Tamanoa was something that I felt would have been a great Commander and it even felt like it should have been a Legend.
Seconded. I was planning on building tamanoa and just asking people if they were alright with it, then firesong and sunspeaker was printed. They were close enough for me.
On the anti-grave hate decks, would running another noxious revival with a 4th in the sideboard be good tech? Surgical extraction targets, so revival plus conjuror's bauble can keep them off your main pieces.
As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirements), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
After pondering about this, I stand corrected. Nacatl War-Pride's ability must be handled as one requirement that involves all potential blockers. I now think the key is the subject: Shinen's ability is a statement about all creatures (that are able to block it), and Nacatl War-Pride's is a statement about itself. Treating the former as one inseparable effect is like saying, "Wrath of God says destroy all creatures. Hazoret the Fervent has indestructible, so destroying all creature is impossible. Therefore none is." to me.
Dude, he just wants the rules in his favor despite literally everyone telling him no. Let him try it in a tournament. At a certain point it becomes I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Warning issued for flaming and spam. Assuming the OP is not genuinely trying to understand the rules being explained here is rude. If you're not interested in trying to help them anymore, just go away, don't post just to be disrespectful.
-MadMage
You control shinen and bear a. Your opponent controls bears b and c. Bear b has been told to block bear a. Bear b has two choices and can block either one, but must block at least one (and if it can block both must do so). Bear c is still able to block the shinen and must do so - it is afterall, able to (uncontested) and one of the all creatures being affected.
Just like in Future Sight we are going to make new cards by smashing existing concepts together. Each card should have at least 2 abilities, and each ability should be found on another card except for superficial changes (creature type, a color word, grammar alterations so the card makes sense (for instance if the type changes), card name). Please cite the cards used for your Frankensteinian creation (no need to cite keywords). Each card must also have at least one ability of the previous card.
As long as an opponent controls a creature with flying, [cardname] has flying. The same is true for first strike, trample, and protection from any color.
[T]: add one mana of any color a land an opponent controls could produce.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
Wait a minute, you're saying that if I have a Carrion Feeder and you attack with Shinen of Life's Roar, the Carrion Feeder has to block the Shinen, even though it can't block, and in Magic "can't" beats "can?" I don't know how else to read what you wrote.
I was trying to express that carrion feeder not being able to block would not excuse the bear from blocking (because OP was asking if exceptions to the all (ie at least one is not blocking the shinen) would allow other to not block the shinen). I was using that to try an provide clarity to the bulk of my post. I obviously failed, my bad.
It may be better to read the "all" in this case as an "each" this will lead you to a correct understanding of how mtg uses this formating. The dual requirement on the grizzly targeted by hunt down can not be fulfilled, so you simply choose one to block.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
It is casual format. If you want to build a deck to show everybody that the format is broken go for it. Make your one game and proof everyone you are right. The other will likely never play against your deck again if it is that broken and you can move on while the other can have fun
Look, I am not responding to shame the way you think, go play it. I design games in my freetime, and more than once I have been bit by making a mechanic that I saw as fun but in actuality was bonkers. I don't want to sit down and play the deck I described (leovold wheels), because I don't want to play this game, for all the same reasons I don't play vintage. Yes, it is casual, I don't deny that, but are you really sitting there telling me that means a cohesive thing? Some groups casual means a loose adherance to the rules, plus added houserules. Some groups it only means not for prizes. I personally play somewhere in the middle - I have fun ideas that I optimize. But I olay a wide variety of strategies, and any format where some are far better than others is going to attract that syle of play from all except those that actively want that underdog challenge. I am saying that combo and control are naturally advantaged so much that aggro is likely to die, and without aggro for the early pressure, combo needs to win before control can stabilize. The push is hyper efficient combo and strong permission based control.
Here is where the "casual format" problem comes in. People want to win, even if they have fun apart from winning, games become unappealing if there is no chance for victory (e.g. no one plays red/black when there isn't alcohol or some sort of punishment/reward involved). If it isn't true that everyone wants a chance to win, why is there an active debate about tutors/fast mana/(infinite) combo? Because the casual crowd, who is against those things, is upset at the advantage being able to win turn 2 gives, creating no chance for them to win. It is important to note though, that the person playing the degenerate deck also considers it a casual game, but expects people to be playing force of will, daze, and other ways to stop him. It is where the push and shove of the meta places people.
So how do we apply this - there is no way, except through official rules, to control how me and you approach this format. So when you show up with your dinosaur tribal, Huatli deck and I show up with degenerate combo, we both fail to have a good time because you didn't want to consider what could be broken, and I just picked the first thing that sounded good in the meta. And you know who is at fault? The game. It is set up to be easy to abuse so people are accidentally going to break it, and that is a flawed game.
The only way to fix it is to ban tons of stuff. Narset (both of them actually) is a good place to start, since there is too much that needs to be banned with her sticking around. Ugin the ineffable is likely another casualty, since he results in turn 4 all is dust, often. If it was simply have a walker, this format would be fine. The reliable backup of 2 combo pieces is likely too good.
Last piece: this is my diagnosis. I don't expect to have fun with it because it seems like a lot of things I don't like about games in general. That shouldn't matter to you - play casually. Have fun. If you don't see this happening in your playgroup, it should be fine. I am not here to poopoo your fun, just me voicing my opinions, a random stranger, on the internet.
Honestly, probably Momir Vig and The Scarab God (aside from budgetary stuff -I will never own a Tabernacle).
Momir Vig, simic visionary is an all in combo deck, the biggest alterations that have happened recently was the banning of Prophet which emiminated a major path of victory (prophet tutor mystic snake, mystic snake tutor deadeye navigator, game lock) and finally buckling down and buying food chain and misthollow griffin. Most of the tuning now is simply changing my roster of creatures that cost exactly GU. If another creature is printed, it will win.
The Scarab God is creatureless, which limits it by theme. It is a deck full of hate and incremental advantage, not a true stax but similar. The Scarab God is the latest in a long line of UB commanders that i think go wrexial, the risen deep, dragonlord silumgar, oona, queen of the fae and now this. None of them feel right still, but it is literally the least valuable card in the deck anyway.
So while there is a specific watch list for both of them, and I do still tinker, they aren't looking for anything more, and I would likely do pretty well just leaving them alone.
Well is a multiplayer format. Everyone can see what your commander and signature spell is. You need your commander/oathbreaker on the field to cast the signature spell. Your commander won't be on the field long enough if your combo is too broken because everyone will attack your oathbreaker. In addition the format has his own banlist. https://weirdcards.org/oathbreaker-ban-list Saheeli, the Gifted is banned for example.
I like that it is 20 life and 60 cards only. This should provide much faster games than the usual 2 hour games in commander.
Edit: In edition you can build something without planing to break the format.
Doomsday is banned as well, which was literally my first thought.
The multiplayer thing reeks of "Grislebrand isn't too bad of a commander, everyone can see it and I am playing a fair deck, it won't ruin games" levels of naïveté. Yeah, there are social constraints, but a game where I spent 5 seconds of thought before breaking it (literally just searched the list of blue walkers and assumed something was there, it was) is flawed. Very few people are going to play the way the makers envisioned, Sheldon has this probken all the time in EDH. The health of a format can't be based in banning everything you don't like or trusting in people to build fair decks - presumably 2/3s of palyers are spikes or johnnys and Johnny wants to show off the interaction he thought of and spike wants to prove he can maximize the value of the system. R&D makes decisions on the worst possible outcome, not the best.
Honestly, there is so much broken by having access to an instant or sorcery throughout a game. Even if it resolved to the graveyard, but giving it cumulative buyback is insane. Imagine any deck that can count to 10 mana in 4 turns with dorks having a 2-3 card infinite combo of creatures using primal surge (a tame example). Look at Narset + days undoing for a frankly scarier version of leovold. New saheeli + storm (cast 4 spells, grapeshot grapeshot seems to kill efficiently and leave you with a fair number of attacker just in case). For something touting a casual format, it seems to be primes at a hypercompetitive meta.
Gut reaction are basically all the mistake blocks. I love Kamigawa - the aesthetic is so cool, it felt most fantastic than any generic fantasy plane could. I am a huge fan of Lorwyn - again I loved the story book feel (Guay doing a lot of the art helps), I really liked the surprise turn of Shadowmoor and devotion 1.0. I obviously loved OG Rav (the only non mistake on this list), the world was awesome and a focus on 2 colors was new to me, it taught me how to build more diverse decks. And I have to say I really liked Timespiral block - I didn't like the arsthetic there, but the seemingly endless complexity did something for my johnny brain very few sets do.
From those it is hard to pick a favorite - Kamigawa likely wins though. I can say one of my least favorite blocks was Scars of Mirrodin - I hate ruining a plane, and Phyrexia winning does exactly that. Similarly I am not a fan of Khans of Tarkir - Khan's side is fine, but timeline rewrite is dumb.
Instant and sorcery one is insane - once you ritual into turnabout you get to copy it infinite times (literally any ritual being your 3rd spell is infinite mana), if it's boomerang you bounce the field, if it draws cards in any capacity it draws you deck, if it is lightning bolt you win, etc. It needs a limit of once per turn or mana cost or something.
Br is goblins in my cube - I am thinking why not both
Seconded. I was planning on building tamanoa and just asking people if they were alright with it, then firesong and sunspeaker was printed. They were close enough for me.
Another one: Sire of Stagnation.
Harbinger of Graves 7BBB
Creature - Avatar
[Cardname]'s power and toughness are equal to the number of creature cards in you graveyard.
When [cardname] dies exile it, if you do return all creature cards from your graveyard to the battlefield.
*/*
Dude, he just wants the rules in his favor despite literally everyone telling him no. Let him try it in a tournament. At a certain point it becomes I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Warning issued for flaming and spam. Assuming the OP is not genuinely trying to understand the rules being explained here is rude. If you're not interested in trying to help them anymore, just go away, don't post just to be disrespectful.
-MadMage
I will start using Escaped Shapeshifter and Felwar Stone
I was trying to express that carrion feeder not being able to block would not excuse the bear from blocking (because OP was asking if exceptions to the all (ie at least one is not blocking the shinen) would allow other to not block the shinen). I was using that to try an provide clarity to the bulk of my post. I obviously failed, my bad.
But for instance a creature that says "[cardname] cannot block" would not stop a lure effect from functioning.
Look, I am not responding to shame the way you think, go play it. I design games in my freetime, and more than once I have been bit by making a mechanic that I saw as fun but in actuality was bonkers. I don't want to sit down and play the deck I described (leovold wheels), because I don't want to play this game, for all the same reasons I don't play vintage. Yes, it is casual, I don't deny that, but are you really sitting there telling me that means a cohesive thing? Some groups casual means a loose adherance to the rules, plus added houserules. Some groups it only means not for prizes. I personally play somewhere in the middle - I have fun ideas that I optimize. But I olay a wide variety of strategies, and any format where some are far better than others is going to attract that syle of play from all except those that actively want that underdog challenge. I am saying that combo and control are naturally advantaged so much that aggro is likely to die, and without aggro for the early pressure, combo needs to win before control can stabilize. The push is hyper efficient combo and strong permission based control.
Here is where the "casual format" problem comes in. People want to win, even if they have fun apart from winning, games become unappealing if there is no chance for victory (e.g. no one plays red/black when there isn't alcohol or some sort of punishment/reward involved). If it isn't true that everyone wants a chance to win, why is there an active debate about tutors/fast mana/(infinite) combo? Because the casual crowd, who is against those things, is upset at the advantage being able to win turn 2 gives, creating no chance for them to win. It is important to note though, that the person playing the degenerate deck also considers it a casual game, but expects people to be playing force of will, daze, and other ways to stop him. It is where the push and shove of the meta places people.
So how do we apply this - there is no way, except through official rules, to control how me and you approach this format. So when you show up with your dinosaur tribal, Huatli deck and I show up with degenerate combo, we both fail to have a good time because you didn't want to consider what could be broken, and I just picked the first thing that sounded good in the meta. And you know who is at fault? The game. It is set up to be easy to abuse so people are accidentally going to break it, and that is a flawed game.
The only way to fix it is to ban tons of stuff. Narset (both of them actually) is a good place to start, since there is too much that needs to be banned with her sticking around. Ugin the ineffable is likely another casualty, since he results in turn 4 all is dust, often. If it was simply have a walker, this format would be fine. The reliable backup of 2 combo pieces is likely too good.
Last piece: this is my diagnosis. I don't expect to have fun with it because it seems like a lot of things I don't like about games in general. That shouldn't matter to you - play casually. Have fun. If you don't see this happening in your playgroup, it should be fine. I am not here to poopoo your fun, just me voicing my opinions, a random stranger, on the internet.
Momir Vig, simic visionary is an all in combo deck, the biggest alterations that have happened recently was the banning of Prophet which emiminated a major path of victory (prophet tutor mystic snake, mystic snake tutor deadeye navigator, game lock) and finally buckling down and buying food chain and misthollow griffin. Most of the tuning now is simply changing my roster of creatures that cost exactly GU. If another
The Scarab God is creatureless, which limits it by theme. It is a deck full of hate and incremental advantage, not a true stax but similar. The Scarab God is the latest in a long line of UB commanders that i think go wrexial, the risen deep, dragonlord silumgar, oona, queen of the fae and now this. None of them feel right still, but it is literally the least valuable card in the deck anyway.
So while there is a specific watch list for both of them, and I do still tinker, they aren't looking for anything more, and I would likely do pretty well just leaving them alone.
Doomsday is banned as well, which was literally my first thought.
The multiplayer thing reeks of "Grislebrand isn't too bad of a commander, everyone can see it and I am playing a fair deck, it won't ruin games" levels of naïveté. Yeah, there are social constraints, but a game where I spent 5 seconds of thought before breaking it (literally just searched the list of blue walkers and assumed something was there, it was) is flawed. Very few people are going to play the way the makers envisioned, Sheldon has this probken all the time in EDH. The health of a format can't be based in banning everything you don't like or trusting in people to build fair decks - presumably 2/3s of palyers are spikes or johnnys and Johnny wants to show off the interaction he thought of and spike wants to prove he can maximize the value of the system. R&D makes decisions on the worst possible outcome, not the best.
From those it is hard to pick a favorite - Kamigawa likely wins though. I can say one of my least favorite blocks was Scars of Mirrodin - I hate ruining a plane, and Phyrexia winning does exactly that. Similarly I am not a fan of Khans of Tarkir - Khan's side is fine, but timeline rewrite is dumb.