Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2018-Oct-17 1:37 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-04 11:04 pm 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Gath Immortal wrote:
Except, it can't get even worse than it already is.


Gath Immortal wrote:
So if you couldn't tell, I actually agree with you 100%. I absolutely want as much obnoxious crap pitched out of the format as possible, but realistically under it's current philosophy bringing in more obnoxious crap won't actually matter because we aren't going to solve the obnoxious crap problem that already exists so it really can't get any worse.


Come on. You know full well that isn't true, because it can always get worse. Maybe in your specific case it really can't get worse, because I take you at your word (here and elsewhere) that your playgroup is appalling. But you also know the vast majority of players and playgroups aren't in your position...don't you? For them it can definitely get a lot worse.

And we're not talking about making a house rule for your local group- from how you've described it, I agree that adding PW commanders wouldn't change much of anything- but changing the official rules that apply to everybody, from pickup games at GPs to somebody's first game at their LGS. For those groups, whether or not we dump a fresh pile of obnoxious crap into the format really does stand to make their day-to-day experiences worse.

_________________
Current Commanders:

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Machine Red)
Sigarda, Heron's Grace (Innistrad's Industrial Revolution)
X (The Spy Who Un'd Me)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Polymorphs)
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Shadowborn Apostles)
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (So Me To You)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-04 11:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Dragon
Yeah, I'm in favour of just not adding planeswalkers. I'm not looking forward to their ults being a normal thing. Creature commanders don't tend to make you guaranteed to win the game after sitting out for 3 turns. Planeswalkers do. Some creature commanders do (or don't even need to sit out for that long) but if the situation is bad, let's not make it worse.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Cards like Splendor are not Spike cards, they're just straight up dick cards. There is no reason to run cards like it except to steal someone else's enjoyment out of the game. And as long as there are people who play EDH with that mentality, the only way to get around that with a banned list is to ban so many things that the format's effectively pauper. Even if the RC were to get rid of all of the worst offenders like Splendor or Wit's End or what have you there'd still be things like using Rite of Replication on a Terastodon or building goddamn wheel decks.


Well, we could at least ban the straight up dick cards. A dick will still break the game, but if there's cards that fall into a category of "you are just straight up a dick if you ever use this", we could sure lower the dickishness factor by just not having them in the format.

_______________________________________________________________________________
(Edited by a mod for formatting)

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons[/c], [url=http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18688]Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-05 3:19 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
To be really frank, it read more to me like he'd read the cEDH Tier List without fully grokking it's context or purpose.
After spending several years sharing this forum with him, I'm pretty sure that this is simply not the case. Most of the cards that he tends to complain about are the type of cards that should be avoided in a casual group but are barely viable in cEDH, such as DEN or the example from the last post, Overwhelming Splendor.


While I appreciate the illumination, this is disheartening revelation about our compatriot- I had seen complaints about DEN and cards like OS as direction for that misunderstanding of the plane which cEDH is played on as inherently anti-social (I may have felt similarly when we were still trying to see how many Sylvan Primordials we had to jam to take over the game.)

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
And this recent post stuck out to me in particular because of his quotes of players in the group. cEDH players don't apologize for abusing Contamination in Zur, they build Animar as a midrange combo-control deck rather than as a speed combo, the only general for whom UW fliers is even viable absolutely HATES mass land destruction, and no true cEDH list would ever include Overwhelming Splendor. This is not a situation of someone who wants casual games stuck in an environment of cEDH. This is someone who wants enjoyable games stuck in an environment of incredibly selfish people who don't give a flying rat's ass about anyone else's fun. The part of his post where I think he absolutely hit the nail on the head:
Quote:
Overwhelming Splendor. Anyone who uses that card should know exactly the reaction it's going to pull and deserves to deal with the hate accordingly.
Cards like Splendor are not Spike cards, they're just straight up dick cards. There is no reason to run cards like it except to steal someone else's enjoyment out of the game. And as long as there are people who play EDH with that mentality, the only way to get around that with a banned list is to ban so many things that the format's effectively pauper. Even if the RC were to get rid of all of the worst offenders like Splendor or Wit's End or what have you there'd still be things like using Rite of Replication on a Terastodon or building goddamn wheel decks.


This is the more fascinating angle of discussion tbh. I had taken Overwhelming Splendor as something that players frequently misconstrue to be an element of competitive play- because of the hyperbole associated with the power of Generals like Grand Arbiter Augustin IV. Splendor is a massive soft-lock (even though competitive Arbiter decks tend to worry more about acceleration and typical Stoneblade-style strategy.)

With most of what's described here, though- in a casual setting, I think that almost everything is context dependent- or what I like to describe as the "Mirrari's Wake principal". The anecdote here, is that I had taken to making fun of a friend for landing a Mirrari's Wake and then not eliminating a single player 5 rounds later- without having the Wake removed. Getting hit with Ultra-Humility isn't something I, or many in some of my playgroups find particularly offensive, if it led to a defeat within a couple of turns (when soft-locking isn't anti-social.) This is simply because it isn't the same as getting shutdown by a Smokestack array- where you have to wait excessively long to tell a joke, shuffle up decks, and begin again (something similarly frustrating to a player having an active Mirrari's Wake- and then durdling around, instead of holding the card until it becomes a clutch play that pushes the game forward.) This probably seems like splitting hairs- but while I wouldn't encourage OS-like cards with new players who still feel bad when their guys take Doomblades or Wraths, or with players unwilling to position with them for outright player elimination; but the situations have come up where such cards make the game more entertaining- entirely in context to how they're played effectively. But in the overall- yeah, it's a card that is dangerously easy to play like a jackass- and spoil the tension or drama of a game.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Quote:
The tier 1/1.5 Generals have very tuned, established lists that are ideal gauntlet decks if you're trying to play cEDH- and the tier 2/2.5 generally have established deck archetypes- but don't have access to the tools that allow them to "Oops" all over their opponents.
Nitpick, but this isn't completely accurate. The best comparison I can make would be Omnath, Locus of Mana vs Kruphix, God of Horizons. Your average Omnath deck tends to be a lot more explode-y than a Kruphix one is, but when the decklists are tuned and optimized Kruphix tends to be more resilient and consistent. There's also cases like Alesha and Teneb, both of which are fantastic decks on their own but are simply outclassed by Meren.


I've never heard of Teneb being lined up against Meren- the usual suspect is Karador (since higher end Meren decks focus on lower mana costs and integrated sacrifice for value loops; where Teneb and Karador want to reanimate high impact fatties nonstop.) Also, Alesha and Meren strikes me as an odd comparison, since Alesha puts emphasis on things like Reveillark which with Alesha's emphasis on combat, often makes Alesha simply hit harder. Even then- while they're uncommon, I've seen Teneb decks that are warped in such a way that Karador couldn't perform better by simply replacing it in the command zone (something that is, unfortunately becoming progressively more difficult to do with Invasion/Planar Chaos dragons.) This isn't to say that in a vacuum, I wouldn't suggest Karador or Meren over Teneb (describing them as "Generally more reliable") to someone who might find getting that extra value out of Teneb difficult- but when the decks play out, they have assorted strengths and weaknesses ofc. But now, I think I'm going on a tangent where we're generally on the same page here.

With regards to the earlier Animar comment- I'm sortof curious, because I've never seen a terminal Animar deck built like a control deck. Infact, when it comes to UW/UB, what often makes Animar a bad matchup is that the deck is "just fair enough" to make it difficult to punish. UW in particular has difficulty in the matchup- because the main recourse for handling Animar is bounce, to reduce it's acceleration- but when Animar turns the corner, it turns hard, and often before UW Flyers can properly setup to combat it like a regular midrange deck (making it resistant to combo-hate, take less punishment from being slowed down- but still have high end explosiveness.)

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Quote:
Iirc, Gath mentioned that my having regular playgroups is a "luxury that not everyone has." Leading me to decide that trying to persuade or engage him in discussion surrounding the health of the format will be tedious, and difficult to articulate productively- since he either doesn't play EDH to socialize (like most of us,) or has the misfortune of just not having access to enough Magic players or people open to tabletop games to do so. Either way, it isn't something that I feel should be held against him- but it does impact the flavor of his input on matters like analysis of proposed format changes.
Believe me, I empathize with his situation. Up until a couple years ago, I was in a pretty similar situation. My collection was far larger than that of most of my friends (and I was a better player and deckbuilder anyway), but I didn't quite have the money or desire to build a deck that was cutthroat enough to compete at my local LGS. It sucked, and for the most part I spent most of my time deckbuilding and chatting on forums like this one. I think I played maybe ten or so games per year. There was just no point to me playing because most of the people I played with either didn't want to play to socialize or were so underpowered that I'd always be the archenemy.

Even then, I did my best to minimize how much my own experiences colored how I argued and debated about how the format as a whole should be run. I've always tried to argue from a perspective of what the format should like like for a group of people who actually give a damn about the rest of the players' enjoyment and aren't just selfishly decksturbating, or even worse playing cards that do nothing but make others miserable. That's the kind of playgroup this format was designed for and the vision that the RC seems to have when they make decisions about the format.

Gath's playgroup clearly is not those types of players, and he knows it, yet continues after years on the forum to argue as though the RC is or should be building their format around policing the problems that arise with a playgroup like that. To use an analogy, it feels to me like he's attempting to use a wrench to tighten or loosen screws. It might work on a rare occasion, but the odds of that happening are minuscule at best. And it may even be the case that these particular screw heads are so worn and tarnished that even a normal screwdriver isn't effective, but that's no reason to constantly complain about the fact that the wrench isn't doing any better.


Thanks for the insight!

My own experience with EDH came from beginning with a combo-dense, fastrock flush playgroup- where I'd been experienced enough at Magic by the time we began to properly evaluate the Trade Secrets principal- but had difficulty at first navigating combos like Mike's Trike when we played with deck rotation. When I began playing with more regular groups, I had sought advice from a friend who was more invested in the philosophy of EDH, that I had done extensive playtesting in competitive formats with- since my first drafts had gone extremely overboard on powerhouse spell-slinging. He introduced me to flavor picks, the philosophy of second best, the "Big Ass Flyers Principal", trying to tease out discussions with playgroup members to see how we could make the game more enjoyable etc. So, my posts are sortof colored by the realization that not everyone IS fortunate enough to be eased into EDH-as-intended by someone with a high degree of technical play, ontop of judging experience (I'm not a judge, but I like to play the daggers game with him by whipping out a foil Honed Khopesh- I might get lawyered into buying, but I whipped out the coolest janksword,) ontop of years of EDH-as-intended experience, to acclimate me from the competitive mindset to a more playgroup/story-telling one.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-05 3:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
spacemonaut wrote:
Well, we could at least ban the straight up dick cards. A dick will still break the game, but if there's cards that fall into a category of "you are just straight up a dick if you ever use this", we could sure lower the dickishness factor by just not having them in the format.
[/quote]
I mean, we could, but there are a couple of problems with that. First off, there are just so many cards to include, and they'll keep printing them. The banlist will get pretty huge pretty quick, and it'll be easier said than done to keep track of which cards are banned and which cards are not.

Secondly, there are obvious examples like Splendor or whatnot, but most cases are far more grey than that. Most dick cards are actually "good" cards and when used correctly are really no worse than an infinite combo or alpha strike, such as Armageddon. And among the ones that aren't and even some of the ones that are, there's an argument over whether or not they actually qualify as dick cards. Is Price of Glory? Is Wildfire? How about Storm Cauldron or Humility or Tremble or Rain of Salt? Hell, depending on the meta even cards like Rest in Peace or Stony Silence could fall into that category.

That's not to say the RC hasn't banned dick cards before, but they tend to be either at the very extreme end of the spectrum or its name is Sundering Titan and a lot of people collectively kidded themselves about it not being a dick card.

EDIT: spacemonaut said the quote, not me.

_________________
Current Generals:
III Omnath, Locus of Mana III Thada Adel, Acquisitor III Geth, Lord of the Vault III Eight-and-a-Half-Tails III Zo-Zu the Punisher III BruseIkra III Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis III Kess, Dissident Mage, III AkriSilas III Grenzo, Havoc Raiser III Ghalta, Primal Hunger III Ambassador Laquatus III Anax and Cymede III Sidisi, Brood Tyrant III Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest III Ghave, Guru of Spores III Zurgo Helmsmasher III Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder III


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-05 6:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Oct-26 5:52 am
Age: Drake
Mr Degradation wrote:

Iirc, Gath mentioned that my having regular playgroups is a "luxury that not everyone has." Leading me to decide that trying to persuade or engage him in discussion surrounding the health of the format will be tedious, and difficult to articulate productively- since he either doesn't play EDH to socialize (like most of us,) or has the misfortune of just not having access to enough Magic players or people open to tabletop games to do so. Either way, it isn't something that I feel should be held against him- but it does impact the flavor of his input on matters like analysis of proposed format changes.


I do at least go to the store to socialize. The problem is that most of the people I enjoy socializing with I despise playing with. One example is a guy that plays norin and eight and half tails. Fun guy to talk to, miserable as hell to play with because both of his decks are just obnoxious.

The Derevi Bird tribal with MLD guy I've had a lot of mixed results with but normally find myself not enjoying games with him because the vast majority of the time his strategy is aggro decks with a "pick someone and punch them until they die" mentality which sort of defeats the purpose of starting the game if someone gets kicked out in the first five turns. On the other hand, fun person to talk with about mechanics, but he might be the only person I regularly play with more socially inept than myself.

Another player I deal with plays heavy control regardless of deck theme and routinely targets the person in the lead to a point where they may as well just scoop because he's still screwing them over long after their threat has been dealt with. It's gotten to the point where I've just decided turnabout is fair play and kick him in the teeth until he dies because otherwise it's unlikely the remaining three players will have any fun. He also likes to play with another player all the time who's threat assessment is outmatched by a blind howler monkey, so that just makes it worse. Outside of the game his mechanical insights can create fun discussions, but inside I'd rather just avoid him.

There are three or four other regulars who I do try to get into games with more often because they tend to be more fun oriented, but other than them there are a bunch of randoms and a cEDH table. And honestly the cEDH table is actually way more fun than playing my fun bad decks with randoms because everyone is on a level playing field, but I then don't get to play my fun bad decks.

When it comes to randoms, well even just last week I jumped into a new playgroup and had high hopes because they had just booed my buddy's cEDH combo deck off the table, only for Grenzo to spend the entire game trying to dig for kiki/zealous and get uppity at me when I called him out on being a hypocrite (which is a really weird position to be in, usually I'm the one getting called on it when I get fed up with the BS and build something awful for revenge).

And that rando experience is fairly typical, a couple weeks before that I played a game with a guy who had a daretti deck and the first two cards he played were blood moon and winter orb, I just got up and left.

On the opposite side of the coin, there are a number of randos I've played with whose decks are... pretty bad honestly. Which creates just as much of a crappy experience when you're stomping on someone who can't really fight back, it's not fun. I've tried to bring a mix of good and bad decks with me but a lot of the time I'll ask how casual the table is, get a "very" response and end up getting combo'd out in five turns or some guy drops a mana vortex and I just leave.

So yeah, that's basically what I deal with at an LGS, there are a few dependable people I can get fun games out of that often end up mixing with the rest creating all the friction because if you don't chances are you just won't get to play, I've had plenty of those nights too.

_________________
Maluko wrote:
We need a clear set of objective rules so that everybody always knows what to expect, and how to prepare for it. As of now, I think I spend more time arguing with players about the format than I do playing fun and interactive games of Commander. And last time I read, this was not the format's purpose.

QFT


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-05 2:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
spacemonaut wrote:
Well, we could at least ban the straight up dick cards. A dick will still break the game, but if there's cards that fall into a category of "you are just straight up a dick if you ever use this", we could sure lower the dickishness factor by just not having them in the format.


That would be great in theory... the problem is coming to a consensus on where the dick line is.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-05 4:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
spacemonaut wrote:
Well, we could at least ban the straight up dick cards. A dick will still break the game, but if there's cards that fall into a category of "you are just straight up a dick if you ever use this", we could sure lower the dickishness factor by just not having them in the format.


That would be great in theory... the problem is coming to a consensus on where the dick line is.


This is usually my playgroup's contention with fastrocks. Fastrocks encourage plays that are less novel- because it speeds up bonkers combos too quickly. When the baseline is Worn Powerstone- and Basalt Monolith and Ashnod's Altar are the premium rocks, it opens up the power of 2 mana manrocks- making manabases consistent, but not quite as explosive. The result usually being that fair decks come ahead by a significantly larger factor- but the format doesn't lean itself to domination by strategies like Stoneblade. Decks often end up less munchkin, and more like JoJo's stands as a result. Things like MLD and denial are done far more tastefully when you aren't pushing 4 mana on turn 2 without significant wagers of CA. Thus, EDH warps more favorably into a "Tier 2" format for players with a competitive background- and the Rule of Second Best becomes far more actualized through deck construction. That doesn't mean we don't get dickheaded plays- but the punishment the table gives for them is an entertainment all it's own.

Fair-deck tyranny leads to combo decks that have spin, and control decks having to adapt to the same sort of impact Vintage spells provide, without Vintage manabases- making Stax builds easy for experienced players to punish with prejudice.

Not saying that works for every group, that's not my scope; it's the RC's. But it leads me to feel like it is a fine suggestion for house rules every group should try when trying to find where it's own fun-spot is.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-07 6:14 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Gath Immortal wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:

Iirc, Gath mentioned that my having regular playgroups is a "luxury that not everyone has." Leading me to decide that trying to persuade or engage him in discussion surrounding the health of the format will be tedious, and difficult to articulate productively- since he either doesn't play EDH to socialize (like most of us,) or has the misfortune of just not having access to enough Magic players or people open to tabletop games to do so. Either way, it isn't something that I feel should be held against him- but it does impact the flavor of his input on matters like analysis of proposed format changes.


I do at least go to the store to socialize. The problem is that most of the people I enjoy socializing with I despise playing with. One example is a guy that plays norin and eight and half tails. Fun guy to talk to, miserable as hell to play with because both of his decks are just obnoxious.

The Derevi Bird tribal with MLD guy I've had a lot of mixed results with but normally find myself not enjoying games with him because the vast majority of the time his strategy is aggro decks with a "pick someone and punch them until they die" mentality which sort of defeats the purpose of starting the game if someone gets kicked out in the first five turns. On the other hand, fun person to talk with about mechanics, but he might be the only person I regularly play with more socially inept than myself.

Another player I deal with plays heavy control regardless of deck theme and routinely targets the person in the lead to a point where they may as well just scoop because he's still screwing them over long after their threat has been dealt with. It's gotten to the point where I've just decided turnabout is fair play and kick him in the teeth until he dies because otherwise it's unlikely the remaining three players will have any fun. He also likes to play with another player all the time who's threat assessment is outmatched by a blind howler monkey, so that just makes it worse. Outside of the game his mechanical insights can create fun discussions, but inside I'd rather just avoid him.

There are three or four other regulars who I do try to get into games with more often because they tend to be more fun oriented, but other than them there are a bunch of randoms and a cEDH table. And honestly the cEDH table is actually way more fun than playing my fun bad decks with randoms because everyone is on a level playing field, but I then don't get to play my fun bad decks.

When it comes to randoms, well even just last week I jumped into a new playgroup and had high hopes because they had just booed my buddy's cEDH combo deck off the table, only for Grenzo to spend the entire game trying to dig for kiki/zealous and get uppity at me when I called him out on being a hypocrite (which is a really weird position to be in, usually I'm the one getting called on it when I get fed up with the BS and build something awful for revenge).

And that rando experience is fairly typical, a couple weeks before that I played a game with a guy who had a daretti deck and the first two cards he played were blood moon and winter orb, I just got up and left.

On the opposite side of the coin, there are a number of randos I've played with whose decks are... pretty bad honestly. Which creates just as much of a crappy experience when you're stomping on someone who can't really fight back, it's not fun. I've tried to bring a mix of good and bad decks with me but a lot of the time I'll ask how casual the table is, get a "very" response and end up getting combo'd out in five turns or some guy drops a mana vortex and I just leave.

So yeah, that's basically what I deal with at an LGS, there are a few dependable people I can get fun games out of that often end up mixing with the rest creating all the friction because if you don't chances are you just won't get to play, I've had plenty of those nights too.
this sounds miserable.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-08 2:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
niheloim wrote:
this sounds miserable.

It's not as bad as Gath makes it out to be, but it's still a problem. And that is the plight of those who don't have a dedicated group. There are more of us than you might want to admit. And there are also, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, pickup side games at major events and so on. EDH is not, and likely never will be, constrained to small, close-knit groups of friends who have a common vision, and pretending otherwise with things like the wish rule is unhelpful at best.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-09 2:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
niheloim wrote:
this sounds miserable.

It's not as bad as Gath makes it out to be, but it's still a problem. And that is the plight of those who don't have a dedicated group. There are more of us than you might want to admit. And there are also, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, pickup side games at major events and so on. EDH is not, and likely never will be, constrained to small, close-knit groups of friends who have a common vision, and pretending otherwise with things like the wish rule is unhelpful at best.


This is the first time I've found myself disagreeing with you entirely. EDH is like a DnD playgroup- and the rules are (obviously) structured as such. Elements of the game are supposed to come in and out of play as the group sees fit- that isn't a plight, that's what a social game IS. Most EDH groups I've experienced begin with a couple of former grinders, some people familiar with the game, and some people who are friends and family just showing up for fun. Like, I think this statement is entirely bass-ackwards, because EDH is a type of game that encourages you to make friends, and invite people into your groups.

The social contract is the bedrock of the format- because the format fixates itself on enjoyable game experiences and social interaction first and foremost (as dictated by the philosophy document.) I think it's far more unhealthy to treat EDH like a Standard alternative, and build slaughterhouse decks to chew up scrubs and not make them want to participate anymore- or annoy grinders until they no longer want to give you the time for another game. Since, that IS the alternative to treating it like a social format, meant to be entertainment between friends and potential friends or acquaintances, and that social contract exists on EVERY level.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-10 1:30 am 

Joined: 2014-Apr-03 3:46 am
Age: Drake
I think you guys are vastly overestimating the negative sides of allowing planeswalkers as commanders.

You can't effectively curve into doubling season with planeswalkers and most ultimates are not game breaking. You also don't need any specialized tools to deal with planeswalkers so most decks are already capable to deal with planeswalkers from the get go.

Upsides of allowing planeswalkers as commanders would obviously be more commanders but more specifically boros gets something else just beat face commander. Most color combos get something new.

I also think that planeswalkers in general are interesting to play with and against but they are not really viable due to them being so fragile.


Last edited by illuknisaa on 2018-Apr-10 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-10 3:15 am 

Joined: 2017-Oct-19 12:02 am
Age: Drake
illuknisaa wrote:

You can't effectively curve into doubling season with planeswalkers and most ultimates are not game breaking.

I also think that planeswalkers in general are interesting to play with and against but they are not really viable due to them being so fragile.


Vraska the Unseen disagrees with that statement

illuknisaa wrote:
You also don't any specialized tools to deal with planeswalkers so most decks are already capable to deal with planeswalkers from the get go.


Planeswalker shopuld have en errata that says "every spell that target a creature can targer a planeswalker" so we can use the normal spot removal to get rid of PW.

Otherwise the only posible interaction we have against PW are just combat damage, or other wird cards (normaly unplayable like aether snap or hero's downfall ), I know there is some "exile target permanent" (wich I play) but just for a few colors


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-10 4:08 am 

Joined: 2014-Apr-03 3:46 am
Age: Drake
alexev wrote:
illuknisaa wrote:

You can't effectively curve into doubling season with planeswalkers and most ultimates are not game breaking.

I also think that planeswalkers in general are interesting to play with and against but they are not really viable due to them being so fragile.


Vraska the Unseen disagrees with that statement


???

Season costs 5 mana and Vraska costs 5 mana. If you want to curve from seaon into a planeswalker you need season to be cheaper than the planeswalker. Vraska costs the same as season.

Vraska ultimate is pretty weak. You need to uptaps with the tokens and then deal combat to a player to actually kill them. Thats extremely unlikely to happen.

alexev wrote:
illuknisaa wrote:
You also don't any specialized tools to deal with planeswalkers so most decks are already capable to deal with planeswalkers from the get go.


Planeswalker shopuld have en errata that says "every spell that target a creature can targer a planeswalker" so we can use the normal spot removal to get rid of PW.

Otherwise the only posible interaction we have against PW are just combat damage, or other wird cards (normaly unplayable like aether snap or hero's downfall ), I know there is some "exile target permanent" (wich I play) but just for a few colors


Most decks have creatures (in fact most commanders are creatures) so having the ability to deal combat isn't that uncommon.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-10 10:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
illuknisaa wrote:
You can't effectively curve into doubling season with planeswalkers and most ultimates are not game breaking.

You can effectively curve into Deepglow Skate, most prolieration engines/spells, or most wrath effects.
Quote:
You also don't need any specialized tools to deal with planeswalkers so most decks are already capable to deal with planeswalkers from the get go.
You'll need to elaborate on this. There are 3 ways to kill a planeswalker, a lot of decks simply don't run many of them, or at least not enough to handle consistent planeswalkers.

You've also ignored the vast majority of other reasons people have cited as reasons not to allow PW commanders.

Quote:
Upsides of allowing planeswalkers as commanders would obviously be more commanders but more specifically boros gets something else just beat face commander. Most color combos get something new.

Even if what you were saying was true, that wouldn't be a very significant upside. However, none of what you said is true. First off, the idea that boros has no options other than to beat face is completely false. Secondly, I'm going to need some evidence of the latter. The majority of PWs are really just a combination of a bunch of 2-4 mana instants/sorceries added together haphazardly and don't really fit to any "theme" like most legendary creatures do. Most PW's that actually add something "new" don't do it from a standpoint of effect but a standpoint of power, such as Tezzeret the Seeker.

_________________
Current Generals:
III Omnath, Locus of Mana III Thada Adel, Acquisitor III Geth, Lord of the Vault III Eight-and-a-Half-Tails III Zo-Zu the Punisher III BruseIkra III Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis III Kess, Dissident Mage, III AkriSilas III Grenzo, Havoc Raiser III Ghalta, Primal Hunger III Ambassador Laquatus III Anax and Cymede III Sidisi, Brood Tyrant III Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest III Ghave, Guru of Spores III Zurgo Helmsmasher III Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder III


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why haven't we allowed Planeswalkers as Commanders yet?
AgePosted: 2018-Apr-10 11:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Mr Degradation wrote:
Sid the Chicken wrote:
EDH is not, and likely never will be, constrained to small, close-knit groups of friends who have a common vision, and pretending otherwise with things like the wish rule is unhelpful at best.


This is the first time I've found myself disagreeing with you entirely.

Since things like pickup games at events (GP's, conventions, etc) and at the LGS are definitely happening, the first part of my bolded statement is objectively true. You can at least logically disagree with the second part, but see below;

Mr Degradation wrote:
Elements of the game are supposed to come in and out of play as the group sees fit- that isn't a plight, that's what a social game IS.

What I describe as a plight is that it's hard to find people that are enjoyable to play with without having a dedicated group. THAT is a plight. And while I'm happy for you that you don't have to deal with it, it's a bit galling to be told by the "haves" that your opinion is invalid because you "have not". When you go out and try to make friends and enjoy a social game, only to have some asshat play Iona on your mono-colored deck because reasons, and then the next people you try to play with call their decks "casual" while playing "who can combo the fastest?", it's hard not to end up like Gath.

Mr Degradation wrote:
The social contract is the bedrock of the format- because the format fixates itself on enjoyable game experiences and social interaction first and foremost (as dictated by the philosophy document.)

Fun fact - the philosophy document isn't included in the pre-cons, nor is it part of the CR. Appealing to something I'd guess less than half of EDH players haven't even read is an uphill battle at best.

And for the record, I'm not advocating banning everything that's powerful, and I'm not saying everything sucks and things can't get any worse, and trying to create a mountain of negativity. But I am saying that things could be cleaner - that the format could be defined with less ambiguity (things like the wish rule = BAD) and that those of us that exist in the ever-shifting LGS meta are not second-class players of EDH. If something is poisonous enough in the hands of randoms, it should be at least considered for removal from the format even if it isn't ruining stable playgroups.

/soapbox

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: