2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • 1

    posted a message on Paradox Engine
    I am pleased with this banning. I will be glad to remove Paradox Engine from the decks which currently use it.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • 3

    posted a message on Despark
    Great commander card, and an uncommon!
    Posted in: Despark
  • 1

    posted a message on London Mulligan
    Quote from cryogen »
    Turn one Sol Ring probably probably went up a bit.


    Again, not seeing the upside here.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • 1

    posted a message on Tolarian Academy
    Personally, I think unbanning Metalworker was a bit of a mistake, but unbanning the Academy would be vastly worse, because it is a lot easily to completely break TA than it is Metalworker. Onering's points are spot-on.

    This could produce obscene amounts of mana in my Jhoira deck if it came down early, and even though my Brudiclad and Rashmi decks aren't quite optimized for it, it would still be easily the best land in either of those decks.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • 1

    posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    I see Paradox Engine often in the local metagame, though not quite as much as was the case a few months ago. Some of the more spikey players have moved on to other busted decks, and some of the more casual players have taken PE out of some of their decks (as I have also done), or possibly even all of them. That said, most players I know who have one or more copies of PE and who keep more than one or two decks built at a time seem to have at least one deck that runs PE and can go nuts with it, so, again, I see it on a pretty regular basis. Like, at least once every time I play, which is a lot more than I see Rings of Brighthearth, for example. I see PE show up in a fairly wide range of decks that can just use it for a fair amount of value, but most often you see it in the sorts of decks which are themselves perfectly fine decks but which can easily break PE, things like artifact decks or token decks which also run mana dorks and Cryptolith Rite. And that is my continued problem with the card. You really don't have to build around it much at all to make it entirely broken. You just have to run things which are already good in your deck. This makes it different from most other combo pieces. Green or G/X creature or token-based decks often run mana elves and land untappers and Cryptolith Rite, and lots of decks run a lot of mana rocks. Kozilek decks and Sisay decks (which can fetch PE) become even more insane just by adding this card to their existing build.

    On the positive side, pretty much everyone in the local meta who has been playing for more than a few months now also recognizes Paradox Engine as a "kill on sight" card.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • 1

    posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    I tend to avoid infinite combos in my deck, so when I go off with Paradox Engine, it doesn't tend to be an "I win" combo so much as I use topdeck manipulation and chain together draw spells until I draw into one of the deck's various win conditions. As a result, things can sometimes take awhile, depending on my board state at the time and how long it takes to draw into a win condition, kind of like what Pokken refers to as "functionally comboing in a nondeterministic way." Usually I can win on the round I cast Paradox Engine, but that round might take awhile. The result is not exactly durdling, but not a great game state, either. This is not atypical of what I see when less competitive/combo-oriented players run Paradox Engine.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • 3

    posted a message on Commander Damage Discussion Thread

    I agree, current commander damage rules aren't optimal, but changing them could end up being a major clusterf*ck.
    Especially accumulated commander damage from different commanders... Person A hits Person B for 15-commander damage with Person C swinging in for a tiny sum still killing? Getting close with Rafiq of the Many just to see something like Sir Shandlar of Eberyn (i'm exagerating, i now) finishing the job by pure happenstance would be a huge feel bad.


    I would personally laugh my ass off to see Sir Shandlar kill anyone ever. Not exactly relevant to your point, but still.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • 1

    posted a message on Combatting Ramp
    In a social game, people want to be able to play.

    Vandalblast to blow up everyone's rocks? They use their lands to cast more rocks and other stuff and keep playing.

    Wrath effects to zap all the creatures? Players use lands to cast more creatures and other stuff, the game moves on.

    Blow up all the lands? Most of the players, save those (including, non-coincidentally, the one who played the MLD) who are prepared for this, draw cards hoping to draw into something that might put them back into the game. Most of the time they draw and go. Even if they draw a land, they mostly draw and go until they do that a couple of times. The game crawls to the stall, unless the MLD guy can pull off a win pretty much immediately.

    People who don't see the difference in these conditions either should play only with people who like the same thing, or maybe just stick to playing competitive formats. Or playing with themselves, I suppose.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • 3

    posted a message on Combatting Ramp
    People don't need to just accept that MLD is okay, because among some groups of players, it isn't okay. Part of the social aspect of the game is that people can make their own judgments about such things. If a group of players doesn't want MLD to be a part of the game - which is very common - they aren't wrong for feeling that way. That's why communication about expectations is good.

    At the game shop where I most often play EDH, there is a fairly large group of players who are less competitive, and a smaller but very active group of players into a more competitive version of the format. The cEDH people are cool with MLD, hard stax, fast combo and so forth. The other players mostly tend to not be into those things. Neither group is wrong, they just have different preferences and different expectations as to what they want their games to be like. It works best if the more cEDH people play with likeminded players, and the less competitive players also play with more likeminded players. The guy who brings the MLD or the Stasis lock deck to play with the less competitive players is not really following the social contract.

    Also, again, the idea that MLD really controls ramp well is largely fallacious. MLD is a control strategy, focused on limiting resources. I have a friend who calls MLD "lazy stax." It attempts to do a lot of what stax decks do, but in an easier manner and one harder for most decks to interact with.

    Those who advocate for MLD aren't really so much wanting to control ramp so much as they are advocating for a more competitive version of the game which allows them to utilize a strategy not favored by the majority of the format's players to control the board in a manner favorable to the way they have designed their decks. That's fine that they want that, but it's also fine that most of the player base doesn't want that.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • 1

    posted a message on Most fun commander?


    Big props for Gishath. No, he's not good in cEDH. That strikes me as a feature, not a bug.

    In my opinion, if a big stompy dinosaur deck doesn't have a place at the table, then maybe you should be playing Vintage, Legacy or Modern rather than Commander.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.