Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Aug-20 5:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 1:49 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 1:34 am
Age: Hatchling
Go ahead and outright ban Rofellos. With Gaea's Cradle a turn 4 Primal Surge is still super easy to pull off.

Don't even need the Cradle if you have Shrine to Nix.

There are a lot of cards for green that generate a ton of mana. Rofellos is easily replaced. My Karametra's Accolate generates far more mana than Rofellos and I can get it in play on turn 2 with Natural order + Arbor elf + 1 forest with wildgrowth on it + a second forest.

There are replacements galore for Rofellos... So, outright banning it makes little sense. I guess we see a lot more Omnath EDH decks now?

Or Comic Book Card Shop stores continue to issue House Rules to circumvent these Commander Rules. I am seeing it more and more... Stores tossing out these pseudo-official rules for ones the gamers at the store paying good money to for League play prefer.

If you can't be happy with the rules you just change them. But, it is becoming more and more obvious how irrelevant the Gatherer Commander Rules have become when they continue to do things that hardly make sense.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 2:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Dec-25 1:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
General Varchild wrote:
There are a lot of cards for green that generate a ton of mana. Rofellos is easily replaced. My Karametra's Accolate generates far more mana than Rofellos and I can get it in play on turn 2 with Natural order + Arbor elf + 1 forest with wildgrowth on it + a second forest.

Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary = 1 card, 6 mana on turn 3;
Bunch of random cards that have an amazingly low chance of appearing in your initial hand = 6 cards, 6 mana on turn 3.

Also, who would waste a Natural Order on a Karametra's Acolyte? No offense, but are you even trying?

_________________
Name: Night of the Ninja
General: Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow
Archetype: Aggro

Name: Enraged Wilds
General: Marath, Will of the Wild
Archetype: Aggro-Control

Name: Draconic Domination
General: The Ur-Dragon
Archetype: Midrange


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 5:21 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 1:34 am
Age: Hatchling
It is perfectly reasonable to waste a Natural Order on Mana Ramp of the kind Karametra's Accolyte can generate. You aren't going to have any protection for your green creatures that early in the game....So going after Mana Ramp or a Card Drawing Engine is very reasonable.
With just 2 lands in play Avenger of Zendikar can wait.

Acolyte will tap for more mana on turn 3 than fetching Roffellos with Green Suns Zenith or Natural Order or etc. As you cast spells say a Courser of Kruphix on turn 3, your Acolyte taps for 5 green mana.

That is 8 mana turn 3 as opposed to 6 with Roffellos.

Granted... I mentioned Acolyte as just 1 means of mana ramp to replace Rofellos. I mentioned the Turn 2 Acolyte combo as just 1 way to get it in play turn 2 out of countless ways.

Turn 2 Omnath (assuming its not your Commander and needs to be Natural Ordered into play) is a better mana ramp choice.

While a turn 2 Worldspine Wurm or Hornet Queen or some kind of Hydra etc etc is sexy... I usually prefer ramping up mana or card drawing in the first 3 turns so I can win with Tooth and Nail, Primal Surge, Lurking Predators, Genesis Wave, rather than turn 2 big creature that dies to removal.

Also, I run cards like Defense of the Heart and yes Eureka. A Eureka player will always choose to Mana Ramp so as to draw lots of cards with a Garruk or Dlate of Ancestry or any number of excellent card drawing engines... Stuff my hand full of cards and pool full of mana and Eureka it all into play guaranteeing I have the best board state. I run Bane of Progress to wipe out annoying enchantments and artifacts that may appear after Eureka resolves.

I can waste a Natural Order because my deck is packed chock full of win condition cards.


Last edited by General Varchild on 2014-Sep-13 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 5:35 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 1:34 am
Age: Hatchling
Acolyte's toughness and its ability to generate far more mana than Rofellos is going to be everyone's replacement card along with Omnath, Locust of Mana for banning Rofellos.

I already have Acolyte in my Green Agro deck so I guess I'll run Omnath in my deck.

There is far more hate for Omnath than Rofellos, so I'll keep Archetype of Endurance for hexproof in my deck.

But, bottom line is banning Rofellos is stupidly pointless. Everyone still dies turn 4.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 5:36 am 

Joined: 2010-Sep-11 12:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
General Varchild wrote:

But, bottom line is banning Rofellos is stupidly pointless. Everyone still dies turn 4.

pretty much this, and exactly this (if not, then turn 5...)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 6:45 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
General Varchild wrote:
But, bottom line is banning Rofellos is stupidly pointless. Everyone still dies turn 4.
Then why are all the silly green mages crying about the ban? If it does not change your deck win-cons, why post?

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 7:02 am 

Joined: 2010-Sep-11 12:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MRHblue wrote:
General Varchild wrote:
But, bottom line is banning Rofellos is stupidly pointless. Everyone still dies turn 4.
Then why are all the silly green mages crying about the ban? If it does not change your deck win-cons, why post?

Because the way the ban list changed this time, literally changes nothing about why people cry about green ramp.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 7:46 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Banning Rofellos reduces consistency. You don't need it and everything else you just mentioned.
Banned because people shouldn't have to play against it, you say it doesn't change anything for your deck... What's the problem here?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 10:39 am 

Joined: 2010-Sep-11 12:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sovarius wrote:
Banning Rofellos reduces consistency. You don't need it and everything else you just mentioned.
Banned because people shouldn't have to play against it, you say it doesn't change anything for your deck... What's the problem here?

Collateral damage, Braids.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 11:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Rofellos was banned because he's too consistent a ramp source as a general. And that's still why he's banned. If you don't like the way the rules have been changed, that's fine, but you should at least actually understand what's happened before having a whine-fest.

The RC decided to do away with the "banned as a commander" list, and simply ban or unban everything on it (mostly ban). That does not mean they suddenly decided Rofellos was unfair in the 99. So all the "I can just ramp with these cards instead" is utterly pointless, because none of those other cards can be generals, which is what makes Rofellos banned.

_________________
"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: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 1:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Dec-22 7:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Brunswick
Banning Rofellos and unbanning Metalworker in the same cycle was a bad call in my opinion. Both were banned/restricted for the same reason.

_________________
Kicking your teeth in is a valid strategy.
Current decks:
Radha, Heir to Keld-Super Elfball
Retired decks:
Scion, of the Ur-Dragon-Dragons, Dragons everywhere
Wort, Boggart Auntie-Goblin Shenanigans
Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer-I will Prevail


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-13 2:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Boshea wrote:
Banning Rofellos and unbanning Metalworker in the same cycle was a bad call in my opinion. Both were banned/restricted for the same reason.

And then they changed their minds about Metalworker. It's entirely possible they may change their mind back again later on.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-14 3:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-May-04 9:09 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Saskatchewan
This is what I am seeing, and I'm not sure who else is.

First I see this, and some of the first questions summed up are: "Is MtGO going to affect EDH on it's own?"

Quote:
A question for those of you who play Commander online: how much of a pain is Sensei's Divining Top?


Then this:
Quote:
We're posting this early because the changes will be going into the Magic Online Beta shortly, and we didn't want that to happen unannounced.


I'm really hoping this isn't precedent for "if it's easier programming for the Online side, then the entire game changes", because to me (and at least a few others), this is kind of how it looks.

The banning outright of Rofellos seems really odd, especially when Metalworker gets unbanned in the exact same thread, which seems seriously contradictory. Pretty much every statement you make about one can be replaced with the other creature and nothing really changes. It just all seems completely arbitrary.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-14 4:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Ukkmaster wrote:
The banning outright of Rofellos seems really odd, especially when Metalworker gets unbanned in the exact same thread, which seems seriously contradictory. Pretty much every statement you make about one can be replaced with the other creature and nothing really changes. It just all seems completely arbitrary.

Lets test that!
Altered Annoucement wrote:
We've been discussing the possibility of unbanning Rofellos for a while now. It's capable of making some truly ridiculous amounts of mana, and having 12+ mana available on turn 4 or 5 is not something that casual games should have to deal with. We like to encourage battlecruiser-style decks, but over the later stages of a game, where players have had a chance to build up to combat it. However, the all-in nature of Rofellos leaves it vulnerable to mass artifact removal, and when it isn't performing optimally it's a pretty weak card (though still part of several combo engines). Aside from Sharuum - a deck that can already be built to a competitive extreme - the decks that most look to use Rofellos already have a lot of disadvantages to overcome, so allowing them the occasional early explosion should be acceptable risk.

The first bit - lots of mana early, yup, applies to both fairly equally.

Rofellos doesn't really have an "all-in" nature about him. You just need to play trees.
Rofellos certainly isn't vulnerable to mass artifact removal.
Rofellos ... rarely performs suboptimally so long as there are enough trees in the deck.
Decks that use Rofellos don't (that I'm aware of) have a lot of disadvantages to overcome.

Seems like there's some distinct differences between the two (even ignoring the 'vulnerable to mass artifact removal' bit.)

If it's so easy to find differences between them -- especially in the announcement as to why one is unbanned -- perhaps they are correct in treating them differently.

That said -- of all the changes that the RC has made over the last 5 or so years ... the unbanning of Metalworker is the one I would be least surprised if they changed their mind and re-banned.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ill conceived rulesmaking leads to irrelevance
AgePosted: 2014-Sep-14 4:30 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Except one is legendary...

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: crh1985 and 38 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: