Fandom Legends: Magic Arena
 
Treasure Cruisin' Amulet's End
 
Magic Market Index for April 19, 2019
  • posted a message on Let's talk about MtG's storytelling...
    Quote from SilverWolf_27 »
    The timescale problem happens pretty much everywhere. Given the level of technology in the Silmarillion, Sauron should just get nuked from orbit in LoTR. It all boils down to creating a cohesive and recognisable world even across long timescales - if you take realistic technological development into account, you might as well be creating a different setting altogether. Similarly, if past Tarkir was radically different from present, it might as well not be called Tarkir at all.


    I always go with the "magic inhibits technological advancement" argument. Its most directly addressed in the Harry Potter universe so I'll use it as an example. Basically, the existence of magic makes technological advancement much less likely, because people tend to take the easiest path when solving problems, and magic is the easiest path. Magic lets you warp reality to your needs or desires. Sometimes it takes a lot of training, sometimes it relies on innate ability, but either way magic users have an amazing advantage over people trying to solve problems with ingenuity and invention. Because magic is about warping the rules of nature, people don't bother studying the rules of nature, because why learn how the world works when you can change it instead? That's why the wizards in Harry Potter are pretty backwards when it comes to technology despite the muggle world advancing as normal. The problem with magic is that it only solves the immediate problem and you don't learn anything from it. In the real world, knowledge gained from solving a problem helps solve other problems, and technological advancement has a snowball effect. The more we learn, the better equipped we are to learn more. The more we create, the easier it is to create more. So you create a sensing spell to detect enemy wizards, and your left with a sensing spell, but you create radar to detect enemy planes, and you have something that can be further developed and applied across fields.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Narset, Parter of Veils
    Quote from Carthage »
    Quote from Dunharrow »
    I don't see her eating a ban any more than Notion Thief would tbh, especially since she isn't available in the command zone.

    In the Oathbreaker variant however, she absolutely should be considered for a ban. Constant access to her + Windfall or Time Twister has been a pain even when focused.


    That's why Oathbreaker is a bad idea, imo. Too many PWs should be banned as commanders and having access to a spell like that is just crazy.


    Yeah no kidding.

    Imagine a general that forms a 2 card combo being legal.

    food chain prossh, skyraider of kher
    paradox engine captain sisay
    helm of the host Aurelia, the Warleader
    knowledge pool teferi, mage of zhalfir
    eater of the dead phenax, god of deception
    curiosity niv-mizzet, the firemind

    Thank god that'll never happen

    (I would be for banning narset if planeswalkers became legal but please don't act like commander is some weak format that can't handle strong cards)


    Do you even know what Oathbreaker is? Two card combos with one sitting in the command zone are bad enough, but when BOTH sit in the command zone (or one plus a tutor sit in the command zone) its a whole extra level of broken. That much should be pretty obvious. Narset plus windfall both in the command zone would be worse than Leovold, which got banned quickly. Oathbreaker invites this by its very nature.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    30 life vs 40 would make aggro more viable, which would increase the likelihood of people getting knocked out early and having to wait for a long time for the game to be over. It also makes goodstuff battlecruiser decks, the backbone of casual, less viable, as that extra 10 life provides a cushion to let them stabilize against aggro. The lower life total also makes the randomness of 100 card more punishing when awkward draws happen. 60 card Singleton is a LOT more consistent than 100 card, so it is effected by this less. Lower starting life totals also makes commander damage less relevant, mostly a way to combat lifegain. It speeds up the clock a bit, but not as dramatically as basically halving it like now.

    40 life is a feature of the format, not a bug. I play both edh and 20 life multiplayer formats (like 60 card casual, conspiracy, and cube), and edh being 40 life's opens up strategies and plays that aren't viable otherwise. Aggro suffers, but aggro is also the decktype most likely to cause the problem you cite in your post, people getting knocked out early.

    I always am wary of changes that make edh more like regular 60 card magic. Edh is such a success in large part due to how much it differs from 60 card formats. It's a unique experience with unique gameplay elements. The commander itself is the most prominent and important part of this, but everything else matters as well. Color identity and how it restricts deckbuilding, 40 life and how that makes room for big play decks, slower strategies, and wincons that tend to see everyone eliminated around the same time, commander damage and the increased importance of the commander as a result, the 100 card Singleton nature and how that both increases the randomness of the game and forces you to dig deeper into your collection giving more cards a chance to shine. All of those things help make commander what it is.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Welp it’s finally happening for black/rakdos players...
    I think forced sacrifice is going to be in blacks wheelhouse. It will take care of single enchantments well enough, but is weak against enchantress. I can also see target enchantment kill with limits, like destroying auras, or with a creature sacrifice or life loss as part of the cost (though with a creature sac it'll probably hit creatures as well, Phyrexian tributaries is underpowered), limit on cmc, put life tax on the upkeep of the enchantment (at the beginning of the controllers upkeep, they pay x life or sac) etc.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [Rules Tinkering] TEST: Sparked Commander
    Quote from schweinefett »
    Well, i can't really fault him/her for being bored with the existing options. Many of the current generals already have an "optimal" build, which leads to this boringness - it's already been solved.

    My way of dealing with this is to try to do the opposite of what the general seems to want to be. My zedruu the greathearted voltron deck is sort of the epitome of that. No one expects zedruu to get pumped to 13+ power and attack with double strike.

    I'm not sure necessary changing the rules is what the community needs. I think static, reliable rules are good. That being said, I think an emphasis on local groups having local house-rules is probably something that everyone needs. It did take a bit of time for me to convince my playgroup that we'd transcended the need for the RC to dictate how we play EDH, and our group's gotten better for it. Not to demean what the RC does though; they generally do a good job - it's just that my group isn't exactly their target.


    I can see someone getting bored for that reason, but anybody that does should also realize how shallow the pool of interesting PW commanders is and how quickly they'd get bored of those for the same reason. Interesting PWs, those that aren't just good stuff value engines, are all pretty narrow, and optimized lists would be out as quickly for them as for any other linear commander like Neo Arcades. Very few actually do something that isn't already done by a legend in their colors (and most of those are already legal as commanders because they were designed to be). Allowing PW commanders would not solve his problem, if he's actually being honest about it.

    This variant doesn't solve the variety issue. Nothing will solve the optimized list issue, you just have to, like you said, build outside the box and accept your deck not being optimized for the commander (but obviously you can optimize it for the build). What this variant does solve is the flavor argument. It simply gives people a framework to use to do something they want to do. It doesn't need any reasons to justify it beyond "some people want this" because it's not being forced on anyone, its just an option. That also gives the people experimenting with this more options to tweak the ban list to make this actually work.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [Rules Tinkering] TEST: Sparked Commander
    Quote from Carthage »
    Quote from HandsomeJack »
    I don't see any real pros... Reducing the life total just because PW's are allowed as your Commander doesn't make sense at all. You can choose between so many Generals, why would we need this rule change? Having such a big watchlist because of that creates uncertainty and keeps players from building certain decks or entering the format.

    This will inevitably lead to a bigger banlist and many people will have problems to keep track of all that.


    As an experienced player I will say that the list of interesting generals is not nearly as big as it seems and I am already at the point of boredom with existing options.


    So adding pws as commanders would give you what, like 5 more options? I highly doubt you've exhausted all the interesting commanders, and the few potentially interesting pw commanders would hardly solve your problem, you'd exhaust them pretty quickly.

    For the guy you responded to, OP is proposing a format variant rather than a rules change. This has value in that it could allow playgroups that want to run PW commanders a good starting point to go by without having to figure out what's busted and unfun for themselves, making it more likely that playgroups can run PW nights successfully. It accomplishes this without forcing a change on the larger format.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [Rules Tinkering] TEST: Sparked Commander
    Quote from elpokitolama »
    Quote from Onering »
    1RU for a sol ring isn't great, but that's not what Dack is in that situation. He's 1RU for a solid ring that also gets rid of an opponents sol ring, and that's a big swing, and then he sticks around with a strong looting ability building up to steal the next one. He also serves a rattlesnake function where just being in the command zone threatens to steal people's rocks. His ult is fairly easy to hit once you have that Mana advantage to protect him, but I'm not sure it would be worth it to run cards to make it worthwhile, so it's usually worthless (though if you get it it can be game winning with a few buyback spells).


    I'm not saying he is not strong, but is it banworthy? Power level wise, he still seems around Aminatou, the fateshifter. I doubt he can really get out of hand easily since none of his abilities can really be abused on their own... If we were talking about a UR general to ban, I think Saheeli, Sublime Artificer is much more dangerous (being a much stronger Sai/Talrand).


    Saheeli is on his watchlist as well, for good reason. But remember that banning isn't just about power level, its about removing cards that make for "bad" games. A steal effect in the CZ that is, lets face it, universally useful, very swingy, and hits early means that the Dack player is X times more likely to get sol ring by turn 3, where X is the number of opponents, than the typical deck. Don't underestimate the rattlesnake factor of people wanting to hold back their rocks, even their more fair rocks, because Dack can steal them early. Mana rocks, even excluding sol ring, mana crypt, and mana vault, are the backbone of this format. Signets, manaliths, etc are in practically every deck. Dack doesn't just give a boost to his owner, he nerfs an opponent and discourages everyone else from playing their artifacts. His presence in the CZ I believe creates an undesirable game state, where actually playing the cards you draw is the wrong play, with no set up from the person running Dack, while also damaging the primary way non green decks can combat mana and color screw.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Hijack
    It's better than no mercy or propaganda for warding off attacks. People don't want you drawing cards, so unless they can do a lot of damage per hit they aren't attacking you.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [Rules Tinkering] TEST: Sparked Commander
    1RU for a sol ring isn't great, but that's not what Dack is in that situation. He's 1RU for a solid ring that also gets rid of an opponents sol ring, and that's a big swing, and then he sticks around with a strong looting ability building up to steal the next one. He also serves a rattlesnake function where just being in the command zone threatens to steal people's rocks. His ult is fairly easy to hit once you have that Mana advantage to protect him, but I'm not sure it would be worth it to run cards to make it worthwhile, so it's usually worthless (though if you get it it can be game winning with a few buyback spells).
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from ArixOrdragc »
    I don't get why Bolas randomly kills Domri for like no reason. I mean its not like he needs anyones spark specifically. So him stabbing his help in the back just seems dumb and to show look he is evil. Like killing your underlings cause they screwed up fine...killing your underlings for no reason doesn't make the bad guy look scary it makes them look dumb and incompetent.
    This is a big problem I have with Bolas, and why I just can't find him a compelling villain. He's the most generic, paint by numbers, card-carrying , moustache-twirling, finger-steepling, evil-cackling, Saturday morning cartoon supervillain with nothing of substance or interest to him. It's like they just cracked open a book of "1001 Generic Villain Tropes" and molded it into the vague shape of a dragon with a completely ridiculous design (seriously, he looks just...awful).

    And for a story that's all about stopping the villain, if the villain isn't compelling, then it's hard to care about anyone trying to stop him. I have a lot of issues with the story, but that's the real killer, I think.


    These kind of villains can be done well though, and by that I mean they can be highly entertaining. For instance, M Bison in Street Fighter makes Nicol Bolas look like a layered, subtle, and relatable villain in comparison, but he's also one of my favorite movie villains of all time because the movie leans into his over the top cartoon evil and Raul Julia puts forth the full force of his prodigious acting chops (while literally dying of cancer). Bolas at his best (really Amonkhet) played around in the same territory: over the top, cartoonishly evil that manages to be entertaining and even compelling to a degree. This falls flat on its face in WAR.

    But fortunately for the author and Wizards, while they ****ed this up, they didn't **** it up as bad as HBO and Beinoff and Weiss seem to be ******* up Game of Thrones with season 8 episode 4. The pile of ***** episode might actually **** up the whole series. At least War of the Spark had good characterization for most of it's key players and was somewhat enjoyable out of context.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Narset, Parter of Veils
    Quote from benjameenbear »
    While Narset is a powerful synergy piece in conjunction with Wheel effects (I'm a cEDH player by nature...), she's particularly vulnerable in that an opponent can simply attack into her and get rid of the effect. By having such a reliable way (technically speaking) to get rid of this effect without changing your deck composition (do you play creatures? Yes? You're good) makes her another puzzle to navigate in the context of a game.

    But, she IS hella strong with Wheel effects and I'm extremely pleased to slam her into my Memnarch, Teferi, and Aminatou decks.


    I'm generally going to prefer notion thief where I can run him, because you can drop him in response to someone whose about to draw a bunch of cards (or who cast a wheel of their own), which is a real windmill slam moment. Which of the two is more vulnerable is very meta dependant. Notion Thief dies to a stiff breeze, while many decks will not be able to effectively attack Narset (and many decks that would run her can effectively protect her).
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Narset, Parter of Veils
    Quote from Ph03niX »
    Comparing Leovold whi has 3 best colors and sits in commandzone to a PW...

    Really?


    Did you read his post or just knee jerk reaction?
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Narset, Parter of Veils
    I don't think there's much to add beyond Lou's analysis. Her not being able to be a commander is the biggest reason she isn't bannable. This is a fair effect in the 99 and only becomes a problem when it can be consistently cast early and backed up with wheel effects, which requires being a commander.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Amass' potential
    Amass is a terrible mechanic with some nonetheless good cards. The creatures that grant abilities to zombie tokens can see play just for that, with amass as a bonus that happens to make a zombie.

    I'm actually a bit interested in Widespread Brutality though. Zombies have a lot of Lords, so even if it makes the token it can often do some pretty solid damage to creatures. It might also be good in a jund +1/+1 counters matter deck. Basically, if the token will reliably have power 4 or greater in your deck, this should be considered. In both of those types of decks, btw, your own creatures are probably surviving it.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Coalition Victory
    Quote from schweinefett »
    ....well, not that 'consistency' is an argument, but that argument (what positive does it add to the game) can be applied to quite a few other cards too. null rod, iona, shield of emeria, invoke prejudice, even omen of fire, the list goes on).

    Just 'cuz you don't appreciate it, doesn't mean no one appreciates it. I'm not really sure that cards that aren't deserving to be banned should stay banned just because of inertia. Cards should be played as long as they're not actually problematic.


    Except that all the cards you listed actually do something other than just win the game. They all have fair uses (except, I'd argue, for Iona, because I think she should eat a ban, but she's borderline). The only use for CV is to immediately win the game. Because what CV does is expressly opposed to the philosophy of the format, unbanning it would detract from the format rather than add to it. A few people would enjoy this, likely fewer than think they would, and most would not. The enjoyment those few people would get out of this card is legitimate, but irrelevant. People would also enjoy playing the rest of the power 9 beyond timetwister, there would be people who'd enjoy Shaharazad, etc. This card isn't just banned due to inertia, and would eat a near immediate ban if it was first printed in WAR. One of the few cards to eat a near immediate ban upon printing was Worldfire, for mostly the same reasons as CV. RC members have repeatedly commented about why this card is banned, and none of it has to do with inertia.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.