How does one compromise in an LGS environment? If my opponent plays a combo deck, I have essentially no control over that. For that matter, if I wanted to play a nasty deck (which I sometimes do on accident, usually followed by apologies and a deck switch), they wouldn't have any control over that either.
One of the biggest differences in the mentality between standard/modern/legacy/vintage/KBPTL/etc is that commander was built on acknowledging accountability for your opponents' fun. Yes, compromise would be ideal, and that's something that's possible with an established group, but in an LGS environment that's not really an option.
Part of what annoys me is that, for the majority of these players, they don't seem to WANT to play combo. They just put it in to compete with the other decks doing the same. After a game ends in a combo, rarely does anyone actually seem pleased, even the person who did it. The player gleefully assembling a crazy combo I don't begrudge, that can be a fantastic ending to the game, but when the game has gotten less fun for everyone because of the increased power level I think we've made a wrong step somewhere.
You are missing the point. You do not have control over what decks your opponents play. What you DO have control over, is who you play with. Even in a LGS enviroment, you can curate these groups. I live in a town of 17k people and Commander is popular enough that I have been able to identify what intensity players like to play at - and I simply don't play with people who don't fall similarly on the spectrum as I do. If I can do that in my small town, I am more than certain most places can.
As for your comments about other formats, Commander is no different in how people play the game. The only difference is that people who don't have Tier legacy decks, don't play the format. The compromise is that they are unwilling to play that format because it heavily leans towards a highly competitive set of decks. I think the issue is that Commander players feel way too entitled and think that the power scale should be non-existent, and that is an impossible demand.
If your table seems completely unhappy with the game ending in a combo, especially the person initiating the combo, then your group sounds like it really suffers from a lack of basic communication and/or you are too willing to play with people you are unfamiliar with. If you are going to engage in open play, then you need to compromise and accept that people are just going to combo out. If you have an issue accepting that, then don't partake in open play... it is simple.
You really strike me as someone who feels some sort of entitlement, either that or someone who thinks they like Commander but really... doesn't. Maybe you should sleep on that and revaluate, I don't know. Not sure there is anything more I can tell you.
I am curious, is your comparison for Jace, Mirror Mage vs Jace Beleren because of cost or functionality? I have been evaluating this card as a 5cmc planeswalker myself, and weighing it vs some other more expensive blue slots. I like the idea of having both to perhaps help give UX aggro a few more ways to leverage a board and maintain some level of actual CA. Do you think there is room for both in 450 powered lists?
I have been working in design for almost a decade at this point. A lot of my attention is in the area of game design. MDFC's is probably the most exciting mechanic for WOTC to put out in a very long time, for me at least. Mechanics that absolve the game of random inequity are incredibly potent, particularly in this case. I really hope we see these kinds of cards again, and I hope they push them just a bit more next time. I am not a fan of these for my cube, but I have been working on an un-powered cube for a month or so now, and some of these are rather appealing to me for that cube and I am keeping an eye on the MDFC discussion, which I think has been really good to delve into.
My solution is: be willing to compromise. It is either be willing to compromise or deal with having fewer people to play with.
If you are having an unfun experience in Commander, that is on you. It shouldn't be up to other players to cater to you because you don't want to play Combo. Maybe have a bit of accountability for your experiences within the format... seems you are sidestepping that little tidbit.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Good lord, what an awful take. I mean, the exact same thing could be said about the MDFC haters ...but nobody's making that argument because it's a complete garbage take.
But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
I will say this, I think the discussion on MDFC's is probably one of the best discussions this Cube forum has ever seen. I disagree with the assessment of these cards when it comes to their overall weight for average powered cubes. But this discussion has elevated itself to a really important idea of the design of Cube itself. Readers have been given a lot to chew on, and I believe that this discussion on MDFC's can really help new Cube designers think more critically about the cards they inject into their cubes.
You are right, my sentiment also applies to nay-sayers like myself who are actively avoiding the chance to expose themselves to experience which might disprove their stance on MDFC's. But the burden of proof really falls to those who believe in these cards, which is why I omitted naysayers (whos arguments can kind of be summed up to nothing more than circular logic). The catch 22 is that, people who believe in these cards have presented very valid claims as to why MDFD's like these have a legitimate claim for being cube worthy and I think those claims are easier to double down on.
I really look forward to seeing how these cards work out for people, but pretty much the only thing that is going to sway me at this point - is hearing a naysayer recant after reluctantly giving these cards a shot. I don't think I will weigh the experience of people who believe in these cards, all that heavily though.
From a game design standpoint, these cards are insane to me. I commend WOTC for this kind of mechanic, the designer in me loves them. I don't think there is anything wrong with people putting these cards into their cubes, in fact I think some cubes are great homes for these cards. As it pertains to my powered cube, I think these cards missed the bar, and I think they had a little more wiggle room for WOTC to push them.
EDIT
I also didn't mean for my hot take to come off as *****ty as it did, I apologize.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
Yikes. That's a take.
I mean, to think that confirmation bias isn't going to root itself in such a polarized discussion... is kind of naive.
I know I was not going to partake in this conversation anymore, but this tab was still open in my laptop browser and it refreshed so I figured I would see where the discussion went.
I think this "combo players need to go play somewhere else" stance is kind of foolish.
Perhaps the biggest issue in Commander these days, is the sitdown and play mentality. People who don't curate their playgroups with either close friends or players that operate on the same axis, are the ones having the most issues with the format. People who have regular groups that have been curated, don't have these issues. It is an inevitable situation, really, but I would say that if you are really having issues with players sitting down and playing Combo decks vs your precons... stop letting random people sit down and play with you.
I ran a Commander League for a while, and pulled together a committee of players to help try and ensure that all players could be represented and allowed to play the way that they wanted to play. It was quite a challenge to meet the expectations of everyone, and ultimately it never truly was fair to everyone. People need to understand that concessions need to be made if you are going to try and include everyone, and if you are not willing to concede to a few things, then stop sitting down with random people. The biggest complaint I got, was from players who wanted to bring cheap fun commanders... and their chief complaints were people countering their spells. I don't recall ever hearing about the more serious players taking issue with more casual players.
If anyone is interested in the set up I used for the league you can download a word doc HERE.
I don’t think the power level of these is something that makes searching for a land by caveat, impressive. Cute, but not impressive.
I fully expect people to recant their praise for these cards to some extent, but if instead they double down - then good on them I guess.
These are all, a pretty easy pass for me. None of them have enough power for me to consider the marginal gains as anything more than slight deck building boons that offer virtually no statistical leverage.
With all due respect, not only do I completely disagree, but it sounds like you just stuck a bunch of words together in an attempt to make your reasoning sound more solid. I know contextually what you're trying to say, but I guarantee you those words don't mean what you think they mean in that particular order lol
I mean, my mother is an English Major. I think I articulated that exactly as intended and I think it means exactly what it says...
But anyways, I think this has been a good discussion on MDFC’s. I also believe this conversation has run its course. All it is now, is rehashing of the same talking points. Fires has really illustrated the heart of the issue here, and there really isn’t much more to be had.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
I don’t think the power level of these is something that makes searching for a land by caveat, impressive. Cute, but not impressive.
I fully expect people to recant their praise for these cards to some extent, but if instead they double down - then good on them I guess.
These are all, a pretty easy pass for me. None of them have enough power for me to consider the marginal gains as anything more than slight deck building boons that offer virtually no statistical leverage.
2) Double sleeving is a waste of time and money and makes the experience of playing the game worse YEAH I SAID IT. I'll single-sleeve my timetwister until the day I die.
While I admire your position and got a good chuckle out of imaging vocal inflections as if I heard it verbally, I think that for some people who see equity in the cards they buy - double sleeving is not a waste of time and indeed cheaper because it helps maintain that equity. Whether you view cards as in investment vehicle or not, some people do find themselves wanting to leave the game at some point or do find themselves in positions where paying for a new roof is more important than retaining their MTG collection.
I don't think that is a strong argument for running marginal cards, or cards below a power threshold. The versaility in being a spell or a land is only worth as much as side A or B relative to a power threshold. You related it to cards like Preordain and Ponder earlier, which seems kind of silly. It isn't even remotely the same statistical leverage. Preordain gives you card selection as it pertains to cards that are otherwise centered around a similar power threshold... a lot of these MDFC, are at best along the power threshold but most often below it.
Sure, there is a statistical advantage of having a single card be either a spell or a land - but the spell side and the land side are both substandard for most of the context used for card evaluation in these open discussions.
As it pertains to this card, I think clone effects are valuable, but most of the time that is because they can target creatures your opponent have. Perhaps the land side is enough to offset that drawback, but I do not personally feel any draw to that kind of limitation at the cost of something like Clever Impersonator which has stronger versatility overall.
I... don’t think you are very good at pattern recognition nor understanding market trends. So I am just gonna see my way out of this conversation, as it doesn’t seem to be all that stimulating. Sorry.
In 2009 commander was, to my knowledge, already a major up-and-coming popular new format that took over my playgroup by storm. In mid 2009 none of us had heard of it. By late 2009, we were all playing it. By 2010, we were hardly playing anything else. All of this was before wotc was directly involved. I don't have a graph of "number of commander players over time" but, from my experience, the format did a very good job of promoting itself without any interaction from wotc. Without a parallel universe in which wotc never prints commander products, there's no way to determine how important their role has been. But it's worth remembering that wotc started printing cards for commander because it was already popular, and becoming more popular, and they wanted to promote it and make more money off it. Who knows what would have happened without them, but I think it's very likely that commander would have continued to become more popular without wotcs direct support, because that's what it was already doing.
At the end of the day, unless you're about to reveal that you're actually part of wotcs market research team, neither of us have evidence beyond our personal experiences about (1) how the popularity of commander has increased over time (although maybe this info is available somewhere?), and (2) what is responsible for that popularity (which is essentially unknowable and also not even a reasonable question because, without both parties, commander wouldn't even exist).
Personally, I suspect that the #1 thing that contributed to commander's success is simply that the basic rules are super fun. When we all first started playing the format, it wasn't because we cared about the banlist, and no commander product has really made me think "oh boy, if I wasn't sold on commander already, THIS is the thing that would get me excited!" It was because the core concept, putting a face on a deck and building around a card you thought was cool, was such a neat idea, and a departure from the normal "build 60 card jank until you're good enough to play standard" track that was the dominant way to play before commander existed. The RC and WotC have both presumably contributed to that popularity - and FWIW I don't think the ongoing management of the banlist is terribly important, as I've said - but I think that initial spark of an idea was EVERYTHING. You can say "without wotc, commander would only have half as many players" or whatever, and maybe you'd be right, but without that initial idea NOBODY would be playing commander. And probably a lot fewer people would be playing magic at all.
EDIT: while it's not really relevant, for my money:
Rotates - I'd argue as a positive since it prevents the same cards from dominating in perpetuity and keeps the metagame from becoming stale
Requires constant investment - so does commander, at least the way I play
Covers a fraction of a player's collection - sure, it's nice to have someplace to use older cards, but that doesn't preclude it from existing alongside commander.
Suffers from a significant lack of diversity and customization - There's still a lot of options, we've got 17 commander choices just in ZNR.
So here is my question, with functionally the same ruleset as Commander, albeit some slight variations, why did Tiny Leaders not follow the same exact trend?
The Commander boom didn't start in 2009, I wouldn't even say it started in 2013... So between 2013 and now, what has the RC done to expand the format and allow it to reach the potential it has reached now?
RC saving WOTC from killing the format with insane design ideas, isn't the same as growing the format. 2009 was organic growth. The same organic growth Tiny leaders received. The only difference was WOTC was able to step in and stop Commander from stagnating, by injecting new cards, themes, and a sense of unity, into the format. You still don't have an answer to my question of "What has the RC done to growth te game and bring in new players?", and the reason is simple: that isn't what they do and it isn't what they are responsible for.
What you are providing, are not counterpoints - they are justifications.
You are missing the point. You do not have control over what decks your opponents play. What you DO have control over, is who you play with. Even in a LGS enviroment, you can curate these groups. I live in a town of 17k people and Commander is popular enough that I have been able to identify what intensity players like to play at - and I simply don't play with people who don't fall similarly on the spectrum as I do. If I can do that in my small town, I am more than certain most places can.
As for your comments about other formats, Commander is no different in how people play the game. The only difference is that people who don't have Tier legacy decks, don't play the format. The compromise is that they are unwilling to play that format because it heavily leans towards a highly competitive set of decks. I think the issue is that Commander players feel way too entitled and think that the power scale should be non-existent, and that is an impossible demand.
If your table seems completely unhappy with the game ending in a combo, especially the person initiating the combo, then your group sounds like it really suffers from a lack of basic communication and/or you are too willing to play with people you are unfamiliar with. If you are going to engage in open play, then you need to compromise and accept that people are just going to combo out. If you have an issue accepting that, then don't partake in open play... it is simple.
You really strike me as someone who feels some sort of entitlement, either that or someone who thinks they like Commander but really... doesn't. Maybe you should sleep on that and revaluate, I don't know. Not sure there is anything more I can tell you.
My solution is: be willing to compromise. It is either be willing to compromise or deal with having fewer people to play with.
If you are having an unfun experience in Commander, that is on you. It shouldn't be up to other players to cater to you because you don't want to play Combo. Maybe have a bit of accountability for your experiences within the format... seems you are sidestepping that little tidbit.
I will say this, I think the discussion on MDFC's is probably one of the best discussions this Cube forum has ever seen. I disagree with the assessment of these cards when it comes to their overall weight for average powered cubes. But this discussion has elevated itself to a really important idea of the design of Cube itself. Readers have been given a lot to chew on, and I believe that this discussion on MDFC's can really help new Cube designers think more critically about the cards they inject into their cubes.
You are right, my sentiment also applies to nay-sayers like myself who are actively avoiding the chance to expose themselves to experience which might disprove their stance on MDFC's. But the burden of proof really falls to those who believe in these cards, which is why I omitted naysayers (whos arguments can kind of be summed up to nothing more than circular logic). The catch 22 is that, people who believe in these cards have presented very valid claims as to why MDFD's like these have a legitimate claim for being cube worthy and I think those claims are easier to double down on.
I really look forward to seeing how these cards work out for people, but pretty much the only thing that is going to sway me at this point - is hearing a naysayer recant after reluctantly giving these cards a shot. I don't think I will weigh the experience of people who believe in these cards, all that heavily though.
From a game design standpoint, these cards are insane to me. I commend WOTC for this kind of mechanic, the designer in me loves them. I don't think there is anything wrong with people putting these cards into their cubes, in fact I think some cubes are great homes for these cards. As it pertains to my powered cube, I think these cards missed the bar, and I think they had a little more wiggle room for WOTC to push them.
EDIT
I also didn't mean for my hot take to come off as *****ty as it did, I apologize.
I mean, to think that confirmation bias isn't going to root itself in such a polarized discussion... is kind of naive.
I think this "combo players need to go play somewhere else" stance is kind of foolish.
Perhaps the biggest issue in Commander these days, is the sitdown and play mentality. People who don't curate their playgroups with either close friends or players that operate on the same axis, are the ones having the most issues with the format. People who have regular groups that have been curated, don't have these issues. It is an inevitable situation, really, but I would say that if you are really having issues with players sitting down and playing Combo decks vs your precons... stop letting random people sit down and play with you.
I ran a Commander League for a while, and pulled together a committee of players to help try and ensure that all players could be represented and allowed to play the way that they wanted to play. It was quite a challenge to meet the expectations of everyone, and ultimately it never truly was fair to everyone. People need to understand that concessions need to be made if you are going to try and include everyone, and if you are not willing to concede to a few things, then stop sitting down with random people. The biggest complaint I got, was from players who wanted to bring cheap fun commanders... and their chief complaints were people countering their spells. I don't recall ever hearing about the more serious players taking issue with more casual players.
If anyone is interested in the set up I used for the league you can download a word doc HERE.
I mean, my mother is an English Major. I think I articulated that exactly as intended and I think it means exactly what it says...
But anyways, I think this has been a good discussion on MDFC’s. I also believe this conversation has run its course. All it is now, is rehashing of the same talking points. Fires has really illustrated the heart of the issue here, and there really isn’t much more to be had.
I do expect folks to double down on their stance after testing these cards, and not because they are actually any good, but because it is easy for them to feel they were right when they have the ability to confirm their own thoughts without disproving the naysayers.
I fully expect people to recant their praise for these cards to some extent, but if instead they double down - then good on them I guess.
These are all, a pretty easy pass for me. None of them have enough power for me to consider the marginal gains as anything more than slight deck building boons that offer virtually no statistical leverage.
While I admire your position and got a good chuckle out of imaging vocal inflections as if I heard it verbally, I think that for some people who see equity in the cards they buy - double sleeving is not a waste of time and indeed cheaper because it helps maintain that equity. Whether you view cards as in investment vehicle or not, some people do find themselves wanting to leave the game at some point or do find themselves in positions where paying for a new roof is more important than retaining their MTG collection.
Sure, there is a statistical advantage of having a single card be either a spell or a land - but the spell side and the land side are both substandard for most of the context used for card evaluation in these open discussions.
As it pertains to this card, I think clone effects are valuable, but most of the time that is because they can target creatures your opponent have. Perhaps the land side is enough to offset that drawback, but I do not personally feel any draw to that kind of limitation at the cost of something like Clever Impersonator which has stronger versatility overall.
WoTC going from 0 commander products a year to 4+ is merely a coincidence...
So here is my question, with functionally the same ruleset as Commander, albeit some slight variations, why did Tiny Leaders not follow the same exact trend?
The Commander boom didn't start in 2009, I wouldn't even say it started in 2013... So between 2013 and now, what has the RC done to expand the format and allow it to reach the potential it has reached now?
RC saving WOTC from killing the format with insane design ideas, isn't the same as growing the format. 2009 was organic growth. The same organic growth Tiny leaders received. The only difference was WOTC was able to step in and stop Commander from stagnating, by injecting new cards, themes, and a sense of unity, into the format. You still don't have an answer to my question of "What has the RC done to growth te game and bring in new players?", and the reason is simple: that isn't what they do and it isn't what they are responsible for.
What you are providing, are not counterpoints - they are justifications.