MTG Salvation

I reckon Jace looks like Sylar from the Heroes TV series.

I'd suggest that the ultimate should be only allowed when a Planeswalker has the relevant loyalty above 20. Eg. Mind Sculptor can play his first three abilities at any time, but can only play his ultimate if his loyalty is 32 or greater.

There is one potential problem with this idea: How do you decide if a Planeswalker has an ultimate or not? Eg. How do you decide if original Gideon and mad Sarkhan should have a limit like this?

But in general, I think it'd:

• be the fairest (going down to 8 loyalty wouldn't be very vulnerable at all when the opponent has no cards in hand and is 7 cards in the library away from auto-loss)
• the easiest to keep track of (I like Onyx's unlock by turn system, but it would be annoying to track and I can imagine some play groups forgetting what turn it is)
• still make ultimates really feel ultimate!

Have you tried giving him/her a few scenarios? Eg.

A: Your opponent plays a 5 mana creature. You can make 5 mana. Which spell is better? (They are the same. Neither can counter the creature.)
B: Your opponent plays a 4 mana creature. You can make 5 mana. Which spell is better? (They are the same. Both can counter the creature, and you can afford buy back.)
C: Your opponent plays a 1 mana removal spell on your creature. You can make 5 mana. Which spell is better? (Spell Burst. They can both counter the creature for 2 mana. But you have the option of buying back Spell Burst, so you can counter another spell later.)
D: Your opponent plays a 4 mana creature. You can make 8 mana. Which spell is better? (Spell Brust. They can both counter the creautre for 5 mana. But again you have the option of buying back Spell Burst).

Then you can point out how, although they're the same in many scenarios, there are a number of scenarios in which Spell Burst is better, but there are no scenarios in which Spell Blast is.

Let's not forget that Wizards likes there to be more than 5 colour-groupings to draft with.

In both sets that are mostly mono-coloured (eg. Innistrad) and sets that are mostly pairs (eg. Ravnica), they purposely build identities for all 10 ally and enemy pairs. And in sets that are tri-coloured (eg. KTK), they purposely build identities for the 5 trios plus options for some or all of the 10 ally and enemy pairs.

So even if they did build the story around Shards, or Ally pairs, or Enemy pairs, or 4-colour 'double-pair' factions... they'd still seed other options.

"There is exactly one Tribe on Tarkir that counts. And that is Dragons."

• What about Warriors?

"The new morph has to be morph or manifest because MaRo stated a block shall not have more than 12 mechanics.
It is presumably something new like:
1) morphs without casting cost.
2) morphs without morph cost (play the card or the 2/2 for 3, but no way to face it up).
3) double-face morphs (too new and too huge to have 3 other mechanics with it).
4) innovative morph costs.
5) non-creature morphs.
6) innovative manifests."

• MaRo has implied that it'll be a new twist on morph and that it'll be a logical progression flavour-wise from Manifest (the idea that Manifest could evolve into KTK Morph, or it could involve into DTK morph). The first of these seems to rule out 1, 2, 3, and possibly 6 (he did say a twist on morph, not a twist on manifest). 3 seems unlikely mostly because the complexity of the block is at an extreme in NWO already, but would be both a significant new twist and could evolve from manifest. 5 doesn't seem very like due to the impression it'll be a new twist, rather than bringing back an old one - BUT since Manifest can turn either creatures or non-creatures face down, that makes the most sense in the evolving way. That is, Manifest could evolve to work on just creatures (KTK morph) or evolve to work on just non-creatures (DTK morph). But how likely are they to allow for instants and sorceries to be turned face-up, after just re-hashing the rules for Manifest and being doubly-careful to make it clear that can't happen?

Quote from Nixernator »

>insanely powerful
>mana leak

yeah I'm not sure about that one buddy. Leak is notoriously bad in the lategame which is where control decks are supposed to shine.

But isn't that what makes it so perfect. Mana Leak helps control decks survive the early game and get to the point where they shine. And once they are shining in the late game, drawing an irrelevant card is no big deal for a control deck. (They safely just keep digging, re-stocking their hand, looting irrelevant cards away, etc, till they find their finisher while the opponent sits their helpless).

Going back to the 4-colour theory, perhaps Maro talks about 'factions' instead of 'broods' or 'clans', because 4-colour is thing, but in an unusual way:
* The BU brood teams up with the RW clan, to create a faction that is anti-G.
* The UW brood teams up with the GB clan, to create a faction that is anti-R.
* etc.

Because there's not enough design space for 4-colour, but people keep hoping for it, they came up with this is a solution. Maybe a cycle of high-profile 4 colour legendary creatures. The rest is just a collection of both ally and enemy pairs, but watermarked to show dragon-brood-clan allegiance.

This could explain:
* The significance of clans in KTK being centred on the unexpected colour (eg. Abzan's centre being G, which has 'one ally' and 'one enemy' in the wedge, instead of B, which would have been the enemy of two in its wedge)... because that colour is going to be the antithesis of a 'BU' ally and a 'WR' enemy faction.
* The way DTK is a 'mirror' of KTK... for the same reason (each colour that was a central focus for a clan is now the central absence for a faction, but in both cases they include one ally and one enemy).
* The colourlessness, use of morph, and dual lands replacing basics, to support 4-colour manabases (as someone said earlier).

And still fits with:
* The new clan leaders being playable in both KTK (wedge) and DTK (four-colour), by being playable as a kind of 'half-faction' (Maro loves his twists, right)
* 5 ally dragons, yet all the potential for enemy colours too

That said, perhaps it doesn't fit with:
* The new mechanics. (They certainly wouldn't be extended out to four colours. And since we know there are only going to be 5 mechanics, if they stay as two-coloured only, that means 5 colour pairs would miss out on a mechanic).

.

I'm afraid I sympathise with the rest of the guys you played with. I think there should be avenues for both types of player, but multiplayer and Commander are traditionally casual so most people will expect to play them for fun. They certainly shouldn't be criticised for enjoying themselves (views like "I hate it when people make an incorrect play intentionally 'for fun'" are both selfish and ignorant of how thousands of people play MtG). But, ultimately it just comes down to expectations. If you talk to people and agree that you're all going to play more competitively, then you'd have no reason to feel bad about optimal plays.

All that said, if you do want to keep playing with that group, and want to make some concessions without seriously sacrificing the quality of your deck, I'd suggest:
* Choose about 5-7 reasonably powerful cards you have in the deck, and swap them out for a variety of one-for-one and two-for-one spot removal (cards like Duplicant, Archon of Justice, and Acidic Slime are ideal for this). Eg. Swap out the Austere Command for Path to Exile.

That way it'll weaken your deck for multiplayer, but it:

• will still be the main core deck and won't be totally nerfed
• won't leave you defenseless
• will keep (or even increase) the 'interactivity' in the game
• maintains a bit of political advantage
• ensures you have challenging decisions to make during the game (=you still get to PLAY competitively)

Pretty straightforward switch for most decks.
.

BEST TWO EVER for Narset:

• Iroas, God of Victory 2RW Legendary Enchantment Creature — God (7/4) Indestructible As long as your devotion to red and white is less than seven, Iroas isn't a creature. Creatures you control can't be blocked except by two or more creatures. Prevent all damage that would be dealt to attacking creatures you control.
• Dolmen Gate 2 Artifact Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to attacking creatures you control.

Similar 'prevent damage' permanents (so you get to re-use them) that apply as soon as they enter the battlefield (so no waiting till next turn):

• Inner Sanctum 1WW Enchantment Cumulative upkeep—Pay 2 life. (At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this permanent, then sacrifice it unless you pay its upkeep cost for each age counter on it.) Prevent all damage that would be dealt to creatures you control.
• Bubble Matrix 4 Artifact Prevent all damage that would be dealt to creatures.
• Maze of Ith Land Tap: Untap target attacking creature. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by that creature this turn.
• Inviolability 1W Enchantment — Aura Enchant creature Prevent all damage that would be dealt to enchanted creature.
• Sandskin / Heart of Light 2W Enchantment — Aura Enchant creature Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by enchanted creature.
• Ghostly Possession 2W Enchantment — Aura Enchant creature Enchanted creature has flying. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by enchanted creature.
• Gaseous Form 2U Enchantment — Aura Enchant creature Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by enchanted creature.
• Soratami Cloud Chariot 5 Artifact 2: Target creature you control gains flying until end of turn. 2: Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by target creature you control this turn.

Quote from donfuan »

...he dislikes Pongify only because it says "destroy" and not "exile", which he thinks is more "polymorph-like". I disagree wholeheartedly here, i think it should read "bottom of library"

He said he thinks it should 'exile' or 'tuck' (=bottom of library).

I'm just glad DirkGently is taking a constructive, sensible approach to all this. (And a few others, here and there, like Norsedt).

Importantly, s/he seems to be one of the few people who has actually been paying attention to what MaRo has to say.

So many other people here are just throwing about comments entirely out of context. Taking a sentence or two from Mark and ignoring the tonnes of background information that came with it. Like, why broken-record style complain about blue's crazy overpowered old cards. Mark's said again and again that yes, blue in legacy is broken. And he's said again and again that cards like Beast Within and Desert Twister frustrate him as much as Song of the Dryads. In fact, his number one reason for hating Song of the Dryads is that it can be used as an argument for further colour-pie breaking in the future. So your (still talking about people other than DirkGently here) claims that Beast Within and Desert Twister justify Song of the Dryads is totally proving him right!!!

Keep up the constructive work DirkGently! I couldn't do it, not patient enough with so many crazy claims thrown about.
.

White had had a fair amount of 'regeneration' before Planar Chaos. Revered Dead and friends in Planar Chaos were the first creatures that had solely white mana activated regeneration abilities that worked on themselves. But white's prior regeneration effects included:

• spells (eg. Death Ward; Debt of Loyalty)
• creatures or spells that regenerate artifacts rather than creatures (eg. Pteron Ghost)
• creatures that regenerate 'target creature', rather than just itself (eg. Daru Mender)
• creatures that sacrifice themselves to regenerate something else (eg. Vigilant Martyr)
• creatures with an auto-regenerate ability, that the opponent can pay to turn off (eg. Clergy of the Holy Nimbus)

The Commander Committee's own 'Philosophy' (from mtgcommander.net):

Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.

It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.

House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.

.

That's fair enough, if you choose not to play with them (and it's reasonable to do so - I mostly play amongst friends, so it'd be pretty mean to refuse to play with them). But, imagine three players:

1. likes to win and builds aggressive decks. He builds decks with a low mana curve, even in multiplayer, and races to take out the opponent who seems to be the biggest danger first. He enjoys the politics a bit, too. But mostly it's a race to him. He'd never roll to decide who to attack.
2. genuinely is 'Izzet'. He doesn't play to win, he plays to turn the game upside-down and inside-out. He loves whacky effects, randomisation, the whole crazy works. He does tone it down when building two-player decks, but for multiplayer that's very much his thing. He actually loves the politics of the game, because they add to the feeling of randomness. To him, techniques such as rolling to decide who to attack are part and parcel of the political 'tools' - not used often, but not used rarely either.
3. enjoys the creative aspect of the game. He spends more time deck-building than actually playing. He carefully tailors his decks so that they have a good chance of winning, but an equal chance of losing, with an emphasis on the decks feeling synergistic overall. He'll try harder to win when he's close to losing, but will purposely make bad decisions when he's clearly winning - a close game is more interesting. It's very rare that he'd roll the dice to decide who to attack, because he's more likely to not attack at all if he can't decide. But there might be the once-in-a-blue-moon occasion where he'd find that's the best choice for the circumstances.

I've played with a mini-playgroup that was exactly like that, and it was honestly the best play group I've ever been part of. The way they played was the way they thought and acted all the time; and the variety meant that games had all kinds of twists and turns, crazy stories to tell, etc.

.

Quote from Galspanic »

Yeah, those are all reasons that get in the way of the game. Not one of those has anything to do with playing the game...

I'm sorry, but this feels to me like:
a) the 'game' is more important than the people playing the game;
b) everyone has to play according to your understanding of what the game means.

I think each player should be allowed to bring 'their full self' to the table; and also to decide what the game means for them. (Eg. I don't play to 'compete with people', I play to 'enjoy a game with people', to relax, have a laugh, experiment with different cards and decks. There'll normally be the secondary aim of winning, but it's just that - secondary.)

.