Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jun-23 6:56 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 12:23 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
niheloim wrote:
like command tower.... I don't want them to stop, but I feel like they tried to hard with the recent commanders.

Yeah but look at what they're doing. In 2011 you had Karador, which messed around a little in the Commander tax design space, and was very well received. They messed around a little more in 2013 and went too far. So they turned to another area in 2014 with planeswalker commanders. They must have liked their feedback because now we're getting flip commanders. That is so much more exciting than "oh yay a new set I wonder what broken ability they'll staple to a pushed casting cost legendary creature"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 1:45 pm 

Joined: 2013-May-14 4:24 pm
Age: Hatchling
There are not enough semi or permanent ways to eliminate a commander. Destroying one of the few good ways is unacceptable. All things should be destroy-able by that i mean removable from the game state without a simple way of returning. Tuck is an effect which returns a spell or permanent back into the mind of the planeswalker and that is what it should remain as. These are our generals not independent entities where the library is their mind.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 1:49 pm 

Joined: 2015-Mar-24 3:32 pm
Age: Drake
coffeeking13 wrote:
There are not enough semi or permanent ways to eliminate a commander. Destroying one of the few good ways is unacceptable. All things should be destroy-able by that i mean removable from the game state without a simple way of returning. Tuck is an effect which returns a spell or permanent back into the mind of the planeswalker and that is what it should remain as. These are our generals not independent entities where the library is their mind.
and yet...
Your last sentence is exactly how the format was explained to me.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 2:12 pm 

Joined: 2013-Oct-09 7:02 am
Age: Elder Dragon
obsidiandice wrote:
Strategy

On the other end of the legitimacy spectrum, we have, "This removes strategic depth," or even, "They're dumbing down the game to appease noobs."

These arguments generally the opposite of the truth. Removing a known tool rewards skilled players and deckbuilders - the people clever enough to figure out the best replacements and strategies in a tuckless world will win games because of it.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue. My impression is that you didn't address "This removes strategic depth." Strategies that answer generals are now weaker. So much so that some might consider them to be ineffective. The replacements you mention existed before, so it isn't as if there are new cards to make up for what was lost. Could you elaborate on how strategic depth is not lost?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 3:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
MrCool wrote:
Could you elaborate on how strategic depth is not lost?

A lot of people claimed strategic depth was lost when the M10 rules change hit and "damage on the stack" went away. But the thing is, the strategic depth increased. Drastically even. Why? Because damage on the stack led to there often being only one "correct" play. So even though the total number of possible plays decreases, the number of them that are viable options increases. So it is with tuck - if tuck is the "only" option for dealing with degenerate commanders, and now it's gone, you are forced to adapt, to deal with them in other ways.

_________________
"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 3:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2013-Nov-04 2:12 am
Age: Dragon
Location: Northamptonshire, UK
coffeeking13 wrote:
There are not enough semi or permanent ways to eliminate a commander. Destroying one of the few good ways is unacceptable. All things should be destroy-able by that i mean removable from the game state without a simple way of returning. Tuck is an effect which returns a spell or permanent back into the mind of the planeswalker and that is what it should remain as. These are our generals not independent entities where the library is their mind.


I would disagree with that statement entirely. The point of Commander is that you always have access to your Commander. Always. To have tools in the environment, limited in number as they were, to deny players access to the thing in their deck that the format is named for always seemed wrong to me.

_________________
Regards,
MT.


Putrid Pirate Proliferation
Lord of Voltronhorn
Unlife of the Party
Jaya Ballard, Discard Mage
Zedruu and the Minotaurs
Vish Kal's ManSlaughterhouse
Izzet Any Good?

Chorus of Counters


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 4:42 pm 

Joined: 2015-Mar-30 4:30 pm
Age: Wyvern
To the rules committee: I agree with the tuck change but please reconsider banning generals in the wake of it. Derevi, Prossh, etc. are not inherently broken cards. People build broken decks around them yes, and perhaps more easily than many commanders, but if your goal is to break the format, you will find ways to do it no matter what generals you ban. And instead the thousands of players who bought the Commander 2013 Bant and Jund decks as an intro to the format have their decks made illegal. You will not just ban the general, but the entire decks people have built around them, even those using them in fair ways.

The degenerate players will move on to the next degenerate list, but I will never get the time or effort I have spent on my non-combo Prossh deck back, which I can no longer play. I have carefully balanced the power level. I have personally altered a quarter of the deck, which is dragon themed. That is dozens of hours I will not get back when you ban my deck. So you will not solve any problems with people building unfairly, and you will instead harshly punish people like myself.

If you need to ban cards, please ban the combo pieces that are not used in fun ways. I am using Prossh in a fun way that is balanced in my playgroup, and I'm sure there are plenty of Derevi theme deck players who feel the same.


Last edited by Zealcat on 2015-Mar-30 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 5:37 pm 

Joined: 2015-Mar-24 5:45 am
Age: Hatchling
Matt wrote:
And why is it that tuck is suddenly a weird loophole in 2015 when WOTC has been exploring it explicitly in the Commander space since 2011?


You choose to see Spell Crumple and Chaos Warp as purely tuck effects and thus also choose not to see them as viable cards outside of tucking. Spell Crumple can get rid of that stupid ETB creature that your opponent would bind with Navigator and blow all your stuff out while making sure it wont be reanimated (Sylvan Primordial was a thing). Chaos warp is literally the only red enchantment removal. Tuck was not the reason they existed. Tuck was a byproduct of their existance.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 6:41 pm 

Joined: 2013-Oct-09 7:02 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
A lot of people claimed strategic depth was lost when the M10 rules change hit and "damage on the stack" went away. But the thing is, the strategic depth increased. Drastically even. Why? Because damage on the stack led to there often being only one "correct" play. So even though the total number of possible plays decreases, the number of them that are viable options increases. So it is with tuck - if tuck is the "only" option for dealing with degenerate commanders, and now it's gone, you are forced to adapt, to deal with them in other ways.

Tuck wasn't the "only" option for dealing with commanders. These "other" ways of dealing with commanders existed before the change.

Let me give an example. I have a w/u deck that ran tuck effects and gain control effects as well as some repeatable creature removal engines. According to you I will have to adapt by replacing my tuck effects with other ways of dealing with generals. The think is that I already run quite a few other cards that do that. The only change is I have fewer options, and worse options at that.

Can you explicitly say, with examples please, how exactly there are more strategic options than before?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 8:02 pm 

Joined: 2015-Mar-24 5:45 am
Age: Hatchling
I dont think you understand the concept of strategic options. A mono U deck for example can run Hinder, Spell Crumple and Spin into myth. Now, these spells are, for the shake of my argument, very powerfull. They are the best spells to deal with a commander and you would always cast these given the opportunity. It's the optimal solution, having the best effect and requiring almost no thought.

Now, we ban those 3 cards. You suddenly have 3 new slots to fill the spots. There are 50 cards that can go in those slots. Some of them are niche. Some of them are situational; they deal best with one kind of general while suck with others. You get to choose which 3 of them you will use. Some people will make better decisions than other and will be rewarded. The power level may decrease but the strategical options increase.

Now that was a hypothetical argument. You say you were running tucks, mind controls and removal engines. What about spot removals? What about arrest effects? What about darksteel mutation? What about pillow fort effects? What about fog and redirect effects? Again less optimal, more choices. More strategy involved, less faceroll.

edit : Also, before the rule change you thought you had more options, but due to power level, you actually had much less. You would never run arrest in the slot of hinder for example.

TL;DR Removing tucking decreases power level but increases strategical choices.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 11:34 pm 

Joined: 2014-Dec-16 6:04 am
Age: Drake
dread05 wrote:
I dont think you understand the concept of strategic options. A mono U deck for example can run Hinder, Spell Crumple and Spin into myth. Now, these spells are, for the shake of my argument, very powerfull. They are the best spells to deal with a commander and you would always cast these given the opportunity. It's the optimal solution, having the best effect and requiring almost no thought.

Now, we ban those 3 cards. You suddenly have 3 new slots to fill the spots. There are 50 cards that can go in those slots. Some of them are niche. Some of them are situational; they deal best with one kind of general while suck with others. You get to choose which 3 of them you will use. Some people will make better decisions than other and will be rewarded. The power level may decrease but the strategical options increase.

Now that was a hypothetical argument. You say you were running tucks, mind controls and removal engines. What about spot removals? What about arrest effects? What about darksteel mutation? What about pillow fort effects? What about fog and redirect effects? Again less optimal, more choices. More strategy involved, less faceroll.

edit : Also, before the rule change you thought you had more options, but due to power level, you actually had much less. You would never run arrest in the slot of hinder for example.

TL;DR Removing tucking decreases power level but increases strategical choices.


Not really. Hindering Prossh is a lot less powerful and game altering for the rest of the table than playing Elesh Norn and Godhead of Awe. Spell crumpling maelstrom wanderer is better than replacing all 3 slots with ethersworn canonist, rule of law, and arcane laboratory for everyone else.

There are some people you can't talk through things with. Action is required. When time and money are invested in building a deck that pushes beyond the line and gets wins, the only way to make it go away is to make sure it is no longer fun for the owner. You have to hit them specifically, and tuck does that while not subjecting the rest of the table to more focused hate that disrupt the flow of the game for everyone instead of the one person that deserves it.

Of the 2 dozen people that play commander where I live, only 6 of them are worth investing in to get good games. Two of those are line crossers. So to get a 4 player game, I usually have to play with 1 or both. I'd love to live in this world where there aren't line crossers, but I have to play with the people that are available.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-30 11:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
MrCool wrote:
Can you explicitly say, with examples please, how exactly there are more strategic options than before?

I was going to write a longer response to this, but dread05 summed it up pretty well.
Matt wrote:
There are some people you can't talk through things with. Action is required. When time and money are invested in building a deck that pushes beyond the line and gets wins, the only way to make it go away is to make sure it is no longer fun for the owner.

So... your idea for improving the health of the format is to piss in everyone's cheerios until they get frustrated and change decks? I really don't know what to say.

_________________
"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-31 12:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-16 3:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Funny but that was the reason tuck was banned... A mechanical loophole that was widely used to make feel bads is exactly what the format doesn't need.

However, if the goal is to make the game unfun for people and tuck was your option try a new one, land destruction, Stax, long ass combos, etc... Sounds like more strategic options to me.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: obsidiandice on Tuck
AgePosted: 2015-Mar-31 12:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Mar-12 3:20 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
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.

Indeed... which is less then good. Less utility means someone's commander is basically always getting hit , as opposed to Hinder being able to be used on a powerful spell instead. That would seem to lead to more consistent feel bad scenarios.... though at least it encourages the use of spot removal spells instead of requiring tutors.

charlequin wrote:
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.

Except that's not true. Black and Green lacked tuck, but made up for it by being the most resilient colors against tuck.

tarnar wrote:
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.

True... tuck wasn't an optimal way to address the situation. But it was a way, and now we're left with very little in the way of options.

tarnar wrote:
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.

I almost made such a thread, but I figured discussing rules changes right now might not go over so well. lol I agree that the commander tax is an issue.

papa_funk wrote:
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.

Except that it doesn't work great for almost all commanders. Prossh isn't really an exception, he's just a good poster child for the issue as he exemplifies it. Almost every green deck you see has little to no issues with paying an extra 10+ mana to cast their commander nigh-endless times. Non-green decks typically start to seriously struggle once their commander starts to cost more then 10 total mana, let alone 10 extra. Playing heavy artifact ramp can get around the issue... until a board wipe takes out 6 of your mana and then you're never casting your commander again. In short, the commander tax is unbalancing the colors far more then tuck ever did, and it's encouraging the overuse of ramp far more then tuck ever encouraged tutors as well.

Zealcat wrote:
You will not just ban the general, but the entire decks people have built around them, even those using them in fair ways.

You don't seem to get it... the issue people are having is that the commanders themselves are unfair under the current rules. If Prossh and Derevi are pretty universally causing misery even when the controllers don't intend to build them that way, then they need to go. I'm not saying that's necessarily true (we haven't had enough time), but if it does end up being the case, banning them is the right move.

_________________
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-31 1:03 am 

Joined: 2014-Dec-16 6:04 am
Age: Drake
Sid the Chicken wrote:
MrCool wrote:
Can you explicitly say, with examples please, how exactly there are more strategic options than before?

I was going to write a longer response to this, but dread05 summed it up pretty well.
Matt wrote:
There are some people you can't talk through things with. Action is required. When time and money are invested in building a deck that pushes beyond the line and gets wins, the only way to make it go away is to make sure it is no longer fun for the owner.

So... your idea for improving the health of the format is to piss in everyone's cheerios until they get frustrated and change decks? I really don't know what to say.


Did you read Bennie Smith's article on this issue and what to do?
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/30 ... -Tuck.html

Find other silver bullets is a decent way to accomplish the goal, and is what I will do. It is less efficient, but doable.
Play archenemy, which is just as bad as the next option, combo harder. If you want to play at a certain power level, crossing the power level or just ganging up on someone doesn't promote answering problem cards and moving on back to the desired power level.
The last option is to quit playing with these people, but if I want to play, they are who I have. At least I have them. One of the guys in my group moved and all he has are unfun people to play against and quit the format.

What do you do when someone plays an overpowered deck and does the exact same thing every game to win? Just keep losing? Fighting fire with fire promotes an arms race. Counter what they are doing de-escalates the situation. The format is self-regulating, but you have to have the tools to actually regulate it. Aether Flash and Leyline of singularity will work against Prossh, but they randomly hurt other strategies in the process when tuck didn't.


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, 8 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 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:  
cron