Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Sep-17 5:07 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 7:11 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
If groups start to see Meddling Mage effects get played more, I think this rule has failed in its intent (which isn't to say that the change was not a good thing).

Think about it for a minute: the reason we ran tuck spells was because they are flexible. I run Spell Crumple because I will probably run up against an oppressive general, but if the green player casts Tooth and Nail I won't hesitate to counter it. But if I run Meddling Mage and the other generals at the table aren't really a problem that I need to permanently answer, what do I do, name a random card and hope someone is actually running it? Mage is a proactive answer, which makes it much more narrower than the reactive tuck spells.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 7:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Dec-26 7:50 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Amsterdam, Holland
While I never consciously felt the graveyard and exile rule needed to be extended I'm glad it was done. I just wish a text like the TS accompanied the announcement rather than the actual text. Yet I was in favor since I first read about it. Go ahead and make more improvements as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
I'm a gabber and I feel alright
I sleep all day and I dance all night
I'm a gabber and I feel OK
I dance all night and I sleep all day


3 Steps Ahead - I'm A Gabber


Automatically add card tags to the card names in any text:
http://manabase.com/autocard.php


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 7:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Mar-12 3:20 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
If groups start to see Meddling Mage effects get played more, I think this rule has failed in its intent (which isn't to say that the change was not a good thing).


I've already seen a marked increase in the number of people playing Nevermore. From almost never seeing it to it being in 1 in 4 white decks... and that's in one week. I'm pretty certain that number will rise.

cryogen wrote:
But if I run Meddling Mage and the other generals at the table aren't really a problem that I need to permanently answer, what do I do, name a random card and hope someone is actually running it?

I haven't seen much of the other similar effects, but as far as Nevermore is concerned, a commander virtually always gets named by Nevermore. Literally the only other cards I've ever seen named are Capsize and Corpse Dance. If there isn't a "problem" commander present (or if the only problem commander is Derevi, who's immune to nevermore), then it really sucks for the person deemed "most threatening," especially if they're in a deck without much enchantment removal.

tarnar wrote:
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's the thing... There is a large distance between "inability to replay said commander" and "inability to immediately replay said commander every turn"
The former is rarely required... but the later often is. And while plain old removal spells will do the trick against some decks, against green decks with ramp, they don't.
Once the absurd abundance of ramp is taken into account, the commander tax simply isn't enough.

Yesterday I watched a game between three of the more casual players in my area and a brand new commander player who had joined them. They were running semi-tuned decks they had been playing and working on for months. He was running Prossh, with at least 80% of the deck being stock precon. (He literally bought it that day.) All he did was add some of his standard fatties and some cheap ($ wise) ramp spells recommended by the store owner. He utterly dominated the game simply by casting Prossh over and over and over. They had Chaos Warp and Terminus, but that no longer mattered.

My conclusion thus far on the rules change:
Ramp, which was already far too prevalent in commander, has somehow gotten even more powerful... now, as long as you have ramp, you will always have access to your commander. And if your commander is powerful enough to win the game on it's own? Almost all you really need is ramp. That's stupid, and is a major problem with the "tuckless" world.

_________________
Current Commander Decks:
Alesha, She who Smiles at Death.....Atraxa, Praetors' Voice.....Eight-and-a-Half-Tails.....Gonti, Lord of Luxury.....Karametra, God of Harvests.....Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker.....Kozilek, the Great Distortion.....Prime Speaker Zegana.....Rubinia Soulsinger.....Thrasios, Triton Hero + Vial Smasher the Fierce

My general commander philosophy: Using your opponent's degenerate cards against them is far more satisfying than playing degenerate cards yourself.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 7:48 am 

Joined: 2009-Aug-03 8:55 am
Age: Elder Dragon
FWIW, when tuck was discussed just a few years ago, most people argued it was generally inefficient and rarely used. This was before Unexpectedly Absent and Terminus, but the tuck pool hasn't grown that much. Interesting to see it apparently became more widespread.

I guess I don't see Nevermore and Declaration of Naught as being quite in the same camp of card advantage. Hosing one general with a permanent just lacks the versatility of something like Condemn or Hallowed Burial.

A single untapped W was always a major deal in our meta.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 8:14 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
kaldare wrote:
cryogen wrote:
If groups start to see Meddling Mage effects get played more, I think this rule has failed in its intent (which isn't to say that the change was not a good thing).


I've already seen a marked increase in the number of people playing Nevermore. From almost never seeing it to it being in 1 in 4 white decks... and that's in one week. I'm pretty certain that number will rise.

cryogen wrote:
But if I run Meddling Mage and the other generals at the table aren't really a problem that I need to permanently answer, what do I do, name a random card and hope someone is actually running it?

I haven't seen much of the other similar effects, but as far as Nevermore is concerned, a commander virtually always gets named by Nevermore. Literally the only other cards I've ever seen named are Capsize and Corpse Dance. If there isn't a "problem" commander present (or if the only problem commander is Derevi, who's immune to nevermore), then it really sucks for the person deemed "most threatening," especially if they're in a deck without much enchantment removal.

That's kind of the problem that I thought about on my way home from work as I posted that thought. I have almost never seen those types of cards run, and when they did, it was only to name a general. But when the tuck rule changed and there was a thread on MTGS talking about what to use in the new tuck meta, people went crazy with excitement when I mentioned Declaration of Naught. I think the fact that you're only seeing Commanders named solidifies what I was getting at: that tuck is a utility mechanic which has uses outside of Commanders, but now our more "permanent" options do not have that utility.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 8:20 am 

Joined: 2009-Oct-08 1:00 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".

The difference is that color pie divisions like "red deals direct damage, white and blue don't" were consciously designed choices made with the overall balance of the colors in mind, while "white and blue are the only colors that can permanently eliminate commanders" was an entirely accidental choice, and one that actively disrupted the balance of colors in the format.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 8:39 am 

Joined: 2008-Jan-25 8:26 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Calgary
kaldare wrote:
That's the thing... There is a large distance between "inability to replay said commander" and "inability to immediately replay said commander every turn"

I agree, but still think (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) that tuck wasn't even a good way to address that.

After all, look at that Prossh story. All one needs is an unbounded sacrifice outlet and suddenly most available tuck doesn't even work, only Hinder / Spell Crumple do.

I think I have to backpedal a little here. Pretty much every road that starts with "choose Prossh as your Commander" leads to a place of misery. Someone thought that printing a spell that costs N mana and makes N+1 permanents - in a format that allows that spell to be cast repeatedly every game - was something other than a Terrible Idea(tm).

I wonder if the discussion should be about the Commander tax itself. In the same way that certain colours tuck better than others, certain colours ramp more easily than others, which can make the Commander tax lopsided.

I've seen this play out in games. A deck like Heartless Hidetsugu can struggle to replay him after a few times, and often wins by using rituals to get HH out early. But a deck like Maelstrom Wanderer never seems to have trouble playing MW for the fifth time, nevermind that it costs 16 mana.

_________________
"(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 9:11 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Hmmm... Fibonacci sequence instead of linear +2?
Exponential 2^n starting at n=0 for first recast?
Shared commander tax, with first casting free?
Higher tax with the ability to pay it in portions as a sorcery?
Scale tax to mana cost of commander- 1/4cmc rounded up.?
Include color requirements in addition to colorless for colored commanders?
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 9:41 am 

Joined: 2009-May-05 9:45 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Acworth, GA
The better solution than all those ideas is to just play commander and stop playing 100 card singleton vintage. The former format is full of flavorful decks, interesting plays, people building their decks with a social responsibility, and great interactive games where everyone has fun most of the time. The latter format is full of good stuff decks, repetitive plays, people building their decks focused to win, and dull games where people try to secure a win as fast as possible either by killing off the table or by denying their opponents the ability to play.

It is really two different formats people talk about here, the former is the one the RC builds the format for, the latter has zero support rules wise, and should not be the viewpoint of any discussions here, even though most of you seem to embrace it as your chosen way to play. It is not Parker Brothers fault if you play Monopoly allowing people to pick a number between 2 and 12 for your turn, and require people to play with their own real money. I know that is an extreme example, but that is the difference these powered playgroups have from the intent of commander. Play that way if you want, but stop expecting the RC to police your games for you, since you chose not to police them yourselves.

_________________
Well, that was special.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 9:50 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
niheloim wrote:
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?


It's a variant on this. WotC needs to have the freedom to explore design space. It leads to cool cards.

However, in order to do that, they will occasionally do something that blows up on them. What's important is that they learn from the failures. I seriously doubt that people are roaming the Pit saying "wow, Prossh and Derevi are awesome. We should make more like that!" Instead, I'm sure they're looking at what went right and wrong and will hopefully iterate to a better place with the next generation. We're in pretty uncharted territories here.

The problem with screwing with the commander tax is that the commander tax works great for almost all commanders. There are just a few problematic outliers, and 'fixing' them through rules structure is bad for the format as a whole. The question is whether that's best addressed through social means or not. Maybe Prossh has core structural issues and is bad in ways that Zur isn't (I suspect that banning Zur doesn't do anything other than make that set of players move to the next most broken commander). That's what needs to be considered.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 10:03 am 

Joined: 2015-Mar-24 3:32 pm
Age: Drake
niheloim wrote:
Hmmm... Fibonacci sequence instead of linear +2?
Exponential 2^n starting at n=0 for first recast?
Shared commander tax, with first casting free?
Higher tax with the ability to pay it in portions as a sorcery?
Scale tax to mana cost of commander- 1/4cmc rounded up.?
Include color requirements in addition to colorless for colored commanders?
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?
what about an increasing upkeep cost to maintain the Commander on the battle field?
IE: 1st time no up keep.
2nd time one of each color in the commanders identity.
3rd and every time there after same as 2nd plus 2 for each time after the 2nd.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 10:08 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Damian Magecraft wrote:
niheloim wrote:
Hmmm... Fibonacci sequence instead of linear +2?
Exponential 2^n starting at n=0 for first recast?
Shared commander tax, with first casting free?
Higher tax with the ability to pay it in portions as a sorcery?
Scale tax to mana cost of commander- 1/4cmc rounded up.?
Include color requirements in addition to colorless for colored commanders?
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?
what about an increasing upkeep cost to maintain the Commander on the battle field?
IE: 1st time no up keep.
2nd time one of each color in the commanders identity.
3rd and every time there after same as 2nd plus 2 for each time after the 2nd.

You're punishing people for playing multicolor decks.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 10:12 am 

Joined: 2015-Mar-24 3:32 pm
Age: Drake
cryogen wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
niheloim wrote:
Hmmm... Fibonacci sequence instead of linear +2?
Exponential 2^n starting at n=0 for first recast?
Shared commander tax, with first casting free?
Higher tax with the ability to pay it in portions as a sorcery?
Scale tax to mana cost of commander- 1/4cmc rounded up.?
Include color requirements in addition to colorless for colored commanders?
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?
what about an increasing upkeep cost to maintain the Commander on the battle field?
IE: 1st time no up keep.
2nd time one of each color in the commanders identity.
3rd and every time there after same as 2nd plus 2 for each time after the 2nd.

You're punishing people for playing multicolor decks.
so make it straight up colorless upkeep then.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 10:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
niheloim wrote:
Hmmm... Fibonacci sequence instead of linear +2?
Exponential 2^n starting at n=0 for first recast?
Shared commander tax, with first casting free?
Higher tax with the ability to pay it in portions as a sorcery?
Scale tax to mana cost of commander- 1/4cmc rounded up.?
Include color requirements in addition to colorless for colored commanders?
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?
what about an increasing upkeep cost to maintain the Commander on the battle field?
IE: 1st time no up keep.
2nd time one of each color in the commanders identity.
3rd and every time there after same as 2nd plus 2 for each time after the 2nd.

You're punishing people for playing multicolor decks.

Not to mention most problematic commanders don't care about this. Prossh and MW for example love leaving then coming back over and over.

_________________


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 12:11 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
papa_funk wrote:
niheloim wrote:
Wizards stops printing cards that specifically interact with the rules of the format?


It's a variant on this. WotC needs to have the freedom to explore design space. It leads to cool cards.
like command tower.... I don't want them to stop, but I feel like they tried to hard with the recent commanders.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


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, 7 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shabbaman and 63 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: