Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Dec-14 11:58 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 3:51 am 

Joined: 2015-Jan-14 2:58 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Matt wrote:
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
You always could tuck a general just to do it. That's one of the problems with tuck, if there wasn't a worthy general you had a spell to burn on the nearest general. Now you can't tuck generals at all, and that threat has disappeared.


You can always never more a general just to do it. I don't own these cards because I don't really want to play them. I own the tuck stuff for when I need it. Now I have to buy never more.


:shrug: That's trivially true. Nevermore can be cast on anything, just like many tucks. The difference was it treated them all equally, unlike tucks. Nevermore works the same on T&N as on a general. The choice of high value targets the card is effective against is greater, so it's less likely to be used just because.

_________________
Deepglow Skate
Antis wrote:
I'm seriously suspicious of any card that makes Doubling Season look fair and reasonable.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 3:52 am 

Joined: 2011-Oct-26 10:17 pm
Age: Wyvern
I'd agree with most of these sentiments. I'd further add, the new tuck change weakens control-based strategies while giving slightly more life to aggro and voltron based strategies. Which was overdue imo.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 4:16 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Does this mean that you had no control over the tucks being printed in the precons then? Had you known would you have advised against it?


I had no idea that those were being printed. I might have noted the interaction, but I doubt I'd have spent a lot of time worrying about it - tuck spells are a fine design space both in Commander products and outside them. I'd rather save this fictional control to exert on things that might be bigger problems.

kaldare wrote:
I (and a lot of other people I'd wager) would like to know why the heck it took the RC so long to come to this decision, if, as many of them have implied, they never really intended tuck to be a thing to begin with.


Other things to worry about. Interia. Being a consensus-based organization. We hadn't talked about it for a while, and everyone sort of assumed other people were strongly in favor. Once something becomes status quo, it becomes a lot slower to change.

Matt wrote:
You are misunderstanding me. You can't honestly tell me you don't run graveyard hate when you know people are living out of their yards can you? That's what makes scavenging ooze so great. You can keep Karador from being overpowering and have a big creature at the same time.


There's an enormous difference between answers and permanent answers. From that perspective, the Commander tax is an answer.

Answers that have counterplay are good. Answers that exists on the battlefield - a place where things go to get blown up in a multiplayer game - are good. When the entire counterplay to tucking your commander - a situation that has also emotional resonance beyond the strategic - is "run lots of tutors", that's bad.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 4:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Mar-15 2:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Denver, CO
Much like players, designers are going to use the tools available to them.

While tuck cards are part of the format, players are going to use them and designers are going to make them. That doesn't make it wrong to change the rule, or mean that players/designers were wrong to take advantage of it.

_________________


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 4:25 am 

Joined: 2014-Dec-16 6:04 am
Age: Drake
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Matt wrote:
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
You always could tuck a general just to do it. That's one of the problems with tuck, if there wasn't a worthy general you had a spell to burn on the nearest general. Now you can't tuck generals at all, and that threat has disappeared.


You can always never more a general just to do it. I don't own these cards because I don't really want to play them. I own the tuck stuff for when I need it. Now I have to buy never more.


:shrug: That's trivially true. Nevermore can be cast on anything, just like many tucks. The difference was it treated them all equally, unlike tucks. Nevermore works the same on T&N as on a general. The choice of high value targets the card is effective against is greater, so it's less likely to be used just because.


If people were tucking generals just because and then losing to Tooth and Nail, that is a mistake they should learn from. I don't see the difference in application. I only use tuck cards on two guys. I run them when I need to and would never waste them on anyone else.

I haven't seen the Never More games yet. But if you use Never More as a tuck effect as suggested by the OP on a red general, that player will have to dig up an artifact/colorless board wipe to have access to the general again instead of just digging up the general. Is that a net positive to have random board wipes because one person wants their OP general back again?

Like I said, tuck is medicine for a specific problem and getting rid of it won't fix those problems. The next best medicine is used-Never more-and I don't see it being a better fix. People over using anything powerful is another problem entirely. They will overuse anything that is good. You can't ban that out of people. People aren't going to be better citizens because of this. They'll move on to the next best way to screw over people. Look at Magic's card pool. It is full of ways to screw people over.

Why is using graveyard hate to keep Karador, Tariel, Varolz, et al in check socially OK but tucking someone's general when they deserve it suddenly not? Whatever answers people are going to cook up to deal with generals they were tucking is going to be nasty. Whenever you want to stop someone from doing something, you can. That is how this game works.

The fact that you see posts about people talking about upping their land destruction to keep people off recasting their commanders sounds a lot worse than just tucking them to me. That is a lot of extra spells with a lot of extra targets to send them 'just because'.

The change sounds good in theory, but then there's the whole reality thing.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 4:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Dec-04 3:38 pm
Age: Dragon
I'm happy and always been favorable about the removing of the tuck rule from the format. I really already said it here many times in the past and nobody apparently ever agreed with me in this point. I'm glad the RC make this decision for the same reasons I was try explain in vain to people.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16738&p=182139&hilit=tuck#p182139


The OP, which is also an RC member talked about the Tuck that "was always pretty arbitrary and unintuitive. It's not a rule that any one would guess is true without knowing about it, and there's not really any logical or flavorful justification for it."

That's completely true : that's why "every time I explain commander to newbies they always get disappointed...whenever [their general] it gets tucked or shuffled in the library : it is actually counterintuitive, because in their mind they're thinking "what's the sense to make a so cool rule to choose to not lose your general from so many ways in all zones, while in the same time do you allow another rule that actually ruins all this"?


And about my final question "why and when was created the tuck rule in the first place : what's so aestethic about it, since most of the commander rules are there for flavour/aestethic reasons?", the OP confirm what's the real answer of this question :"there's not really any logical or flavorful justification for it."


Now I would like to prevent some objections:

- Some say that Wizard of the Coast and not the RC should take care of the commander rules because WotC would have never changed that. Well, let's see what think about it one from the WotC herself, the Head Designer of the R&D, Mark Rosewater:

"I have never been a fan of tucking. A) it’s inconsistent with how Commanders work with any other type of removal and B) the ability is restricted to certain colors by the color pie and it seems unfair that certain colors have permanent answers to commanders while other colors don’t."

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/11 ... uffle-into

This isn't certainly a prove favorable to the argument that the WotC would not never change the tuck rule. In fact, we have the proves that at least some of them think about the exact contrary.



- Some say that EDH would be more unbalanced since competitive generals would be much harder, if not almost impossible to beat. First of all, EDH is not a balanced format. No balanced format would ever allow cards like Sol Ring or Mana Crypt which, in this format, are almost on the same level of the five moxen and the black lotus (even the most recent Australian Duel Commander which motto is "we want a format that promote the most powerful magic cards" had to ban in the end those 2). That's why exist the social contract. That's why this format is casual and amateurish. That's why the RC always refuse to design an EDH made for competitie 1vs1 duels. Who doesn't understand that, will never understand why the EDH exist in the first place. And cannot and don't even want to please everyone.




Finally players wont be afraid anymore to put junky cards in their decks only because of this shadow of the tuck that would make those cards completely useless. Finally players can legitimely play all the time even with their Oversized cards without worring about strange loopholes and game bugs. Finally players can be fully happy and convinced to play Commander and make a general around the deck. That's an enormous benefit from the casual crow.


And, as I said before "everything for now it's perfectly going accordingly to my will." :P
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17386&start=105


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 4:48 am 

Joined: 2014-Dec-16 6:04 am
Age: Drake
papa_funk wrote:
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Does this mean that you had no control over the tucks being printed in the precons then? Had you known would you have advised against it?


I had no idea that those were being printed. I might have noted the interaction, but I doubt I'd have spent a lot of time worrying about it - tuck spells are a fine design space both in Commander products and outside them. I'd rather save this fictional control to exert on things that might be bigger problems.

kaldare wrote:
I (and a lot of other people I'd wager) would like to know why the heck it took the RC so long to come to this decision, if, as many of them have implied, they never really intended tuck to be a thing to begin with.


Other things to worry about. Interia. Being a consensus-based organization. We hadn't talked about it for a while, and everyone sort of assumed other people were strongly in favor. Once something becomes status quo, it becomes a lot slower to change.

Matt wrote:
You are misunderstanding me. You can't honestly tell me you don't run graveyard hate when you know people are living out of their yards can you? That's what makes scavenging ooze so great. You can keep Karador from being overpowering and have a big creature at the same time.


There's an enormous difference between answers and permanent answers. From that perspective, the Commander tax is an answer.

Answers that have counterplay are good. Answers that exists on the battlefield - a place where things go to get blown up in a multiplayer game - are good. When the entire counterplay to tucking your commander - a situation that has also emotional resonance beyond the strategic - is "run lots of tutors", that's bad.


I don't push the format as far as you think I do. I don't play with the extra turn and infinite combo guys. I play at a level where people can enjoy it with a precon right out of the box. There are commanders that provide their advantage by being cast. The commander tax doesn't really control them. To suggest it does means people should be blowing up their lands, which is frowned upon and not something I want to do. Is a line of play of 'blow up your land', 'blow up your land', 'blow up your land' never cast your general what you want? To suggest the general tax controls Prosh or Malestrom Wanderer means you have to keep them off the mana to stop them from replaying them.

The tutor thing still holds true. Why is a line of play that goes Spell Crumple-->tutor-->replay general less desirable from Never More -->tutor-->krosan grip-->replay general? What happens to the colors that can't deal with enchantments easily? Then you get Never More-->tutor-->all is dust-->replay general. That seems pretty terrible to me.

I know you said you'd keep your eyes on these generals, but doing away with 'banned as a commander' means cards that could be OK in the 99 and were originally released in multiplayer supplemental products are straight up banned. That seems like a net negative to me. It is one thing to ban some M10 card, but I'd favor policies that kept multiplayer supplemental cards in the card pool even if they get obnoxious.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 5:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Matt wrote:
tuck is medicine for a specific problem and getting rid of it won't fix those problems.

No, it really isn't. It may have given the illusion of being so, but since you can't reliably have your tuck spell when the OP general you want to hate on is very much reliably available, I'd say it's a false sense of security. So is Nevermore. And on that topic, suggesting replacing a mechanic that was primarily W/U (tuck) with a mechanic that is ALSO W/U (Meddling Mage, Nevermore, Voidstone, etc) seems bad.

Matt wrote:
Why is using graveyard hate to keep Karador, Tariel, Varolz, et al in check socially OK but tucking someone's general when they deserve it suddenly not?

Graveyard hate is good in general. It is good even when your opponent's general doesn't abuse the yard on its own. That is the nature of a singleton multiplayer format. And despite this, many people don't run enough, and get wrecked by Karador & Co. anyways.

Matt wrote:
The fact that you see posts about people talking about upping their land destruction to keep people off recasting their commanders sounds a lot worse than just tucking them to me.

People coming up with doomsday predictions is nothing new when it comes to MtG rules changes and should not be taken seriously.

_________________
"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: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 5:26 am 

Joined: 2014-Apr-03 3:46 am
Age: Drake
Op's reasoning sounds pretty good to me but what really upsets me the most with the announcement is not the chance but the reasoning #3 for it.

Quote:
3) While we are keenly aware that tuck is a great weapon against problematic commanders, the tools to do so are available only in blue and white, potentially forcing players into feeling like they need to play those colors in order to survive. We prefer as diverse a field as possible.


Changing rules because only some colors can exploit them? Why stop here? Blue doesn't have access to big "deal x dmg" spells so lets ban those, counterspells are mainly in blue so lets add a rule that gives all spells "can't be countered".

Why not just ban all colors or ban all non-wubrg decks?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 5:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
illuknisaa wrote:
Changing rules because only some colors can exploit them? Why stop here? Blue doesn't have access to big "deal x dmg" spells so lets ban those, counterspells are mainly in blue so lets add a rule that gives all spells "can't be countered".

Tuck was a format-specific issue though. Blue not getting burn (anymore) or green not having counterspells is MtG as a whole. We already ban cards for interacting poorly with the format rules (i.e. Worldfire), so this is not so odd as you imply.

_________________
"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: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 5:34 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
illuknisaa wrote:
Changing rules because only some colors can exploit them? Why stop here? Blue doesn't have access to big "deal x dmg" spells so lets ban those, counterspells are mainly in blue so lets add a rule that gives all spells "can't be countered".

Why not just ban all colors or ban all non-wubrg decks?


Magic, after many years of revision, has a color pie that is, at least theoretically, balanced (at least in terms of moving forwards). Should Commander seek to upset that balance or try to stay in line with it as much as possible?

If screwing around with the normal color pie is a good thing, should it give the most popular and (arguably) most powerful color disproportionate benefit?

I fail to see how observing that "only two colors (and a card) have access to this loophole" is problematic leads to banning stuff that's definitively in color pie.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 6:00 am 

Joined: 2014-Dec-16 6:04 am
Age: Drake
papa_funk wrote:
illuknisaa wrote:
Changing rules because only some colors can exploit them? Why stop here? Blue doesn't have access to big "deal x dmg" spells so lets ban those, counterspells are mainly in blue so lets add a rule that gives all spells "can't be countered".

Why not just ban all colors or ban all non-wubrg decks?


Magic, after many years of revision, has a color pie that is, at least theoretically, balanced (at least in terms of moving forwards). Should Commander seek to upset that balance or try to stay in line with it as much as possible?

If screwing around with the normal color pie is a good thing, should it give the most popular and (arguably) most powerful color disproportionate benefit?

I fail to see how observing that "only two colors (and a card) have access to this loophole" is problematic leads to banning stuff that's definitively in color pie.


The problem with the color pie is it isn't designed for social play. According to color philosophy, red's way to deal with true conviction is to kill the player before they play it or blow up their lands so they can't cast it. Those aren't good answers in a social setting.

The people tasked with designing for social settings have made things like chaos warp to help the color better function outside of normal Magic. Maro may not like it, but it isn't his area of expertise. He creates new limited formats from the ground up, not balance social, multiplayer environments.

Hornet queen is great for commander. It isn't fun when your color can't interact with the other guy's signature fatties just because you are playing green. In a social setting, should we always have to play the colors who have signature fatties that fly instead of have many heads? Hornet queen apparently crosses a line when ported to normal Magic, but it was good at the job it was made for.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 6:15 am 

Joined: 2009-Aug-03 8:55 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I bet dollars to doughnuts Ethan Fleischer and Ken Nagle would be happy to provide their insights if someone sends them a note.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 6:18 am 

Joined: 2008-Jan-25 8:26 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Calgary
kaldare wrote:
"Pick a powerful commander and build around them" is an extremely common deckbuilding tactic, and it applies to just about every type of commander player, from the most casual of kitchen table casual players to the most hardcore spikes.

That there is a common tactic doesn't mean much here.

Yes, both start at a signpost on a road that says "build around a good commander".

However, the notion that all, or even many roads from there lead to a place which demands Commander removal - removal that must include the inability to replay said commander?

That notion is simply wrong. Very few roads actually lead to that place, and those roads must be deliberately followed. In other words, you can build around good commanders and even have good decks and that state itself doesn't demand super-removal.

If the "real" game has moved to the point where the "real" game is "have super-removal or lose" then tuck isn't the problem, the problem is "have y or lose." Doesn't matter what the specific answer is, the problem is that the "real" game isn't about anything but that answer.

_________________
"(P)art of the joy of Commander (is) being forced to work with what we (have), even if it (isn't) optimal. Optimal usually isn't that interesting." - papa funk


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 7:09 am 

Joined: 2010-Sep-11 12:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
JJackson wrote:
Viperion wrote:
You're not a magic playing God, and your opinion doesn't matter any more or any less than anyone else's.


Everybody is equally entitled to hold an opinion, but that doesn't mean that every opinion is of equal worth. I think that Joz plays enough that opinion carries more weight than some (e.g. all of these new accounts popping up to scream for the RC's heads). You always just have to interpret it through the lens that his playgroup is full of power players who do a shit job of policing their own behavior.

Players in Munnesota have proven to be notoriously incapable of policing themselves against thier own desires to run "theme decks", that are really just goodstuff decks.

And though it saddens me more to say, that I am deepy discuraged and insulted by two individuals in this thread. A simple joke turns into a attack against me.


And for the record, im not a magic god, or a god at all. But, apprently, im still a better person, and id like to thank JJackson for taking the time to point that out to your fragile and vindictive little minds. Here's my bridge, here's a tanker of gas, burn away.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [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: