Here's a thought: Charge us an annual fee. It seems that most here would rather stay on MTGSalvation, and if it means we need to pay a few dollars to keep it alive it seems like a better option than the forums dying.
Reminds me of when IMDB closed its boards. We need somewhere to go but there won't be an option that is good enough.
-
- Dunharrow
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years
Last active Wed, May, 18 2022 22:39:22
- 1 Follower
- 2,303 Total Posts
- 405 Thanks
So basically, you need 5 colours.
I would use Jodah. He is 5 colours, flies, and has some utility.
It has been a solid year that I only get alerts on 1/10 things that are supposed to generate alerts. I made a complaint and have heard nothing since.
I am looking forward to the new site and to having the Mods also be the people responsible for making the site all we want it to be.
If you have issues with the font and the UI maybe you can specifically mention the issues and they can work on them. I am also not huge on the font and would like to be able to change it to something else.
I wish there was a way for me to put all these creatures into play under my opponents' control.
will have to get into the habit of checking it
Will try to post any new threads there for sure.
Play a lot of two-card infinite mana combos. Probably all of them.
Aggressively tutor for Urborg to make big black mana better.
Ideally, you want to include Palinchron since it can go infinite with a lot of lands that tap for multiple mana.
This is not a 75% deck. This is going to be cEDH or 90%. There is nothing about this deck that is fair, the only thing that differentiates the power level will be the number of tutors and the number of free counterspells you run.
1. Necro an old Commander thread
2. Talk about Legacy
I don't know what to tell you. Play the foils you like best. If you can't afford to foil out the hold deck, then don't waste your money foiling out part of the deck.
Honestly, foiling out expensive cards is something I rarely do. I prefer to foil out jank commons that are EDH all-stars.
Cloudstone Curio doesn't combo with artifacts. Urza only taps artifacts. I don't see how this works.
There are plenty of infinite mana combos, even without PE.
I use it in two decks.
Phenax uses it to mill opponents - kinda like Intruder alarm.
Maelstrom Wanderer is competitive and can use it to combo, but main use is being able to activate Crystal Shard and Tradewind Rider multiple times per turn.
Honestly, what is meant by 'commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card.' Not all decks are political decks. What is being suggested here? Don't be too competitive? I am sorry, but for the entirety of my experience playing magic, I have never met someone with the same idea of what is too competitive.
Is me assembling a 6-card combo too competitive?
Is playing Winter Orb and Auriok Transfixer too competitive?
I understand the philosophy of commander - but the document itself should be a lot longer if it aims to be a guide for how to build in commander.
Instead, the only specifics in the document are about banning criteria, and we are told not to focus on them. Okay.
Where would you like me to focus? Give me something tangible.
If it were up to me, I would have said:
Commander seeks to increase game-to-game variability by being a 100-card singleton format. Cards that lead to repetitive game play, such as tutors, are not in the spirit of the format.
2-card combos that win the game on the spot are also not highly desirable, as it gives the sensation of winning out of nowhere. As such, easy to assemble combos are not in the spirit of the format.
Something similar about stax and MLD
etc.
etc.
With these guidelines in mind, we suggest that prior to every game of commander with players you do not know, you ask if their decks run: Tutors, combos, stax, mld. This is suggested to be part of the social guidelines to make sure that commander games are fun and social experiences.
I think it was a mistake to also ban two cards on the same day as the document was released, since the focus is on the banning criteria and not the philosophy.
The Philosophy document should be the focus, but it isn't, because most of it is about reasons for banning cards. Ban criteria should be a small part of the document. An important part, mind you - not one we should just ignore.
I was very hopeful about the CAG, but right now I am just kinda bummed because I feel like we have gotten the same amount of clarity as we had before (that is, barely any).
Instead of being told I am focusing on the wrong part, I would like to have an interactive discussion. I would like to know why the RC considers T&N fair game but not PE. 'Because the RC said so' is frustratingly unclear.
"Play nice" is very far from a structured commander philosophy.
Let's say I interpret this as 'maybe I should cut my Reveillark combos'.
And you interpret it as 'I should not play Eater of the Dead in Phenax'
But then player 3 looks at this and says 'I will cut stasis and winter orb and put Dead-Eye Navigator and Palinchron instead'.
I am actually very disappointed by the philosophy document. It is very vague... so instead of thinking about it philosophically, all we can discuss is the criteria for banning cards.
What other reasons were Paradox Engine banned for? This was the only thing mentioned, and also that doesn't require very specific deckbuilding. Isn't Tooth and Nail in the same boat?
Biorhythm, CV and Worldfire interact poorly with the rules of the format.
That was not one of criteria on the list. I understand it is not a checklist, but that is also not a criteria for banning - it just tipped the scale.
I would say that T&N also just has for incentive cards that you are already incentivized to play - mana and impactful creatures.
If PE is banned then it seems to me that there are other cards that also seemingly win out of nowhere with minimal deckbuilding restraints. I think T&N is obvious. I think Expropriate is probably close.
I understand that Doomsday is not played enough to be in the same conversation - that there is a consideration for how much a card is played - and I am not saying any of the cards I mentioned need to be banned. It just seems to me that PE is really the only card to be banned solely based on this one criteria, and that it ought to warrant discussion about other cards that play similarly to PE.
Do you believe the banning of Paradox Engine 'because it seemingly wins out of nowhere' is consistent with previous bannings or if it is an indication of a newer philosophy?
I believe that the second point is not one that has been enforced since Coalition Victory (though Biorythm probably hits this and 'interacts poorly with the rules of commander').
However, the second point was the main cause for Paradox Engine's banning:
It would seem that it was banned for providing easy wins out of nowhere, but that also considered was the fact that it required little deck building focus - it could go into many decks.
I would like to discuss this because I believe this is the first banning of a card for this reason since the banlist was originally conceived, and because I think it opens the door for other cards to be considered for banning.
What cards do you think should now be examined for similar reasons?