if you look at aggregate statistics, but if planeswalkers add to this somehow that's detrimental enough to justify their exclusion.

    Why add any new creature generals that could be strong at all to the game? The commander products have a bad track record of having their commanders be too strong, where is the thread to discontinue those products if they keep adding strong commanders? We have to play it safe. We don't want another nekusar or oloro, it's not healthy for commander.

    And yet, the release of new commander decks every year is one of the most exciting times for the format. It seems like people don't mind having strong cards and new strategies to build around.

    Percentage wise, planeswalkers would be a substantially safer inclusion of new generals than printing a new commander product.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Yes, they've given us a few annoying generals. But really, how can you quantify the claim that it is more than planeswalkers would bring? Because I wouldn't ban a single precon Commander but I sure as heck would ban at least two or three planeswalkers right off the bat.


    I would say this is cognitive dissonance.
    Atraxa - Strongly encourages turns that take forever with many planeswalkers on the field at once, boring to play against, monopolizes time
    Oloro - This one is very infamous for their extremely slow, plodding gameplay that people don't like to play against
    Nekusar - I have never sat down at a table and seen someone happy to find a nekusar player there. It puts a clock on the whole game and people play archenemy against it
    Prossh - Just casting prossh is almost an edh win condition, there are so many cards that exist right now that do strong things with prossh, even beyond the standard food chain win, which is at least as strong and probably much stronger than any doubling season play
    Teferi - It's a top tier competitive edh general, and it encourages both combo and stax play which most players would find non-interactive and not fun casually.
    Derevi - Again encourages stax play, which people would rather avoid casually
    Yuriko - She takes advantage of the format in an irritating way by hitting you if someone else doesn't have a way to stop it.
    Kaalia - master of cruelties
    Animar - Encourages nothing but combos
    Breya - Encourages artifact combo decks and also kills your attempts to set up your own general
    Yidris - Another nekusar
    Mizzix - Play archenemy or they storm off
    Kynaios - Group hug is one of the most hated archetypes

    I am more scared of any commander on this list than at least 95% of possible new planeswalkers
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from cryogen »
    Quote from Carthage »
    That list of commanders to worry about is...very generous.

    Here's my list of problematic commanders:
    dack fayden - Consistently stealing sol rings and the other broken mana rocks that should but never will be banned probably makes him too consistent
    tamiyo, field researcher - Almost certainly wins the game on the spot with doubling season
    sorin markov - Setting someone's life to 10 in commander is really lame in casual play

    And that's it.

    Most of the listed commanders are substantially weaker than the already available options like daretti and mono blue teferi


    Oh I fully admit to being generous and overly cautious. Because what is the alternative? "O ***** u guise we dun goofed because we didn't consider the worst case scenario now we have to undo the rule change." The RC doesn't make rules changes lightly, especially when they would have a large effect on the format. So why should we approach this with a narrow mind as well and just consider how we would be affected by the change or our own opinion.


    The official commander products have brought us way more problematic generals than almost anything that would be made legal by making all planeswalkers commanders, and yet no one seems to be terrified of what new degenerate strategies will be brought to life from them every year.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    That list of commanders to worry about is...very generous.

    Here's my list of problematic commanders:
    dack fayden - Consistently stealing sol rings and the other broken mana rocks that should but never will be banned probably makes him too consistent
    tamiyo, field researcher - Almost certainly wins the game on the spot with doubling season
    sorin markov - Setting someone's life to 10 in commander is really lame in casual play

    And that's it.

    Most of the listed commanders are substantially weaker than the already available options like daretti and mono blue teferi

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from papa_funk »
    Quote from Carthage »
    4: I don't believe any current planeswalkers are particularly egregious aside from maybe tamio with doubling season, but banning a small handful of commanders to make dozens more legal is a no-brainer decision for increasing the card pool.

    This begins with the supposition that increasing the card pool is a goal, which I don't think it is. There's no shortage of Commanders.

    (Note that this was a valid problem for Brawl, which is why allowing Planeswalkers made sense there. I've actually recommended to the Brawl team that they drop the color identity rules entirely for the same reason. Restrictions on a Standard-sized card pool are problematic. On a Vintage-sized one, necessary.)


    I think adding cards to the card pool for any card game is one of the most important goals. It's part of what makes them interesting to play, the fact that they are constantly evolving with new game pieces. If people want to play with the same pieces every time, there are countless games designed around that, chess as one of the most basic examples. For those that invest into magic, I believe they really want that evolving gameplay with the knowledge that new cards will come multiple times a year.

    If every effort is made to keep commander the same, it will eventually grow boring. I personally hit that point a year ago where the available options stopped interesting me, others have different breaking points, at some point the format will need to evolve.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from Pokken »
    I think structural rules changes have a higher bar to surpass than inclusion of cards.

    Walkers are all in the format already.


    This isn't a structural rules change. It is a large scale inclusion of cards. Planeswalkers can already be run as commanders.

    Pretend WOTC errata'd every planeswalker to have the line "you can use this card as your commander".
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    The reason I call the bad matchup argument silly is because you are trying to use a fundamental aspect of the game, that cards beat other cards, as justification for excluding an enormous amount of additional cards for the format. Bad matchups already exist, they will continue to exist, and if you go all in on a card type as your strategy of course you will amplify the bad match up rate.

    It's ridiculous to make this boogieman out of dack fayden specifically and use it as justification to exclude all planeswalkers as generals. My instant and sorcery deck has a tough time against gaddock teeg. Clearly GW commanders are problematic for the game.

    Theros gods are actually more broad and repeatable than planeswalker effects. Like, much much much more repeatable. They are almost impossible to remove once they hit the battlefield and generals like purphoros, god of the forge and athreos, god of passage will be built around such that almost every card in the deck takes large advantage of the effects. Meanwhile you are wondering if your planewalker is going to survive even it's first turn on the table, let alone the many turns most walkers take to hit an ultimate that you might build around.

    Walker effects are generally not edh scale. This needs to be repeated over and over and over and over again because so many people seem to think they are actually strong effects. Drawing an extra card? Destroying a single creature? For the mana you pay for planeswalkers, these effects are well below average for edh inclusion, even if you activate them multiple times. For 4 mana I'd expect to destroy every creature, or draw a huge number of cards. From a power level perspective, I believe there are only a couple walkers worth worrying about, the rest are just interesting for creative deck building in casual games.

    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals

    * Increase of bad matchups especially for ench/artifact theme decks
    * Increased removal tax for decks needing to answer both planeswalkers and creatures from the command zone
    * Potential collateral damage of unbannable cards like DS, Contagion Engine, Inexorable tide, deepglow skate, etc. if they achieve casual omnipresence
    * Potential collateral damage for powerful walkers having to be banned due to no BAAC list (e.g. Tezzeret, Dack)
    * Some people really just do not like walkers
    * Potential for slowing the game down as people gear up to keep creatures from attacking their walkers
    * Precedent of legendary creatures being the primary focus of commander
    * Potential for unpredictable financial effects


    1: There are I think 6 planeswalkers out of about 140 that destroy artifacts and enchantments. This argument is absolutely silly. Magic evolves constantly, things that were once good are obsoleted all the time.
    2: Planeswalkers are not even good enough to warrant many dedicated removal slots. They provide small utility effects for large mana costs, and require board control to generate much value. Maintaining board control in multiplayer is exceptionally hard. On top of that, we already added the theros gods and I don't seen anyone complaining about the indestructible enchantments you can run as your general, that usually have effects almost on par with many planeswalker ultimate emblems.
    3: They will never achieve casual omnipresence because planeswalkers are not the only general types. Most generals(and colors) already have a substantial list of "must run" cards, planeswalkers will be no different.
    4: I don't believe any current planeswalkers are particularly egregious aside from maybe tamio with doubling season, but banning a small handful of commanders to make dozens more legal is a no-brainer decision for increasing the card pool.
    5: This is not a valid argument.
    6: Slower, grindier games are what edh was all about. That's what the higher life total and less consistent decks help with.
    7: You should be really mad at theros gods then if legendary creatures are the important part of edh.
    8: Price shifts happen all the time. EDH has caused hundreds of cards to change radically in value already.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Bad matchups exist already and will continue to exist. It doesn't really make sense to use that as an excuse to deny hundreds of new generals.

    They are heavily mitigated by the multiplayer nature of the format, if someone is spending their mana on a planeswalker and using their removal ability to kill a single target, they aren't really advancing their gameplan.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from Pokken »
    The main area of concern outside of the counter thing I have is the style of repeated powerful effects they present.

    I can't really think of a commander that represents repeated artifact+enchantment removal in the cz. If there is one it's maybe one.

    There's something a little irritating about a deck being able to repeatedly gain control of your best artifact all the time.

    An example from current commanders is that playing an enchantress deck against Bruna is just...awful. one of the worst experiences I can recall. I did it maybe twice.

    That kind of thing runs the risk of happening a lot more because 1-walkers pack more effects on a card and 2- pack more generic effects.

    I'm not sure it's a deal breaker but it does concern me that there's an increased volume of gameplay like...your artifact deck vs dack.

    Just good for thought I hope. People always read this kind of rumination like I'm trying to argue a point instead of just considering angles but whatever.


    Freyalise is already legal and is far from problematic.

    Dack Fayden is somewhat of an outlier planeswalker, being designed to see play in eternal formats his steal ability is very undercosted. It certainly would be frustrating to play an artifact deck against dack fayden.

    However, I feel like none of these arguments are actually valid at all though.

    They sound like this to me:
    Mono green has a number of linear generals that generate a ton of mana or tutor out creatures and play the same game every time, and one even had to be banned. We should seriously consider why mono green generals are allowed in edh at all. Do people want to be playing that kind of game?

    If planeswalkers had been legal from day 1 people would not be debating this, they would just accept them as they do creatures, some are stronger than others, and some are not fun to play against, just like the existing creature generals.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [POLL] Planeswalkers as playable generals
    Quote from cryogen »
    Quote from Carthage »


    Why would it remain a concern? You can play around emblems. If you want to say "but they are too strong when they happen", the simple answer is that they just aren't, relative to what's out there in commander.

    But do they add a positive experience? Just off the top of my head, do I think I would enjoy playing against an Elspeth deck that wreaths until it can make an indestructible emblem? Or a Vraska one racing to a Phague emblem? Or Jace countering everything until it gets an Erayo one? The "well X, Y, and Z are already legal strategies" is a pretty weak excuse to justify adding even MORE ways to do that. If wizards printed functional reprints of Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?


    You just described the exact reason planeswalkers should be added. Players doing different strategies with decks centered around their commander. Nothing about any of those emblems you just mentioned are even particularly out of place for edh. An elspeth emblem? Are we really worried about someone dropping a 4 mana planeswalker, activating it over the course of 4 additional turns, and then they don't even win, they just get a big bonus? That sounds exactly like the kind of EDH I want to be playing casually.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.