I haven't read through all the posts here so this may have been suggested, but have you tried assigning rankings to the generated cards? Something like: 1-5 where 1 is unintelligible, 2 is unplayable, 3 is passable, 4 is playable, 5 is overpowered. Then feed these rankings to the NN so it can learn from its mistakes.
Wort, Boggart Auntie goblins can put down tons of damage fast. And with black you get graveyard recursion to help fight the wraths which are a big problem for aggro decks.
It doesn't really do anything for zur. It does nothing the turn you tutor for it and then zur has to stick around an entire turn around the table before it gives 4 extra non-commander damage that does nothing to zurs survivability.
If you play it from hand you get four more damage in but if you play a voltrony build with the intent to kill with your commander those four points won't matter whatsoever since they'll die from commander damage long before they are relevant.
I thought that it gave hexproof too. It does seem pretty bad without that.
I think that esper is the best color combo for control, it gives you tutors, counters, and hosers. Humility wrecks so many decks, if any of them are creature combos then I highly suggest adding it.
If you;re not playing to assemble a combo, you're probably not playing competitive. There are some exceptions but control decks are not going to win with beatdown or Tendrils of Agony, so it's gonna win with a combo. It's fallicious to say "if you're playing a combo you only need to answer things that prevent my combo" - you can still play a combo as a wincon for a permission deck.
I can see if you are playing a control deck that has a combo included as a secondary plan that you may draw into if the game goes long, but if the combo is plan A, then you are playing a combo deck rather than a control deck in my opinion. It's somewhat insulting for you to assert that any strategy but combo isn't competitive for permission. Also I said that you only need to answer things that win the game for the opponent or stop your combo, rather than purely protecting your combo. I've won plenty of games via beatdown while playing control, it's not as difficult as you make it seem; True Conviction is a house in a control deck. I play Dromar, the Banisher as my general over Zur(though he's in the maindeck) because he works as a better finisher and draws less hate.
I'm not trying to get into an argument with you here, we just have different definitions of permission. OP should have defined his terms.
Tasigur is IMO the only competitive permission commander. Before I discuss why, let's talk about the problem of permission in this format. The four-player nature of the format rewards proactive plays and punishes reactive plays, since a one-for-one is negative card parity. A control deck in this format has to overcome constantly being one-for-one'd, or find a way to control the game without relying on one-for-one trades. Most control decks to the latter, and are called Stax. Control decks also want a way to win without running too many cards. Once the game is locked down, you want to be able to draw into your combo relatively quickly, which means playing overlapping combo pieces, and you want to be able to play combos that don't require cards that are useless from the control perspective. There are various problems with other commanders...
GAA4: Grand Arbiter capitalizes on punishing players who have a low curve, since they will be casting multiple spells a turn. (Interestingly, it also punishes players for playing draw spells, since in the topdeck war, draw spells will be multiple spells a turn.) It punishes players who are playing storm/fast combo. GAA4 can use these elements to build a strong stax deck, but playing it as a permission deck is unlikely to be successful. You need to get GA in play relatively quickly, so you want to tap out on turn 2 or 3 to do that. This gives your opponents a window, certainly not something you want to plan into your deck in a permission deck. GA can be built as a successful stax deck, but isn't much good as a permission commander.
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir: The problem with Teferi, as noted elsewhere, is that he puts the entire burden of playing control on you. Your opponents will simply out-resource you if they aren't interacting with each other. Plus, Teferi will always, always eat a counterspell or removal if someone has it, since they can't point that elsewhere effectively. If you want to go mono-blue, I would play Venser, since he at least can buy you time.
Gaddock Teeg: Teeg is not a permission deck, it's a hatebears deck. Just because your commander has a vaguely controlly ability does not make the deck permission.
Now let's talk Tas. Tasigur has a few things going for him. The first is that he has Delve, which means you can cast him without tapping out, leaving up mana for permission. The second is his color identity: BUG is the best color combination in the format, and it's especially good for control. The black gives you tutors, the green gives you ramp, and the blue gives you permission, speaking very generally. The third thing Tas has is his activated ability. This ability works well in multiplayer, where you can use it to your advantage - "Give me the counterspell so I can stop his combo!" This works as an on-board preventative measure to stop your opponents from even trying to combo, meaning you can activate Tasigur for free value when nobody plays something you want to counter. Perhaps best of all, he draws his deck (infinite times!) with infinite colored mana, which can be assembled very easily in BUG using Palinchronbos. Tas is superior to Damia for his Delve ability and his lack of a need to play infinite-mana outlets (which is how Damia control typically wins too).
I disagree with a number of your points. Firstly I don't agree with your definition of permission. That is to say that if you are trying to win by assembling a combo, then you're not really playing permission. The distinction is that when you are playing to win with a combo you need only answer things that either win the game for the opponents or prevent you from winning with your combo. Whereas when playing permission you want to prevent your opponents from developing any significant board state, by preventing them from playing spells and/or by making the spells they play useless. I do agree with you that control decks in multiplayer need to be more proactive, which is why I believe that white is the best support color as it has plenty of hosers that can preemptively negate the effects of your opponents' spells. This includes cards like Humility, Rest in Peace, Moat, Rule of Law, Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, etc.
GAA4 does not punish players for having a low curve, in fact it generally crumples to an aggressive deck with a low curve. It does punish decks with high curves and decks that seek to play multiple cards in a turn. I agree that it is a poor choice for playing a permission strategy as he hinders your ability to play reactively and forces you to play almost entirely proactively.
I agree on Teeg and Teferi.
Now to Tasigur. He does have the advantage of being easy to cast and providing you solid card advantage. However, I disagree with you that BUG is the best color combo in the format, as it really depends on the archetype you are trying to play. For a permission strategy, I believe that green offers very little. It does give you ramp which allows you to cast more cards later which means you can answer more things, but you sacrifice control in the early game when you tap out to play a ramp spell. Combine that with the fact that it is very easy to play artifacts to fill the same role and green becomes irrelevant aside from having fatties. Now if your objective is to combo out and win, then that is a different story because you don't really care about controlling the early game, you only care about controlling the endgame. Also, I believe that you are overvaluing the political aspect of his ability. Generally speaking, it's disadvantageous to give your opponent more choices. Furthermore, you assume that people are going to act rationally, which is not always the case. Certainly persuading a player to give you a chance to control the endgame is likely. However if you were playing permission, you would be trying to control all parts of the game, and an opponent may not be as cooperative when it isn't a game-ending situation. His ability is certainly game winning with infinite mana, but you are playing combo at that point.
I believe that Esper is the best color combination for a permission strategy as it gives you access to counterspells, tutors, hosers, and the most efficient answers. There are plenty of good choices for generals in Esper, but I think that Zur is the best for permission because he allows you to play proactively, is cheap to cast, can find the right answers when you need them, and generates card and mana advantage by being able to play a free spell a turn from your deck.
I think that Zur the Enchanter has come back around. Esper has always been the best color combination for a permission archetype, and Zur gives you the ability to find specific answers when you need them. Plus they keep printing new toys for him to play with, like Grasp of Fate.
1. Build a deck that doesn't interact at all outside of combat. I'd suggest Ruhan of the Fomori. Build it so you curve out nicely with threats and just beat face, let them do their thing but try to kill them before that.
2. Accept the role of the big bad super police of unfun that they have directed at you. Play Esper control (Probably Zur), prevent them from doing anything of interest. Your goal should not be to win the game, but to not lose the game. Revel in their cries of agony, and enjoy their attempts to gang up and kill you so they can resume their "for funsies" game. Pretend you are a super villain and laugh maniacally as you play your unfun cards, gloat about the oppressive plays you are going to make a few turns in advance and dare them to try and stop you. Every time you stop someone from winning say "You will never defeat me!" Only answer things that are game-winning or attempts to answer your board state.
3. Find a new playgroup. If you can't find anyone else to play with locally, maybe try playing online.
4. Ask them why they dislike you, and what you can do to change that.
5. Quit MTG and send me all of your cards.
An aside: Humility is my favorite magic card. I wish more people played it and less people complained about it.
I would say that Seton, Krosan Protector combo was the best before Primeval Titan got the axe. Without primetime entwining Tooth and Nail is no longer infinite mana, and losing partial paris mulligans hurt his chances too. He can still have explosive starts and win turns 3-4, but he still encounters the problems of mono-green decks that is stalling out after removal and board wipes. So it ends up being either you win fast or get answered and do nothing. That and the lack of removal and ways to interact with the opponent in mono-green are the reasons why I dislike mono-green decks. The other mono-colors have more ways to interact and more resilient strategies.
Agreed, this one was pretty fun. Mine was combo oriented, but got stale after a while as you either took over the game in the first few turns or someone stopped you. Also very susceptible to wrath effects.
I'm currently working on building a warriors tribal list, there's not a lot of tribal synergies but there are a lot of good creatures.
Whenever a non-token artifact comes into play under your control you may draw a card, if you do discard a card.
2/2
and/or
Thada Adel the Expended - 1UURR
Merfolk Artificer
Islandwalk
Whenever a non-token artifact creature is put in your graveyard from anywhere you may put a creature token with haste into play that is a copy of that creature, at end of turn sacrifice it.
I thought that it gave hexproof too. It does seem pretty bad without that.
Why not Invocation of Saint Traft in Zur?
I can see if you are playing a control deck that has a combo included as a secondary plan that you may draw into if the game goes long, but if the combo is plan A, then you are playing a combo deck rather than a control deck in my opinion. It's somewhat insulting for you to assert that any strategy but combo isn't competitive for permission. Also I said that you only need to answer things that win the game for the opponent or stop your combo, rather than purely protecting your combo. I've won plenty of games via beatdown while playing control, it's not as difficult as you make it seem; True Conviction is a house in a control deck. I play Dromar, the Banisher as my general over Zur(though he's in the maindeck) because he works as a better finisher and draws less hate.
I'm not trying to get into an argument with you here, we just have different definitions of permission. OP should have defined his terms.
I disagree with a number of your points. Firstly I don't agree with your definition of permission. That is to say that if you are trying to win by assembling a combo, then you're not really playing permission. The distinction is that when you are playing to win with a combo you need only answer things that either win the game for the opponents or prevent you from winning with your combo. Whereas when playing permission you want to prevent your opponents from developing any significant board state, by preventing them from playing spells and/or by making the spells they play useless. I do agree with you that control decks in multiplayer need to be more proactive, which is why I believe that white is the best support color as it has plenty of hosers that can preemptively negate the effects of your opponents' spells. This includes cards like Humility, Rest in Peace, Moat, Rule of Law, Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, etc.
GAA4 does not punish players for having a low curve, in fact it generally crumples to an aggressive deck with a low curve. It does punish decks with high curves and decks that seek to play multiple cards in a turn. I agree that it is a poor choice for playing a permission strategy as he hinders your ability to play reactively and forces you to play almost entirely proactively.
I agree on Teeg and Teferi.
Now to Tasigur. He does have the advantage of being easy to cast and providing you solid card advantage. However, I disagree with you that BUG is the best color combo in the format, as it really depends on the archetype you are trying to play. For a permission strategy, I believe that green offers very little. It does give you ramp which allows you to cast more cards later which means you can answer more things, but you sacrifice control in the early game when you tap out to play a ramp spell. Combine that with the fact that it is very easy to play artifacts to fill the same role and green becomes irrelevant aside from having fatties. Now if your objective is to combo out and win, then that is a different story because you don't really care about controlling the early game, you only care about controlling the endgame. Also, I believe that you are overvaluing the political aspect of his ability. Generally speaking, it's disadvantageous to give your opponent more choices. Furthermore, you assume that people are going to act rationally, which is not always the case. Certainly persuading a player to give you a chance to control the endgame is likely. However if you were playing permission, you would be trying to control all parts of the game, and an opponent may not be as cooperative when it isn't a game-ending situation. His ability is certainly game winning with infinite mana, but you are playing combo at that point.
I believe that Esper is the best color combination for a permission strategy as it gives you access to counterspells, tutors, hosers, and the most efficient answers. There are plenty of good choices for generals in Esper, but I think that Zur is the best for permission because he allows you to play proactively, is cheap to cast, can find the right answers when you need them, and generates card and mana advantage by being able to play a free spell a turn from your deck.
1. Build a deck that doesn't interact at all outside of combat. I'd suggest Ruhan of the Fomori. Build it so you curve out nicely with threats and just beat face, let them do their thing but try to kill them before that.
2. Accept the role of the big bad super police of unfun that they have directed at you. Play Esper control (Probably Zur), prevent them from doing anything of interest. Your goal should not be to win the game, but to not lose the game. Revel in their cries of agony, and enjoy their attempts to gang up and kill you so they can resume their "for funsies" game. Pretend you are a super villain and laugh maniacally as you play your unfun cards, gloat about the oppressive plays you are going to make a few turns in advance and dare them to try and stop you. Every time you stop someone from winning say "You will never defeat me!" Only answer things that are game-winning or attempts to answer your board state.
3. Find a new playgroup. If you can't find anyone else to play with locally, maybe try playing online.
4. Ask them why they dislike you, and what you can do to change that.
5. Quit MTG and send me all of your cards.
An aside: Humility is my favorite magic card. I wish more people played it and less people complained about it.
Agreed, this one was pretty fun. Mine was combo oriented, but got stale after a while as you either took over the game in the first few turns or someone stopped you. Also very susceptible to wrath effects.
I'm currently working on building a warriors tribal list, there's not a lot of tribal synergies but there are a lot of good creatures.
I saw this advisor tribal list the other day on reddit: https://imgur.com/a/PZ1MI
Slobad the Enlightened - UR
Goblin Wizard
Shroud
Whenever a non-token artifact comes into play under your control you may draw a card, if you do discard a card.
2/2
and/or
Thada Adel the Expended - 1UURR
Merfolk Artificer
Islandwalk
Whenever a non-token artifact creature is put in your graveyard from anywhere you may put a creature token with haste into play that is a copy of that creature, at end of turn sacrifice it.
3/4