Magic: the Gathering is a game about two all-powerful sorcerers coming together and battling it out on a cosmic stage. What better way to embody this fantasy than by allowing you to play as a Planeswalker? The Duel Decks tried to make this work, but a Commander deck with a Planeswalker at its helm would bring this idea to its logical conclusion. The rules are already there. All this format needs is a little push.
I understand that many Planeswalkers would be broken in repeatable form, but even if almost half of them had to be banned, I think that going forward, allowing all Planeswalkers to be allowed as Commander as a default, and banned if they become problematic, would be spectacular for the depth of fun and capacity for innovation within this format.
When I saw the preview of the new Domri today, my excitement was matched only by my disappointment that I would not be able to run him as a Commander.
If, beyond a simple ban list, more global methods of reducing the toxicity of their recursion proved necessary, you could even alter the rules so that they, say, enter the battlefield with fewer loyalty counters each time. Or maybe the Commander tax could be increased from 2. There are ways around this. I believe the idea of playing as a Planeswalker is simply too amazing, and too intrinsically tied to what this game is all about, to reject the idea out-of-hand.
Commander 2014 was proof-of-concept. I understand that many Planeswalkers—JtMS and Elspeth come to mind immediately—would have to be banned. But I think that cultivating a ban list that expands the format in this fashion without breaking the game is well within this community's purview, and that it would be a shame if such a culmination of everything Magic was envisioned as were never even explored.
Honestly, I don't see any issue with allowing all current planeswalkers as commanders. Teferi, Temporal Archmage is probably the most powerful existing commander, & he's already legal.
If we're talking about the multiplayer banlist, the only PW that you must be scared off are the ones that have built-in mass removal. Ugin is the most powerful one, but the drawback to have all the deck colorless would keep him balanced. Jace the Mind Sculptor is overrated in EDH. In multiplayer does from little to nothing really.
I don't see how it adds, personally. It's a flavour point, but we already have PW commanders in a variety of combinations, so what are we really adding?
If it's that big of a deal, talk to your meta and make it happen. The only walkers I see not being busted are the ones that are kind of lame anyway, so why bother? You already have the option of precon walkers, flip walkers, battlebond walkers and superfriends. I just don't see any pros and I see a lot of cons.
Why not? Tiny Leaders and Brawl do this already, but their formats have built-in limitations.
Just ban Ugin, Karn, Teferi x 2 and a few others and go from there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
Philosophically, I agree. PWs are iconic and really should be able to lead decks. Most will not be very powerful in EDH - they are hard to protect in multiplayer.
A few thoughts...
I think it would suck to see Ugin get banned because I really think "Banned As Commander" should still exist. Dack Fayden seems to me like the one that would be most annoying. You are basically quadrupling your chances at getting fast mana in the first 3 turns.
Realistically...
I think that most of the Commander PWs are somewhat weaker than the ones we see in Standard. They usually have some marginally useful abilities and ultimates that do not win the game. Of course, there are some exceptions.
I think this is the main issue. So many of the existing ultimates win the game. Imagine being able to build your whole deck around Sorin, Solemn Visitor so you can ultimate him. Or how about Kiora, the Crashing Wave? I would just build those decks with as many mass bounce/removal spells as possible because I know that when the emblem comes down my opponents are going to fall way behind.
I don't think it is particularly fun to have decks that are just trying to stall a few turns so they can win the game with their commander.
There are few legendary creatures that win the game by themselves. They have largely been banned.
I think it is doable, but I think it will be like what you proposed... that a large number of them get banned. And since the RC doesn't want a banned as commander list, that means that people won't be able to play with all kinds of fun planeswalkers.
I would be interested in seeing it tested, but I also think testing will show it leads to a worse magic experience.
Well, for example I would love very much to build a tribal Elf deck with Nissa Revane at his head, because, unlike other elfball decks she would give me the unique opportunity to bring all my tribe from my deck in the battlefield at once (and playing some sinergy around life gain maybe)
I already made in the past a Koth of the Hammer deck and it was interesting to make a "mountain matter" theme in conjunction with big red splashy spells.
I currently have a monogreen stompy with Garruk, Caller of Beasts and is very fun and powerful to play.
I also have a Nicol Bolas, God Pharaoh deck, and I love it, because this version of Bolas really leads well to make a fun control deck in a multiplayer environment, especially for the +2 ability.
I also had in the past a Liliana of the Dark Realms deck and it was interesting to build a "swamp matter" deck in a similar and yet different way I did with Koth.
PW are fun to play, even if none of them wouldn't add really nothing new in gameplay strategies and archetypes (but that's not true anyway), they lead for their unique nature to a different gameplay itself, more stimulating for my tastes. PW are complex card that let you do a variety of things at no cost and the fact to be attacked by any creature, not only it balance them out, but can make the deckbuilders to twist their deck accordingly to the nature of the card of their general (playing more "counter matter" cards, more prison-like cards, etc.)
I run a Nissa, Vastwood Seer deck at present. I've seen people do Nissa tribal, elf tribal, enchantress and I play pseudo-control. So what's different about Nissa Revane? That ultimate. Yeah, it's busted. I get what you want, I just think it's outweighed by a whole lot of finagling to make sure people don't get carried away, and this one is definitely on the list of walkers people will try to bust wide open.
A colorless deck can be very fast but is always pretty much dumb. It can't run counterspell so doesn't protect himself very good, card draw is inefficent, and if anybody just cast a good mass removal like Wave of Vitriol or Hour of Revelation, the deck is probably gone for good, because it would take so much time to rebuild a good board state and recast the general. Really dude, being tied to only colorless is a real drawback.
Kozilek, the Great Distortion wants you to have a look at his Null Brooch. Colorless has plenty of options, dude. I ran OG Kozi as a 75% build and my meta asked me to pull it apart. You're welcome to not believe that brown is quick and strong, but if the pieces are there it does just fine.
End of the day, there's a lot of hoops needed to jump through to make this happen. The more hoops, the less feasible it is. As much as, from a flavour and theme point of view I agree that walkers would be great commander options, the feasibility of making it happen renders it extremely unlikely to happen any time soon, and I'm glad of that personally.
I am also strongly against planeswalker commanders as a whole. Commanders are extremely fragile in commander so the ones that essentially fire off as one strong and super annoying effect the turn they are played would be beyond annoying to me. Most of them would suck, but I also don't see any benefit in allowing them just to ban a bunch of actually good cards because of how annoying and degenerate they would be as commanders.
If I had my way, planeswalker commanders would never have happened. I see no reason to ever allow more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
If you think that half of them would have to be banned or you need special rules to keep them in check, then this idea is probably a bad one.
This is how I feel about it. There are many Planeswalkers I don't care to see in the Command Zone, and a good chunk of them would need banned.
As an aside, frankly most of the spinoffs of Commander like Tiny Leaders and Brawl are not great game play and there is a reason they are all but forgotten sans a very tiny, dedicated player base. With that said, they shouldn't be used as examples of "Well X works in Y so it should be fine."
P.S. They stopped marketing Magic as the players being two powerful sorcerers and/or Planeswalkers dueling it out a long, long time ago.
It would be better to see the effects of it actually happening than just hypotheticals which get people nowhere.
This... is awful logic. Let's get a bunch of people to trade for or buy cards with the caveat that we may very well just go ahead and decide it was a bad idea? No... just no.
It would be better to see the effects of it actually happening than just hypotheticals which get people nowhere.
Its amazing how many things you can justify with that statement that probably should not be done. The current pool of planeswalkers are known to us and we have had the ability to play them in games of commander. It is known to us how those cards work in the 99 and its not that far of a stretch to apply "if this was a commander" to them. We really aren't talking about something revolutionary here.
Most of the planeswalkers who would be broken in commander are the ones that have big - effects that tend to be one shot effects or expend themselves heavily the first turn after they are cast. These planeswalkers would be like having wraths, theft, tutors, etc in the command zone in a way that tends to not really be healthy for the game. Generally speaking, the planeswalkers that are already very good in commander would be the ones I would be fearful of in the command zone. Most of the ones that are so so or bad already in the 99 probably wouldn't be a huge problem if it changed with I guess the slight variance of constant availability and being able to curve them possibly giving them a bump.
I really can't imagine not needing to ban a few planeswalkers if that went through. Banning more cards is reason enough for me to not want it and I can't imagine allowing all of them and not needing to ban a few.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
It would be better to see the effects of it actually happening than just hypotheticals which get people nowhere.
Its amazing how many things you can justify with that statement that probably should not be done. The current pool of planeswalkers are known to us and we have had the ability to play them in games of commander. It is known to us how those cards work in the 99 and its not that far of a stretch to apply "if this was a commander" to them. We really aren't talking about something revolutionary here.
Most of the planeswalkers who would be broken in commander are the ones that have big - effects that tend to be one shot effects or expend themselves heavily the first turn after they are cast. These planeswalkers would be like having wraths, theft, tutors, etc in the command zone in a way that tends to not really be healthy for the game. Generally speaking, the planeswalkers that are already very good in commander would be the ones I would be fearful of in the command zone. Most of the ones that are so so or bad already in the 99 probably wouldn't be a huge problem if it changed with I guess the slight variance of constant availability and being able to curve them possibly giving them a bump.
I really can't imagine not needing to ban a few planeswalkers if that went through. Banning more cards is reason enough for me to not want it and I can't imagine allowing all of them and not needing to ban a few.
Making small rules exceptions to allow a few but not all seems like a lot of work and a rule to allow that would also feel kind of messy if you ask me. Most of those original five planeswalkers are incredibly bad too with Garruk being probably the only halfway decent one among them and even then I don't know how much anyone is really excited about the concept of planeswalker commanders to try to play any of the original five.
Those five are also not at all my concern when it comes to allowing planeswalkers as commanders. I for kicks started going through planeswalkers to see which ones I would be highly annoyed with and had a list of something like 10 planeswalkers by the time I got halfway through the entire list of playable walkers. If you wan't I can compile a list of the ones I feel would be annoying either from a power level, immediate impact from the command zone, or the way in which they would push games in which they were the commander into.
In the end, almost every time I see or look at planeswalker commanders they tend to be defensive decks that end up slowing games down as they tend to have some focus in protecting the commander which I am not a fan of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I don't think it's the fact that it's so many, it's the fact that so many are overpowered when there's ready access to them at all times. Even from these five, bare minimum Garruk Wildspeaker is eminently abusable with Doubling Season.
If they were to be allowed, it would lead to significant increases in the banlist, and possible reintroduction of 'banned as a commander'. As a firm believer in 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and minimal micromanagement from the RC, I'm against it. There are far too many qualifiers needed for this to happen, and not enough benefits to justify them.
Making small rules exceptions to allow a few but not all seems like a lot of work and a rule to allow that would also feel kind of messy if you ask me. Most of those original five planeswalkers are incredibly bad too with Garruk being probably the only halfway decent one among them and even then I don't know how much anyone is really excited about the concept of planeswalker commanders to try to play any of the original five.
Its not so much that they would be the most exciting just the most safe to start with given their relatively low power compared to later ones.
Those five are also not at all my concern when it comes to allowing planeswalkers as commanders. I for kicks started going through planeswalkers to see which ones I would be highly annoyed with and had a list of something like 10 planeswalkers by the time I got halfway through the entire list of playable walkers. If you wan't I can compile a list of the ones I feel would be annoying either from a power level, immediate impact from the command zone, or the way in which they would push games in which they were the commander into.
Which would be interesting in my opinion to see.
In the end, almost every time I see or look at planeswalker commanders they tend to be defensive decks that end up slowing games down as they tend to have some focus in protecting the commander which I am not a fan of.
Indeed they tend to be defensive as that is how they are designed. Before planeswalkers, it was buildings that the player protected/attacked.
I don't think it's the fact that it's so many, it's the fact that so many are overpowered when there's ready access to them at all times. Even from these five, bare minimum Garruk Wildspeaker is eminently abusable with Doubling Season.
I would be personally more worried about other green planeswalkers that have an effect stronger than a reusable overrun.
If they were to be allowed, it would lead to significant increases in the banlist, and possible reintroduction of 'banned as a commander'. As a firm believer in 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and minimal micromanagement from the RC, I'm against it. There are far too many qualifiers needed for this to happen, and not enough benefits to justify them.
I personally disagree with the phrase, mostly because b-a-c existed before and then got removed.
It comes down to the experience you want. I'm not a fan of superfriends. It's like watching someone play solitaire - it's not interactive, it's slow paced, and it's permission based. In fact I just left a game in which Jodah superfriends handed a beating downwards in a casual game, and that's exactly how it felt. Literally every other player swept. It's not fun for me, and so I'm not interested in seeing more of it.
I run a flip-walker EDH deck, and I'm happy with that - it's powerful, but not over the top, and it's power comes from the cards it plays, not abusing the walker in the command zone. I don't want to face down Teferi, Hero Of Dominaria or Ugin, the Spirit Dragon, because they're strong enough without permanent access to them. Even something like Vraska the Unseen would feel bad, because it's as easy as running Whispersilk Cloak and Rogue's Passage. Ral Zarek - how many turns do you want to take in a row with Krark's Thumb? And these aren't even top tier walkers, they're just middle of the road with a neat ultimate. And there's no way you can say 'don't worry, we won't abuse them', because people will. It's inevitable.
Not only that, no one has yet to come up with a reasonable qualification as to where the line should be drawn for what to ban and what not to ban. I don't envy anyone who has to traverse that debate. There are some obvious options, but there's plenty of not so obvious options that are eminently abusable. I just think adding them pushes games in directions in ways that aren't appealing to me - defensive, passive, non-interactive combo machines.
Apologies, but there's a lot to chime in on from my perspective, so I'm going to bullet point them, and hope references won't be a problem.
1. "Lorwyn 5 introduction"
What you're proposing is a lot of work, which is strike one there. Quite frankly, being the safest would also likely mean they are the least exciting, which would mean that barely anyone(aside from a niche group) would bother playing them, which leads to lack of feedback. But even so, let's look at what abilities could be stretched since they are 'on-demand': Ajani has lifegain and permanent anthem, Garruk has untap 2 and beast generation, Lili has semi-tutor and discard, Chandra has...burn, and Jace has hug draw and personal draw.
Out of those, Lili, Garruk and Jace are the ones that could be EASILY abused, and in fact are in colors that benefit greatly from those effects...moreso if they are repeatable and on-demand. Ajani and Chandra are extremely 'eh'(which pains me to admit because Ajani was my first PW), but three out of five is concerning to start. Add in that aside from Lili, they're cheap to repeatedly cast, and...I see problems, even from my limited viewpoint.
2. "ISB's list"
Obviously, that's between you and ISB, but I will say I too am interested in giving that a read ISBPathfinder.
3. "Superfriend defense and before PWs, buildings"
Not everyone WANTS to fight through a defensive deck, only to have their work mean absolutely nothing because the planeswalker went off. I hate superfriend decks with a passion precisely BECAUSE all they need to do is throw up enough walls and blocks to make the rest of the game trivially simple. I would loathe and outright detest seeing any of the 'non-Commander' planeswalkers staring at me from across the table, flipping the bird because they're letting me know the game is on a clock...every chance they can get cast.
On your second point, huh? I've played MTG since fourth edition, and I don't remember defending buildings or anything except yourself.
3. "Worse things than a repeatable Overrun"
But it's not something to be ignored either. If a person is able to repeatedly swell their ranks every couple of turns, that repeatable Overrun suddenly turns a close game into a very bad day. Think of the last time you played a game where one guy had the right card to a situation over and over and over again. Similar situation...most often, all they need are bodies; Garruk will do the rest. Multiply this scenario by however many planeswalkers are a concern; all you need is X, [PW] will provide the Y. Honestly, that removes part(not all, I admit) of the challenge of deckbuilding as well; less need for protection for your PW, because it won't be affected by stuff like wraths or a lot of targeted destruction.
4. "BaC =/= 'not broke, don't fix it"
I can't really chime in on this too well, so I'll be brief: BaC was met with some grumbling. Some creatures were reportedly fine in the 99, and this provided some flexibility in that regard. I can understand the RC's reasoning on it, but note that this was done with a lot of discussion and thought, which led to it's dissolution. I really don't think that said discussion and thought will lead to relaxing the rule of, "Commander must be a legendary creature."
I'm perfectly fine with planeswalkers in a few more years if Wizards keeps printing the way they have been.
What people are forgetting is how absolutely pathetically weak to pithing needle effects commanders are. Revoker, needle, spyglass, etc. We need a few more of those effects and a few more removal options.
It's taken a long time for the state of removal to catch up to the power of walkers, and I think they are close. More hero's downfall, dreadbore, trophy type effects are needed.
-------
Name a walker more busted than Derevi, Zur, Arcum, existing Teferi walker, Sisay, etc. There really are not any that are even close in power level except Tezzeret.
The more I think about it it might be OK now, but I'd really like to see a few more hate cards.
3. "Superfriend defense and before PWs, buildings"
On your second point, huh? I've played MTG since fourth edition, and I don't remember defending buildings or anything except yourself.
Originally the idea was created by Richard Garfield during the development of OG Ravncia block, as there was plans for building permanents because it was fundamentlly in theme with the plane being covered in buildings. They functioned similarly to how we know now planeswalkers would work but the idea was shelved at least for that block. This new iteration that is commonly known as the "Lorwyn Five" was originally slated for the set Future Sight in the Timespiral Block, however due to rules still needing to be refined they were pushed back till Lorwyn.
Another thing I think needs to happen is Doubling Season and Proliferate interactions need to be fixed. Simple matter of saying "loyalty is loyalty not loyalty counters."
Change has been a long time coming and would fix a lot of the nonsense likely to happen.
Have to agree here. It would be a little less intuitive and take a little finagling, but Doubling Season and proliferate don't need any encouragement, they're busted.
Honestly, I was stunned when I realised emblems could not be interacted with. I think it was a mistake personally, but WotC are gonna do what they want.
Personally, I'm not even sure the existing planeswalker commanders are a good thing for the game. Teferi, Temporal Archmage lends itself to some really unfun-to-play-against stax/superfriends builds, including one I saw a few months ago which resulted in the single most miserable Commander game I've ever played in. Saheeli, the Gifted is a very good card in any deck that would want her, and though I play her in two different decks (Brudiclad and Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain), I don't think I could make myself play her as a general because she would just be too freaking broken. Her second +1 ability is highly situational, but that's true of a lot of powerful cards, and across both of these decks, I am pretty sure I have won the game 80% of the time on the same turn I cast her and activated that ability. Having that capacity from the command zone is just bonkers.
Not only that, no one has yet to come up with a reasonable qualification as to where the line should be drawn for what to ban and what not to ban. I don't envy anyone who has to traverse that debate. There are some obvious options, but there's plenty of not so obvious options that are eminently abusable. I just think adding them pushes games in directions in ways that aren't appealing to me - defensive, passive, non-interactive combo machines.
The answer is none. You wouldn't have to ban a single PW even if they were all allowed as a commander. PWs are inherently terrible in EDH, and they get worse with each opponent you add. They're jokes. If you think Ugin is the best thing you can be doing in your Command Zone, clearly you aren't paying attention.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I understand that many Planeswalkers would be broken in repeatable form, but even if almost half of them had to be banned, I think that going forward, allowing all Planeswalkers to be allowed as Commander as a default, and banned if they become problematic, would be spectacular for the depth of fun and capacity for innovation within this format.
When I saw the preview of the new Domri today, my excitement was matched only by my disappointment that I would not be able to run him as a Commander.
If, beyond a simple ban list, more global methods of reducing the toxicity of their recursion proved necessary, you could even alter the rules so that they, say, enter the battlefield with fewer loyalty counters each time. Or maybe the Commander tax could be increased from 2. There are ways around this. I believe the idea of playing as a Planeswalker is simply too amazing, and too intrinsically tied to what this game is all about, to reject the idea out-of-hand.
Commander 2014 was proof-of-concept. I understand that many Planeswalkers—JtMS and Elspeth come to mind immediately—would have to be banned. But I think that cultivating a ban list that expands the format in this fashion without breaking the game is well within this community's purview, and that it would be a shame if such a culmination of everything Magic was envisioned as were never even explored.
I don't see how it adds, personally. It's a flavour point, but we already have PW commanders in a variety of combinations, so what are we really adding?
- Ugin would be busted 100%. So would Karn. Brown does not in any way struggle for fast mana - Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Metalworker, Ancient Tomb, tron, Mana Vault.....there's already a comprehensive decklist for Kozilek, Butcher of Truth in the decklist forum that can reliably land a T3 Kozi. Ugin would be a lock out. Add in Rings of Brighthearth to either Ugin or Karn and I wouldn't even bother sitting down at that table.
- Tezzeret, the Seeker would be another Arcum, too - easy to bust wide open like a ripe U watermelon.
- Does anyone actually think it'd be fun sitting across from Ajani Vengeant's ultimate? Or Sorin Markov's? Or Dovin Baan's? Teferi, Temporal Archmage and Venser, the Sojourner, too.
- Does anyone think Doubling Season, Rings of Brighthearth and proliferate cards need to actually be used more than they are, or cost more than they do?
If it's that big of a deal, talk to your meta and make it happen. The only walkers I see not being busted are the ones that are kind of lame anyway, so why bother? You already have the option of precon walkers, flip walkers, battlebond walkers and superfriends. I just don't see any pros and I see a lot of cons.
Just ban Ugin, Karn, Teferi x 2 and a few others and go from there.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
A few thoughts...
I think it would suck to see Ugin get banned because I really think "Banned As Commander" should still exist.
Dack Fayden seems to me like the one that would be most annoying. You are basically quadrupling your chances at getting fast mana in the first 3 turns.
Realistically...
I think that most of the Commander PWs are somewhat weaker than the ones we see in Standard. They usually have some marginally useful abilities and ultimates that do not win the game. Of course, there are some exceptions.
I think this is the main issue. So many of the existing ultimates win the game. Imagine being able to build your whole deck around Sorin, Solemn Visitor so you can ultimate him. Or how about Kiora, the Crashing Wave? I would just build those decks with as many mass bounce/removal spells as possible because I know that when the emblem comes down my opponents are going to fall way behind.
I don't think it is particularly fun to have decks that are just trying to stall a few turns so they can win the game with their commander.
There are few legendary creatures that win the game by themselves. They have largely been banned.
I think it is doable, but I think it will be like what you proposed... that a large number of them get banned. And since the RC doesn't want a banned as commander list, that means that people won't be able to play with all kinds of fun planeswalkers.
I would be interested in seeing it tested, but I also think testing will show it leads to a worse magic experience.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I run a Nissa, Vastwood Seer deck at present. I've seen people do Nissa tribal, elf tribal, enchantress and I play pseudo-control. So what's different about Nissa Revane? That ultimate. Yeah, it's busted. I get what you want, I just think it's outweighed by a whole lot of finagling to make sure people don't get carried away, and this one is definitely on the list of walkers people will try to bust wide open.
Kozilek, the Great Distortion wants you to have a look at his Null Brooch. Colorless has plenty of options, dude. I ran OG Kozi as a 75% build and my meta asked me to pull it apart. You're welcome to not believe that brown is quick and strong, but if the pieces are there it does just fine.
End of the day, there's a lot of hoops needed to jump through to make this happen. The more hoops, the less feasible it is. As much as, from a flavour and theme point of view I agree that walkers would be great commander options, the feasibility of making it happen renders it extremely unlikely to happen any time soon, and I'm glad of that personally.
If I had my way, planeswalker commanders would never have happened. I see no reason to ever allow more.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
This is how I feel about it. There are many Planeswalkers I don't care to see in the Command Zone, and a good chunk of them would need banned.
As an aside, frankly most of the spinoffs of Commander like Tiny Leaders and Brawl are not great game play and there is a reason they are all but forgotten sans a very tiny, dedicated player base. With that said, they shouldn't be used as examples of "Well X works in Y so it should be fine."
P.S. They stopped marketing Magic as the players being two powerful sorcerers and/or Planeswalkers dueling it out a long, long time ago.
(Also known as Xenphire)
This... is awful logic. Let's get a bunch of people to trade for or buy cards with the caveat that we may very well just go ahead and decide it was a bad idea? No... just no.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Its amazing how many things you can justify with that statement that probably should not be done. The current pool of planeswalkers are known to us and we have had the ability to play them in games of commander. It is known to us how those cards work in the 99 and its not that far of a stretch to apply "if this was a commander" to them. We really aren't talking about something revolutionary here.
Most of the planeswalkers who would be broken in commander are the ones that have big - effects that tend to be one shot effects or expend themselves heavily the first turn after they are cast. These planeswalkers would be like having wraths, theft, tutors, etc in the command zone in a way that tends to not really be healthy for the game. Generally speaking, the planeswalkers that are already very good in commander would be the ones I would be fearful of in the command zone. Most of the ones that are so so or bad already in the 99 probably wouldn't be a huge problem if it changed with I guess the slight variance of constant availability and being able to curve them possibly giving them a bump.
I really can't imagine not needing to ban a few planeswalkers if that went through. Banning more cards is reason enough for me to not want it and I can't imagine allowing all of them and not needing to ban a few.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Making small rules exceptions to allow a few but not all seems like a lot of work and a rule to allow that would also feel kind of messy if you ask me. Most of those original five planeswalkers are incredibly bad too with Garruk being probably the only halfway decent one among them and even then I don't know how much anyone is really excited about the concept of planeswalker commanders to try to play any of the original five.
Those five are also not at all my concern when it comes to allowing planeswalkers as commanders. I for kicks started going through planeswalkers to see which ones I would be highly annoyed with and had a list of something like 10 planeswalkers by the time I got halfway through the entire list of playable walkers. If you wan't I can compile a list of the ones I feel would be annoying either from a power level, immediate impact from the command zone, or the way in which they would push games in which they were the commander into.
In the end, almost every time I see or look at planeswalker commanders they tend to be defensive decks that end up slowing games down as they tend to have some focus in protecting the commander which I am not a fan of.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
If they were to be allowed, it would lead to significant increases in the banlist, and possible reintroduction of 'banned as a commander'. As a firm believer in 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and minimal micromanagement from the RC, I'm against it. There are far too many qualifiers needed for this to happen, and not enough benefits to justify them.
Which would be interesting in my opinion to see.
Indeed they tend to be defensive as that is how they are designed. Before planeswalkers, it was buildings that the player protected/attacked.
I would be personally more worried about other green planeswalkers that have an effect stronger than a reusable overrun.
I personally disagree with the phrase, mostly because b-a-c existed before and then got removed.
I run a flip-walker EDH deck, and I'm happy with that - it's powerful, but not over the top, and it's power comes from the cards it plays, not abusing the walker in the command zone. I don't want to face down Teferi, Hero Of Dominaria or Ugin, the Spirit Dragon, because they're strong enough without permanent access to them. Even something like Vraska the Unseen would feel bad, because it's as easy as running Whispersilk Cloak and Rogue's Passage. Ral Zarek - how many turns do you want to take in a row with Krark's Thumb? And these aren't even top tier walkers, they're just middle of the road with a neat ultimate. And there's no way you can say 'don't worry, we won't abuse them', because people will. It's inevitable.
Not only that, no one has yet to come up with a reasonable qualification as to where the line should be drawn for what to ban and what not to ban. I don't envy anyone who has to traverse that debate. There are some obvious options, but there's plenty of not so obvious options that are eminently abusable. I just think adding them pushes games in directions in ways that aren't appealing to me - defensive, passive, non-interactive combo machines.
Apologies, but there's a lot to chime in on from my perspective, so I'm going to bullet point them, and hope references won't be a problem.
1. "Lorwyn 5 introduction"
What you're proposing is a lot of work, which is strike one there. Quite frankly, being the safest would also likely mean they are the least exciting, which would mean that barely anyone(aside from a niche group) would bother playing them, which leads to lack of feedback. But even so, let's look at what abilities could be stretched since they are 'on-demand': Ajani has lifegain and permanent anthem, Garruk has untap 2 and beast generation, Lili has semi-tutor and discard, Chandra has...burn, and Jace has hug draw and personal draw.
Out of those, Lili, Garruk and Jace are the ones that could be EASILY abused, and in fact are in colors that benefit greatly from those effects...moreso if they are repeatable and on-demand. Ajani and Chandra are extremely 'eh'(which pains me to admit because Ajani was my first PW), but three out of five is concerning to start. Add in that aside from Lili, they're cheap to repeatedly cast, and...I see problems, even from my limited viewpoint.
2. "ISB's list"
Obviously, that's between you and ISB, but I will say I too am interested in giving that a read ISBPathfinder.
3. "Superfriend defense and before PWs, buildings"
Not everyone WANTS to fight through a defensive deck, only to have their work mean absolutely nothing because the planeswalker went off. I hate superfriend decks with a passion precisely BECAUSE all they need to do is throw up enough walls and blocks to make the rest of the game trivially simple. I would loathe and outright detest seeing any of the 'non-Commander' planeswalkers staring at me from across the table, flipping the bird because they're letting me know the game is on a clock...every chance they can get cast.
On your second point, huh? I've played MTG since fourth edition, and I don't remember defending buildings or anything except yourself.
3. "Worse things than a repeatable Overrun"
But it's not something to be ignored either. If a person is able to repeatedly swell their ranks every couple of turns, that repeatable Overrun suddenly turns a close game into a very bad day. Think of the last time you played a game where one guy had the right card to a situation over and over and over again. Similar situation...most often, all they need are bodies; Garruk will do the rest. Multiply this scenario by however many planeswalkers are a concern; all you need is X, [PW] will provide the Y. Honestly, that removes part(not all, I admit) of the challenge of deckbuilding as well; less need for protection for your PW, because it won't be affected by stuff like wraths or a lot of targeted destruction.
4. "BaC =/= 'not broke, don't fix it"
I can't really chime in on this too well, so I'll be brief: BaC was met with some grumbling. Some creatures were reportedly fine in the 99, and this provided some flexibility in that regard. I can understand the RC's reasoning on it, but note that this was done with a lot of discussion and thought, which led to it's dissolution. I really don't think that said discussion and thought will lead to relaxing the rule of, "Commander must be a legendary creature."
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
What people are forgetting is how absolutely pathetically weak to pithing needle effects commanders are. Revoker, needle, spyglass, etc. We need a few more of those effects and a few more removal options.
It's taken a long time for the state of removal to catch up to the power of walkers, and I think they are close. More hero's downfall, dreadbore, trophy type effects are needed.
-------
Name a walker more busted than Derevi, Zur, Arcum, existing Teferi walker, Sisay, etc. There really are not any that are even close in power level except Tezzeret.
The more I think about it it might be OK now, but I'd really like to see a few more hate cards.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Another thing I think needs to happen is Doubling Season and Proliferate interactions need to be fixed. Simple matter of saying "loyalty is loyalty not loyalty counters."
Change has been a long time coming and would fix a lot of the nonsense likely to happen.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Honestly, I was stunned when I realised emblems could not be interacted with. I think it was a mistake personally, but WotC are gonna do what they want.