2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Damage redirection and "when this is dealt damage" triggers
    What's tripping me up is the ruling on fiery confluence, but I think I understand now - despite the fact that, from a gameplay perspective, the damage being dealt by fiery confluence sort of seems simultaneous, because SBAs aren't checked in between each "event" - they're still not technically simultaneous (even though for most intents and purposes they behave like they are). Whereas the earthquake example is fully simultaneous and thus only one trigger.

    Btw only the third of those threads really explained anything to me, the other two examples were already clear.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Damage redirection and "when this is dealt damage" triggers
    Say I play Earthquake for X=3 while controlling outrider en-kor and ripjaw raptor. Holding priority, I activate outrider's ability three times targeting raptor.

    How many cards do I draw?

    1 because it's all being dealt from one source?
    2 because it received the damage from earthquake and the earthquake damage redirected from outrider?
    4 for each instance of redirection plus the original earthquake?
    Some other number?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on My opinion of the Kaldheim Legends in EDH
    I'm not saying Birgi doesn't open some new options, but I doubt it's going to make much of a splash a commander in cEDH, and she's certainly not "stronger than kykar". I do think she'll get played a lot in the 99 though. Her flip side isn't bad either.

    Narfi goes infinite with Kormus Bell + 3+ Snow swamps + Intruder Alarm and a sac outlet or Thermal Flux=> Ashnod’s Altar + Desecrated Tomb
    lol, ok that does work, but you can’t honestly think it makes him remotely powerful? It’s more a lulz combo than anything actually worth doing. Definitely not "brilliantly broken". He's a very mediocre lord, which is only somewhat interesting because he's hard to kill. But know who else is hard to kill? Scarab God.

    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on My opinion of the Kaldheim Legends in EDH
    Huh? I said Cosima was strong, I never said she was fast. She's slow but steady all the way. No idea why you're trying to concoct T4 wins with her, that's not how she plays at all. She's a grindy draw-go commander, probably aiming to win around turn 12 at the absolute earliest.

    Also proliferate cannot choose exiled cards.

    The actual gameplan would be to have a deck packed with removal and counters. Get her exiled, then just use interaction to prevent anyone else getting too out of control while ticking her up. When enemy shields look relatively down and Cosima is ideally at 19+ counters, EOT flash her in, using either something like rogue's passage or something like cyc rift/evac/etc to clear away blockers and kill whoever poses the biggest threat to you, with multiple counter backup. Now you're either fully or mostly untapped, with an enormous hand of answers and a 1-hit-KO commander on the board and a shrinking pool of opponents. If anything goes wrong, just flash her into play with a fetchland to refill your hand, then either go for a multi-turn kill or throw her back into exile on upkeep to start accumulating cards again.

    And I still wanna know how the hell you're going infinite with Narfi...
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on My opinion of the Kaldheim Legends in EDH
    Your analysis of Toralf sure doesn't read as "Toralf isn't good because his threat assessment will be too high", it reads as "he's not very strong", which is incorrect. As far as popularity, so far he's pretty high on EDHrec, though ofc it's too early to say anything definitive.

    But I'm a bit confused by your ranking in general, now that I think about it - is it how popular you expect them to be, or how powerful? "cEDH worthy" implies power level, but "frequent play" implies popularity. Especially confusing since cEDH commanders often aren't popular among the general commander public.

    Birgi is currently among the least-played commanders from the set and I doubt that'll change. Compared to Kykar she's waaaaay weaker. Saying she's stronger because she works with creatures is pretty ridiculous imo - creatures rarely lend themselves well to storm (maybe in green if you count elves, but not in red afaik). The only creatures I'm aware of seeing much play in modern storm lists, despite not needing to build around Kykar's ability, are ones like Baral and Goblin Electromancer that reduce costs for the instants and sorceries that are doing the real work - and those creatures are (afaik) all blue. That's not to say she won't see play in cEDH, she likely will...in the 99 of existing storm lists with more powerful 2+ color commanders which let you run crucial blue enablers.

    Cosima - she doesn't need haste, she has flash. EoT crack a fetch, throw her into play, untap and get killing. Best of all, after she returns there's not even a window for anyone to kill her before you draw a ton of cards and have shields up. "You have to run multiple fetches"...not really seeing a meaningful downside there (I mean, I guess from a budget POV, but there are also a lot of cheap fetches that get the job done like the panoramas). "chancing that you pull lands"...again not sure what you mean. You're probably running a decent number of lands in a Cosima deck, and crucible of worlds will keep you in the money practically forever. Worse comes to worse, you pop Cosima early, draw a bunch of cards, re-exile her on upkeep and start ticking her up again with all those lands you just drew. Saying "there are other mono-blue commanders that do that job better" ignores the fact that no other commander can do what she can in terms of uninteractibility. After that one-turn setup window, she is almost completely uninteractive. Sure, Azami can draw you lots of cards, but if people start killing her she gets priced off the field quickly. For a similar level of protection, you'd have to look at something like Nezahal that costs SEVEN - not exactly ideal for a draw-go strategy. And even Nezahal can get forced off the field by repeated removal. Cosima is the card advantage commander that * poof * was never there. And she's a potentially massive beater to boot, 1 hit KO is a lot spicier than 3. I don't think she'll be very popular (and so far she's not) because I don't think how she plays is going to appeal to most players, but from a power level POV I think she's quite strong.

    Maja - cute "combo", but given that it's a 3-card forced-infinite I don't think it really moves the needle anywhere (from a power-level POV or a popularity one).

    How are you going infinite with Narfi? Tbh I still haven't figured that one out. Best I can figure you're Thermal Fluxing an Ashnod's Altar or something, but that doesn't even break even, let alone pay you off for it. It seems REALLY hard to generate three snow mana per creature loop, unless I'm missing something big.

    @BobTheFunny - I did mention the damage doubling potential too. But yeah, scary card.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on My opinion of the Kaldheim Legends in EDH
    MTG's War and Peace? Lol my Phelddagrif guide was like 70 pages when I was editing it in MSWord...

    The ones I'm pretty sure you're wrong about:

    Birgi, God of Storytelling - This just looks like a worse Kykar to me (a MUCH worse kykar - lose 2 colors including blue, lose the ability to bank mana, lose a decent body, lose the ability to generate board presence). "Free" lightning bolt? That's your huge payoff for cEDH? Mmkay.

    Valki - not sure about the Tybalt side, but the Valki side looks meh to me. A lot of strong decks don't play many creatures, and a lot of the most popular creatures have strong ETBs and whatnot. To me this looks like a ravenous rats in a CZ...fine but not super exciting.

    Narfi - I'm sure he CAN go infinite, but realistically how's that going to happen? And while he's on the board...well, +1/+1 doesn't really blow me away TBH. Can't imagine running him over something with more potential for a tribal deck.

    Tergrid - she's got a lot of hype. She's strong and will see play for sure. Only thing holding her back is being mono-color. Look at her price tag on TCGplayer - that's probably almost entirely commander hype.

    Cosima - I think you're hugely underrating this (yet somehow overrating the boat side). Cosima is almost completely uninteractible-with once she's stuck for a turn, can draw a ton of cards (especially with fetches...despite being mono-blue there are a LOT of fetch lands that can be run), and can one-shot people without any real support. You just set her up, keep a fetch available to throw her into play if necessary, and you've got a massive stealth hand with a huge free flash creature on tap. It's a control deck's wet dream, imo. The boat side just doesn't have the payoff, I can't see any way to abuse it that wouldn't be much more effective with, say, Lu Xun who provides his own evasion, doesn't need crewing, and draws instead of only getting stolen lands.

    Magda - I think she'll end up being pretty good. Speaking as a Zirilan player. She does require a lot more setup, but she also only costs 2 and there's more opportunity both to keep dragons on board (for the more casual version) or to go for huge OTKs by setting up a bunch of treasures at once (for the more competitive-minded).

    Varragoth - doesn't look very fun, but any commander that can win on turn 2-5 off Adnaus every game deserves a higher tier.

    Maja - just curious, what's your infinite combo here? Perilous Forays is pretty far from infinite so I hope it's not that. She's certainly a far cry from Scute, as scute grows exponentially while she just grows linearly. Still the placement seems fine.

    Koll - it's weird to me that you mention infinite combos in Maja but ignore them in Koll, who is just loaded with them. Any free creature (there are 8, not including X-cost which will die without an anthem or something) and any free equip (I think there's 4? plus decent tutors in these colors) gives you infinite sac fodder. With an altar, you can expand equipment into things like skullclamp, or just gain infinite mana depending on the specifics. Honestly it bums me that he's going to be used probably primarily as a combo commander because the ability could be fun otherwise. Idk wtf that second line of text is for though, lol. Niche limited decks?

    Toralf - how you've slept on this one baffles me. Blasphemous act is going to be a 1-Hit KO in a lot of games. As will star of extinction. It also goes pretty ham with any kind of damage doubler, chaining from creature to creature and then killing someone starting from a simple lightning bolt. Potential infinites with indestructibles too. Very scary card.

    MDFC gods in general - Idk why you think cost is going to be a major factor for these cards. They're probably mostly going to be $5 or less. That's not going to scare off anyone except the most extreme budget-conscious. How much sticking power they have I'm not sure, but imo by FAR the biggest thing holding them back is that a lot of players don't like playing mono-color commanders.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you deal with long losing streaks?
    Quote from Xcric »
    i have to agree with the point of picking your strength and playing it constantly.

    the more you play it the more you can hone it. the more you can understand it. the more you'll learn what works against it too. it'll end your losing streaks over time for sure if you're analyzing things correctly and adjusting. from those experiences you can then learn what makes other archetypes viable as you lose to them. for example: if you're playing aggro and keep losing to control, as your aggro play gets stronger and you start beating those decks, youll start understanding what makes those decks work. this means when you want to try something different you'll have a greater understanding of how to play that archetype right out of the gate. in turn this means you don't have to repeat the entire process to the same degree all over again. from this you can develop breadth of experience and knowledge. jumping around from archetype/deck to archetype/deck without mastering any really just makes you a sloppy player. it doesn't hone your skills or make you understand why something actually works or doesn't work. you're more likely to just get frustrated by losing, and you wont' necessarily have the skills yet to do more than that.
    I think ultimately both options will improve you as a player. Focusing one at a time, or spreading it around - either way, playing more magic generally means getting better at magic. It probably comes down to player preference which works best for them and their learning style. For me, personally, I think I learn the most quickly when I'm trying new things, because there's more stuff to learn. If you picked up a new instrument every month, you'd be learning a ton of stuff constantly, you'd get better at being able to pick up instruments you weren't familiar with, and you'd learn a lot about music as a whole. But you probably wouldn't be first chair in any particular one. So it also depends on what your goals are. For me, I really don't care about mastering some specific archetype, because for me the exploration is a huge part of the fun of magic. Just being really good at playing one particular deck doesn't appeal to me, and that's why I've never seriously stuck with any constructed format at a competitive level, why I've built over a hundred commander decks, and why most of them usually only get played a couple times each. But if you prefer to find your lane and stick to it, then the other option might be better for you.

    One thing I will say - in draft, there's a common problem with newer drafters (or even experienced ones who aren't as familiar with the format) where you can start to get a skewed perspective based on limited information. For example, you draft RB a couple times early on, do well, and now you're overvaluing red and black cards and end up forcing RB a lot more than you should. Or you draft aggro a few times, and now you're in the "always be attacking" mindset even when you ought to be on the defensive. Sticking with one mode of play I think can make it easier to form patterns in your play that you don't think about enough, because they're frequently correct for the kind of decks you've been playing. It can make you rigid in your thinking instead of looking at every angle. Not that it can't be overcome by critically analyzing your plays, but if I was trying to make someone good at magic, I'd be pushing them into new spaces so that they're constantly considering all possibilities during a game instead of falling into repetitive patterns.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you deal with long losing streaks?
    I think a big part of why we're disagreeing is that, competitively, I focus primarily on limited, where obviously you don't have the luxury of specialization. You have to be ready to play whatever is open, whatever that may be. And the philosophy does affect how I play commander.

    The main thing I would disagree with about what you've said is that I think you're looking at not just from constructed (which is obviously fair, given that we're talking about a constructed format) but a very high-level of play. Sure, some pro players favor certain types of decks over others, but any pro player worth their salt is good enough with the basics of play to pick up most random decks and play it decently, without even being familiar with the format.

    That's just not the level most commander players are at. I know plenty of people that have basically picked up one deck because they liked the sound of it, and then just upgraded it occasionally and never tried anything else. When players are still at that really basic level, I think it really behooves them to try new things before they build up bad habits. For example, I've played limited against players who I've also played commander with, and one common mistake is that they'll play overly-defensively because they're used to commander combat where life totals are high, chances of salty retaliation are relevant, and playing defensively is generally the higher EV option - and also just the social norm. They're playing overly-defensively in commander too, of course - but they're not getting punished for it so they aren't aware of it. Getting into another format where combat is more effective can help shake up their habits a little, instead of autopiloting along with what they're used to and missing stuff. Then they can return to their norm with a more holistic understanding of the game - or maybe decide that they want to focus on some aspect that they weren't as familiar with before, because trying it out appealed to them.

    I know when I first started playing commander, before I'd done anything competitively, I was very control-focused. And I still am, to a certain extent, but time spent playing limited and exploring other archetypes within commander made me more aware of what I like (and what I don't), and I've been able to use the lessons I've learned to all my decks - lessons that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd never left my safe control bunker.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you deal with long losing streaks?
    Pro players may have preferences, but no successful player is married to one specific style of deck. If a pro player that likes control decks is going a GP in a meta where he thinks the best deck is aggro, he's not bringing a control deck. He's bringing an aggro deck. Even moreso for limited - if he prefers blue but white is what's open, then he's going into white and you can bet that he's prepared to play it.

    My understanding is that, when doing specific tournament prep, pro teams will commonly play most meta decks against each other so they can decide for themselves where they think the meta is going to get an edge, but I'm sure that varies from team to team. At any rate, those players have almost certainly put in tons of hours playing some form of every archetype. Perhaps one is mastered more than the others, but they're going to be able to play every archetype at a much higher level than most players.

    Can't speak for other pros, but I watch Kibler stream (hearthstone) all the time, and he switches from deck to deck and even format to format all the time. When he wants to hit legend, sure, he decides on the deck he wants to do it with - but he makes that decision based on having played many different decks so that he knows them all quite well and understands the meta inside and out. Sure, at a very high level it pays to be dedicated to a certain deck for a given constructed season, but that's so far above where most EDH players are at that it's hardly worth thinking about imo.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you deal with long losing streaks?
    I think we still disagree. My opinion is that, ultimately, your goal should be to not have any "strengths". Not just to not focus on reanimator specifically, but not to focus on toolboxing more generally, or any other thing you might imagine. You should strive to do do EVERYTHING. There's no reason you can't be good at everything magic has to offer, and knowing more about every piece of it will make you a better overall player because you'll be able to apply lessons from one area to another, and to see enemy lines better and play around them.

    Whenever someone asks me "what colors do you play?" or "what kinds of decks do you play?", that's a hint to me that they're either new or a weak player. Magic is not a game about finding your niche and burrowing in, that's how you stagnate. It's about constantly finding new territory to conquer.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you deal with long losing streaks?
    I agree with Cranky here - if you want to win THE NEXT game, then stick with what you know...but unless you're going to a grand prix or something with an entry fee, imo you should try to become a better magic player holistically. Play every color, play different formats (try limited! we have cookies!), play different archetypes, borrow decks - everything you change up, your brain will absorb new ways of thinking. And one day you'll wake up and realize that you've gotten really good at the game.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on How do you deal with long losing streaks?
    Gotta agree with what's been said. Most likely they're just a strong player.

    I've had many times in similar situations. In some groups my winrate has been well over 50%. That'd be using my own decks, which admittedly have a very high budget, but I also try to temper them significantly by avoiding lots of different things that I don't think make for fun games. Sometimes I'll play precons to avoid winning via budget, but I still usually have a pretty solid winrate with those as well. Being a strong player gives you lots of little advantages throughout the whole game.

    I see three options though:

    1) Git gud. Personally my own path to being gud was paved through playing the game for almost 20 years (commander for 11 of those). I think the best thing you can do is try to analyze your games, and maybe talk to the other players about what they think you should have done (especially the good players). But more than anything else, just play tons and tons of magic. Might also be worth watching people play the format on twitch or youtube and trying to find good plays.
    2) Git upset. Probably not a great option ofc.
    3) Giv up. You don't need to be good at commander, it's just a game, and one that takes a lot of effort to git gud at. It's totally reasonable to just accept that your winrate isn't going to be very high, and that's ok.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Making our own RC?
    You got me, I’m one of those trolls that Spends hours writing pages of clear argumentation while being careful not to insult the opposition, in a dead forum where the only other consistent posters do nothing but engage in vigorous congratulations of each other while ignoring my points.

    Look, you asked why people think they’re a problem. I answered that question. You can disagree with the reasons - and to be clear, I disagree (or at least don’t feel strongly) about some of them - but those are the main reasons why. You want to argue about it? Sure, I’m game. You want to dismiss me? Fine. But if you’re going to claim my points are wrong, then at least have the common courtesy to explain why you think so.

    And please feel free to report me if you feel I’m in violation of the forum rules. That’s what the button is there for.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Making our own RC?
    Quote from JuiceBOX »
    Okay, here we go. Let's keep in mind that you said "Commander is the only context.
    Commander is the only context because it's the market these are being targeted towards.

    1) It's a blatantly predatory business model. "If you miss a drop, it's gone forever" or whatever their stupid slogan is. They're obviously preying on peoples' FOMO to sell these things, because people are worried they might want it later and the price will skyrocket. It's the same psychologically manipulative tactics that mobile games have been "pioneering" in an effort to force people to part with their money as effectively as possible. This was semi-acceptable with reprints since at least those cards were already available at whatever the price was, but with these, there's really no telling where the price will go.

    Irrelevant to Commander. The format is littered with cards that are largely unaccessible and yet the format continues to grow and do well. Further to this point, Commander is an incredibly proxy friendly format for this very reason. Whether or not this is a "Predatory business model" is irrelevant to Commander, specifically when it comes to the discussion of "Should these cards be banned?" - which I will remind you, is kind of the centerpiece of this entire thread. This, is the first example of you straw-manning.
    I think you're a bit confused on what a straw man is. Straw manning would mean that I was attempting to refute an argument but ignoring the strong points, while refuting a point that either wasn't even argued, or altering the argument that was actually made in order to refute it. Even if you disagree with me and think I'm totally off-base, that's not even possible in this scenario because I'm not refuting an argument here, I'm creating my own.

    I don't know why you think this is irrelevant to commander - it's clearly us that WotC is preying on with these products. This is a product designed to exploit us. Now, as I already said, the predatory model isn't relevant to the gameplay of commander, which is arguably the RC's purview, and I believe why they didn't choose to ban them. A banlist isn't really the appropriate way to handle the situation. But I don't think the appropriate way is likely to work, unfortunately. So in this situation I would prefer an improper solution to one that will fail.

    As far as cards already being hard to acquire - much harder than these will ever be - yes that's true, but for the most part that has occurred by accident. WotC didn't go out intending to make dual lands expensive. They don't make any money off how expensive dual lands are. This situation is completely different because wotc is actively trying to exploit the system. It's the difference between getting killed by a natural disaster and getting murdered.

    As far as proxies, I'm personally fine with them, but nevertheless people almost always acquire the cards because otherwise it's not "real". I almost never see proxies, and when I do there's usually a big apology beforehand. There's surely some interesting things to talk about as far as the psychology that motivates people to spend so much on cards rather than proxy - and as someone with a very expensive collection, I 100% fall into it. There's something satisfying about knowing that your deck is as real as possible, and that no one can deny the legality of it. Part of why I also very rarely consider making anything in silver-border - and clearly why wotc made these black border to circumvent that icky feeling. But to circle back around to the actual point, while in theory the format is proxy-friendly, in my experience proxies are actually exceedingly rare.

    2) The price is extortionary. Ignoring the tokens because who gives a damn, you're paying $10 per card, assuming you're in a place where you don't have to pay import taxes or whatever else. That's a price we're used to because of the singles market, but the reason some singles are worth $10+ is because of all the many, many, many cards that AREN'T worth that much. For every $10 piece of cardboard WotC produces for a penny, they make hundreds of worthless cards for the same cost, and leave it to the secondary market to sort out what is worth what. By straight-up selling cards for $10, they're putting in almost zero effort and blatantly ripping players off.

    Also, irrelevant to Commander, as well as this thread. See the above counterpoint as to why.

    Beyond saying inaccessibility isn't necessarily a problem for the format - which I largely agree with, I think inaccessibility is a fairly minor problem with this product, your first "point" doesn't really make much of an argument. Let's got sentence-by-sentence through your "counterpoint".

    "Irrelevant to Commander."

    ok, clearly not an argument, just stating the point.

    "The format is littered with cards that are largely unaccessible and yet the format continues to grow and do well."

    Sure? But that doesn't really address my point. I never said that the accessibility of these cards was a problem. Besides which, having inaccessible cards does not equate to a predatory business model - not that it's relevant to the question of "is this product irrelevant to commander?" anyway. I guess it might if I was saying that the accessibility what WHY this is relevant to commander, but I didn't. The product isn't particularly inaccessible, it's just really scummy and deliberately targeting commander players - which is why it's relevant to the health of the format. If I feel the company producing the cards for the format is trying to exploit me, I'm going to have less fun playing the game. That's already true for me, at least, and I'm guessing others as well since many people have quit the game in the wake of this (though who really knows how many)

    "Further to this point, Commander is an incredibly proxy friendly format for this very reason."

    Besides this being mostly false - at least where I've played (or at best "true in theory but not in practice") - it's not really relevant to whether this is predatory or targeting commander players. Even if there's a way to circumvent wotc's overpriced product, the product still exists to attempt to exploit us. Sure, some people will avoid the trap and proxy these cards (or better yet, not play them at all) but some people will fall in, and that's what wotc is counting on. But I think the fact that wotc is laying out the trap to begin with - regardless of whether anyone falls into it - is what's so worrying about this whole thing.

    "Whether or not this is a "Predatory business model" is irrelevant to Commander"

    Ok, you've now stated this point twice without making an actual argument for it.

    "specifically when it comes to the discussion of "Should these cards be banned?""

    Debatable - but I don't wholly disagree (see above). But regardless of whether I disagree, there's still no WHY here, no explanation. You're just stating your points without backing it up. All the points you've tried to make are not related to this argument at all.

    "which I will remind you, is kind of the centerpiece of this entire thread."

    The initial argument of this thread is whether we should make a whole new RC over this - which is a dumb, bad idea that I'm not trying to defend. In fact I argued against it.

    3) There is already a precedent for crossovers in magic, in fact there have been two: silver border cards, which almost everyone I've met is happy to allow in a game of casual commander so long as they aren't being abused, and the godzilla "alt-art" versions from Ikoria. Either of these would have been acceptable to most people, but they didn't do either - because if they did alt-arts, then they wouldn't be able to prey on FOMO because most people would just pick them up in a normal version, and if they did silver-border, then players wouldn't consider them "real cards" and so they wouldn't feel it as necessary to pick them up and they won't sell as many copies (likely only fans of TWD would pick them up, which imo ought to be the goal anyway). It's a blatantly greedy move to push the cards without regard for how players are going to feel about them.

    I don't know what a silver border has to do with it, other than making it illegal for use in Commander. Which kind of runs contradictory to your statements and issues further on, which suggest that the problem is that these cards are legal everywhere... Once again, the context here has nothing to do with Commander. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder as to how collectables in this game should be handled, and it is rather arbitrary when it comes to Commander and the playability of the format with these cards existing within it.

    Uh, yes, obviously the point would be to make the default-illegal in commander. For the record I'd be happy to play against someone running one of these in silver border, but I don't think they should be default-legal.

    I have no clue why that would run contradictory to the suggestion the problem is that they're legal everywhere. That seems to match up 100% perfectly, tbh. I don't think they should be legal by default, and that making them illegal by default would resolve the problem. Why is that confusing for you?

    Again, restating your point about this not being relevant to commander without explaining why. Getting kind of tired of that.

    I'd say borders(/alt-art) is completely relevant to the playability of the format, and largely irrelevant to the collectable aspect. Borders exist to define how the cards can be played, not how they can be collected. If you feel my distinction it's "rather arbitrary", kindly explain why - but I think I've made enough points as to why this product is different than others, and ideally wouldn't be default-legal in the format.

    4) Having non-magic IP, especially modern day real-world-adjacent IP, forced into the game is annoying and immersion breaking. Personally I'm a little luke-warm on this point since I'd be happy to see, for example, a set based around lord of the rings or some similarly venerable IP, but as someone who watched the first 3-4 seasons of TWD, it's a garbage show that gets way more marketing push than it deserves. Having TWD cards forced into the the game feels like an advertisement for a commercial product, not a fun flavor change.

    As I had said before, you are talking about how rare these cards are and how that rarity is a cash grab move, but then you seem to suggest that they are common enough to impact the immerson of games across the globe. Your complaints about this product, really appear to be hyperbole. Is this product too rare for most players to get, or is it too common that the IP bleed is going to cause mass exodus in the format? Which is it?

    NO. STOP STRAW MANNING ME. I never said these cards were rare - not ever, not once. Accessibility has NEVER been my argument. WotC said they would print as many of these are people wanted to buy (ignoring the fact that we're past the window now), so in theory the supply is infinite. The way they're marketing them has some elements of trying to instill the fear of potential future rarity, but during the buying window rarity is a 100% non-issue. And realistically, I doubt these will ever be TOO hard to get your hands on. Certainly not as hard as reserved list staples.

    Now, how often do I think these will come up in an actual game? Probably not super often, though Rick might become popular (in the 99 most likely) for humans decks. But even if I never sit down across from one, having them in the game does still hurt the immersion a little, I think. They're going to come up on scryfall, they're going to get recommended in decklists, they're going to have decklists in the subforum, people are going to talk about them. Hell, we're already doing that and I hate it. I hate that I'm talking about the walking dead in a forum dedicated to magic the gathering.

    Now, are those huge concerns? Not for me, tbh, aside from TWD specifically and how I think it sucks balls. But that's why I made it clear within that point that I was mostly relaying other people's concerns, and less so my own. I'm just passing on the information, not really arguing super strongly for it. But there are a lot of people who argue this point, so I felt it was worth conveying.

    5) Selling these cards online only cuts out the LGS, which are already struggling significantly thanks to the pandemic, and certainly haven't been helped by the advent of arena either. It's a move that feels like it's focused on the short-term gains of "cutting out the middle-man", but at the sacrifice of the long-term health of paper play.

    Your 4th instance of being completely irrelevant to Commander.

    How is that irrelevant to commander? We may have nowhere to PLAY commander. I can't think of anything more relevant than that.

    6) These aren't available in all regions, which isn't fair to players in those regions (I'm also lukewarm on this point since I don't think anyone should buy them).

    See Spoiler for "Your Point #4.
    I'm afraid I don't see how this is related to point #4, but I will reiterate that this is not a point I personally make or particularly care about. I also don't think it'll be THAT hard to get these on the secondary market even for people living in those countries. But people do make this argument, so I'm just relaying it.

    You asked why people care about them being legal. This is one reason many people bring up, even if I don't particularly agree with it.

    7) If they ever become tournament viable - probably not this batch, but who knows with future batches - not only might that cause a catastrophic price surge, but it also might mean that high-level magic play is being dominated by Mickey Mouse or whatever other cringy IP WotC is shilling for.

    Pretty bold doomsday claim here. Just because they are showcasing collectable cross-IP promotions, doesn't mean they won't be protecting their brand. We are seeing more on-brand products for Commander this year, than ever before. WOTC knows how popular this format is, and they know that it didn't surge because of My Little Pony cards or Godzilla cards. Hasbro has a pretty invested interest in carrying the MTG IP, which is evident by the surge in on-brand product over the last few years.

    The surge of "on-brand" product? You mean...everything wotc has ever made in black border (and arguably silver border) besides literally this one product? Um, ok? I agree that wotc has been dumping products on us at a pretty alarming rate. I don't think that's a sign that they're "protecting their brand", though. I think it's a sign that they're trying to milk us for every last dime that we're worth.

    This product is a totally new direction for them - they don't know what will happen to the popularity of the format with the release of TWD, but I'd bet that they're watching very attentively to find out. If SLxTWD brings in a bunch new customers, you can bet they'll start pushing this sort of thing a lot harder, if they aren't planning to already. They're not trying to remove the releases that have already hooked so many people - they're just trying to add to them. For that matter, the Godzilla cards are still very new, too. I'm sure WotC was watching the response to those.

    I think it's really funny that this is the one point that's pretty self-evidently irrelevant to commander, and yet it's the one you didn't claim is irrelevant. Also you didn't really argue against it? Just because they're making a lot of "normal" products doesn't mean that a card from SL couldn't become a powerful staple. It's a point brought up often, but it was only the second unique BaB that became a powerful tournament staple. The same could easily happen here. WotC has proven that they don't have very tight controls over the power level of their products. They try to make fun exciting cards (usually targeted towards commander players) but frequently end up creating problems in other formats. Although this is somewhat speculative - maybe WotC always wanted TNN to become a powerful legacy staple, who knows.

    8) Probably the most minor note, but I guess Negan has done some bad stuff on the show (beyond the expected murder and whatnot) to where it might be kinda weird to play him as a commander - like imagine if Jeffrey Epstein was a commander. No clue, I finally gave up right about the time he was introduced and at this point I refuse to care about TWD on principle.

    Conflating the representation of a character killing people in a post-apocalyptic fictional story, to the representation of an actual person who has sexually exploited women, is a pretty poor argument as to why these cards should not exist. Your last few points really appear to be drummed up because you are scraping the bottom of the barrel
    I don't know why you think you're dunking on me when it's clear that I'm merely relaying other peoples' points, not making my own (in this case). Also from what I gather Negan was a rapist on the show. But again, this is not a point I really care about. That said, it's clearly getting used - iirc one of the digital commander environments banned Negan (and only Negan) for this reason. So even if I don't agree with it, it's part of the conversation.

    You asked why people care about them being legal. I've tried to be thorough in relaying not just my own points, but also the points others have made. I'm not particularly interested in debating points like this one, though. I'm just answering your question for why some people, at least, don't like them.

    most importantly, these set a TERRIBLE precedent for what could happen in the future. Tons of crossovers with awful IPs (someone's mentioned fortnite is possible...just shoot me), the potential for legacy-viable cards, or maybe even standard-legal cards, or even just powerful commanders that become must-haves, at extortionary prices that cut out LGSs while they bleed commander players dry. Some of those are more slippery-slopey than others, but the additional IPs is basically confirmed by WotC. If this was a one-and-done product I'd be annoyed but I'd get over it, but I think this is likely to be the beginning of the end for what we once called magic - and I don't say that lightly. I've never felt this way before in almost twenty years of playing, in fact I've usually defended WotC. But this is completely different, and if we don't do something about it, this game is going to go downhill very quickly.
    See spoiler for "Your Pont #7.
    I don't think printing a bazillion products a year - which is already an annoyance in itself - is a solution to this problem. If one of the items on your menu is poisonous, you don't resolve that problem by making a the menu bigger.

    I think things like this are gauged on how players ultimately receive them. So I will end this string of talking points with this - I think it is perfectly okay for people to be turned off by this IP bleed. I think it is cringy as hell, I really disliked the Godzilla cards as well. However, that is a poor excuse for exaggerating the situation and blowing it out of proportion. It is okay to be vocal about it, I have been on numerous reddit threads sharing my distaste for cards like this. But you have taken an issue not really relevant to Commander, and raided this thread and touted that "Commander is the only context." When really, none of your points are specific to Commander and whether or not the RC should ban these cards or if players should try and find an alternative to the RC.
    To be clear, I don't think players should try to find an alternative to the RC. I'm still in this thread because you asked why people didn't like them, and I answered your question. Not because I'm advocating a change in leadership.

    To address something specific though - "none of your points are specific to commander" - sure, it's true that this business model could be predatory to legacy/vintage players too - if this product was targeted towards those players. But it isn't. It's targeted towards commander players. That's why this product is relevant to us specifically. If you actually think that this is a product that's equally relevant to all eternal formats then I guess we can discuss it, but that seems like a very tenuous position to me.

    THIS, right here, is why you look so silly. I gave all of these counterpoints in previous posts and you became so defensive that you don't even acknowledge them as counterpoints. You have thrown not only context out the window - but also logic and reason. The breakdown in this conversation (and thread) isn't from me, my man, it is from you. I suggest you learn to keep yourself a bit more grounded.

    I've responded to everything you've said (at least from a cursory look through prior posts). If you think I've missed something, please, let me know what you think I've missed.

    The rest of what you've said is some really tedious ad-hominem garbage that I won't address. Keep it civil.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Making our own RC?
    You aren’t making any counter arguments - I make a point, and then you say it’s ridiculous without explaining why.

    If you’re not interested in engaging with the substance of the discussion then I’m not interested in trying to communicate with you.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.