Second Annual MTGNexus Commander Climate Survey

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 950
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 7 months ago

It's been approximately one year since I ran my first climate survey (which you can find here). Now that everyone has had some time to digest a ban announcement and the C20 product, I thought it would be a good opportunity to see how things have changed over the course of a year.

I know that everyone around the world is going through rough times right now, so I want you to know that I appreciate taking the time to fill this out. Your input is valuable to help the Commander Advisory Group and Rules Committee have better discussions and make more informed decisions.

Feel free to use this thread for feedback about the survey as well as discussion about the results. You can also ping me on Twitter if you wish, using #NexusSurvey.

Link to survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... A/viewform


=====================RESULTS (as of 6/29 with 1,156 responses=====================


Question 1: What to unban (1,108 responses)
Show
Do not unban any cards - 170 votes 15.3%
Ancestral Recall - 29 votes 2.6%
Balance - 118 votes 10.6%
Biorhythm - 252 votes 22.7%
Black Lotus - 21 votes 1.9%
Braids, Cabal Minion - 290 votes 26.2%
Channel - 25 votes 2.3%
Chaos Orb - 23 votes 2.1%
Coalition Victory - 407 votes 36.7%
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn - 170 votes 15.3%
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant - 76 votes 6.9%
Falling Star - 33 votes 3%
Fastbond - 47 votes 4.2%
Flash - 59 votes 5.3%
Gifts Ungiven - 249 votes 22.5%
Griselbrand - 140 votes 12.6%
Iona, Shield of Emeria - 265 votes 23.9%
Karakas - 61 votes 5.5%
Leovold, Emmisary of Trest - 119 votes 10.7%
Library of Alexandria - 84 votes 7.6%
Limited Resources - 59 votes 5.3%
Lutri, the Spellchaser - 197 votes 17.8%
Mox Emerald - 29 votes 2.6%
Mox Jet - 30 votes 2.7%
Mox Pearl - 34 votes 3.1%
Mox Ruby - 31 votes 2.8%
Mox Sapphire - 31 votes 2.8%
Panoptic Mirror - 131 votes 11.8%
Paradox Engine - 314 votes 28.3%
Primeval Titan - 225 votes 20.3%
Prophet of Kruphix - 186 votes 16.8%
Recurring Nightmare - 205 votes 18.5%
Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary - 194 votes 17.5%
Shahrazad - 27 votes 2.4%
Sway of the Stars - 102 votes 9.2%
Sundering Titan - 167 votes 15.1%
Sylvan Primordial - 158 votes 14.3%
Time Vault - 17 votes 1.5%
Time Walk - 18 votes 1.8%
Tinker - 89 votes 8%
Tolarian Academy - 106 votes 9.6%
Trade Secrets - 58 votes 5.2%
Upheaval - 79 votes 7.1%
Worldfire - 159 votes 14.4%
Yawgmoth's Bargain - 96 votes 8.7%
Question 2: What to ban (1,025 responses) - Note: list shortened to only include responses greater than 1%
Show
Do not ban any additional cards 357 votes, 34.8%
Cyclonic Rift - 165 votes, 16.1%
Mana Crypt - 154 votes, 15%
Thassa's Oracle - 132 votes, 12.9%
Sol Ring - 131 votes, 12.8%
Gaea's Cradle - 101 votes, 9.9%
Demonic Consultation - 79 votes, 7.7%
The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale - 77 votes, 7.5%
Winter Orb - 77 votes, 7.1%
Expropriate - 70 votes, 6.8%
Mana Vault - 70 votes, 6.8%
Protean Hulk - 52 votes 5.1%
Timetwister 51 votes, 5%
Stasis - 49 votes 4.8%
Ad Nauseam - 47 votes 4.6%
Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger - 43 votes, 4.2%
Tainted Pact - 41 votes, 4%
Mishra's Workshop - 38 votes, 3.7%
Food Chain - 38 votes, 3.7%
Urza, Lord High Artificer - 37 votes, 3.6%
Bazaar of Baghdad - 35 votes, 3.4%
Demonic Tutor - 30 votes, 2.9%
Narset, Parter of Veils - 29 votes, 2.8%
Deadeye Navigator - 29 votes, 2.8%
Mana Drain - 29 votes, 2.8%
Isochron Scepter - 28 votes, 2.7%
Doomsday - 27 votes, 2.6%
Laboratory Maniac - 26 votes, 2.5%
Vampiric Tutor - 26 votes, 2.5%
Craterhoof Behemoth - 24 votes, 2.3%
Imperial Seal - 24 votes, 2.3%
Doubling Season - 24 votes, 2.3%
Blightsteel Colossus - 24 votes, 2.3%
Grim Monolith - 23 votes, 2.2%
Derevi, EmpyrialTactician - 22 votes, 2.1%
Metalworker - 22 votes, 2.1%
Serra Ascendent - 21 votes, 2%
Tooth and Nail - 21 votes, 2%
Nexus of Fate - 21 votes, 2%
Painter's Servant - 20 votes, 2%
Basalt Monolith - 20 votes, 2%
Omniscience - 20 votes, 2%
Time Stretch - 20 votes, 2%
Hermit Druid - 19 votes, 1.9%
Jace, Wielder ofMysteries - 17 votes, 1.7%
Consecrated Sphinx - 16 votes, 1.6%
Enlightened Tutor - 16 votes, 1.6%
Survival of the Fittest - 16 votes, 1.6%
Ancient Tomb - 16 votes, 1.6%
Felidar Sovereign - 16 votes, 1.6%
Mystical Tutor - 14 votes, 1.4%
Triumph of the Hordes - 14 votes, 1.4%
Dramatic Reversal - 12 votes, 1.2%
Worldly Tutor - 11 votes, 1.1%
Enter the Infinite - 11 votes, 1.1%
Palinchron - 11 votes, 1.1%
Question 3: Overall, how satisfied are you with the ban list as it currently is? (1,139 responses)
Show
Very satisfied - 347 votes, 30.5%
Somewhat satisfied - 516 votes, 45.3%
Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied - 129 votes, 11.3%
Somewhat unsatisfied - 97 votes, 8.5%
Very unsatisfied - 50 votes, 4.4%
Question 4: Commander damage should be... (1,140 responses)
Show
Left at 21 points of combat damage per player (no change) - 809 votes, 71%
Increased - 7 votes, 0.6%
Decreased - 45 votes, 3.9%
Cumulative among all generals with a higher total - 96 votes, 8.4%
Cumulative among all generals with a 21 point total - 120 votes, 10.5%
Cumulative among all generals with a lower total - 2 votes, 0.2%
Removed altogether - 49 votes, 4.3%
Question 5: The starting life total should be... (1,135 responses)
Show
Left at 40 life - 940 responses, 82.8%
Decreased to 30 life - 177 responses, 15.6%
Increased to 50 life - 11 responses, 1%
Question 6: Infect should be... (1,140 responses)
Show
Left at 10 points - 794 votes, 69.6%
Increased to 15 points - 176 votes, 15.4%
Increased to 20 points - 150 votes, 13.2%
Infect should be banned altogether - 10 votes - 0.9%
Question 7: The color identity rule should be... (1,135 responses) (participants could vote for more than one option)
Show
Left alone (no change to current rule) - 627 votes, 55.2%
Stricter to ban flavorfully off-color cards - 134 votes, 11.8%
Loosened to include off-color hybrid mana - 359 votes, 31.6%
Loosened to allow off-color transform cards - 173 votes, 15.2%
Loosened to allow off-color mana producing cards - 120 votes, 10.6%
Loosened to allow off-color Devoid cards - 82 votes, 7.2%
Stricter to give Extort a w/b color identity - 81 votes, 7.1%
Question 8: How should "wish" effects function in Commander? (1,139 responses)
Show
Keep the current rule (they do not function) - 528 votes, 46.4%
Create a wishboard of a fixed size - 281 votes, 24.7 votes
Let them pull any card from your collection - 43 votes, 3.8%
Let them pull cards from exile - 109 votes, 9.6%
I don't have a strong option about wishes - 150 votes, 13.2%
Question 9: The Commander "dies trigger" rule... (1,140 responses)
Show
I am happy with this change - 846 votes, 74.2%
I preffered the old rule (replacement effect preventing a dies trigger) - 114 votes, 10%
I have no opinion on this change yet - 180 votes, 15.8%
Question 10: The "tuck" rule should... (1,137 responses)
Show
Stay removed - 800 votes, 70.4%
Brought back - 119 votes, 10.5%
I am indifferent to this change - 218 votes, 19.2%
Question 11: The "Banned as a Commander" list... (1, 135 responses)
Show
Should remain gone - 538 votes, 47.4%
Should be brought back - 597 votes, 52.6%
Question 12: Planeswalkers as Commanders should be... (1,135 responses)
Show
Kept how it currently is - 740 votes, 65.2%
Changed to legalize all planeswalkers as commanders - 320 votes, 28.2%
Changed to ban all planeswalkers as commanders - 75 votes, 6.6%
Question 13: Un-cards should be... (1,134 responses)
Show
Kept how it currently is (not legal) - 879 votes, 77.5%
Legalize some cards - 179 votes, 15.8%
Legalize all cards and let local groups ban individual cards - 76 votes, 6.7%
Question 14: The Partner mechanic... (1,140 responses)
Show
I like 'partner' and 'partner with' equally - 444 votes, 38.9%
I prefer the open-ended 'partner' mechanic (e.g. Vial Smasher the Fierce) - 209 votes, 18.3%
I prefer the 'partner with' mechanic (e.g. Toothy, Imaginary Friend) - 396 votes - 34.7%
I do not like partner commanders - 91 votes, 8%
Question 15: The Eminence mechanic... (1,132 responses)
Show
I liked this mechanic and want it to return more often - 284 votes, 25.1%
It was strong but I would like to see it return if not as powerful - 477 votes, 42.1%
I did not like this mechanic and don't want it to return - 371 votes, 32.8%
Question 16: How did you like tying the C20 Commander precons to a Standard set this year? (1,136 responses)
Show
It was neat and I'd like to see more of it - 365 votes, 32.1%
It was ok but I would prefer it done less frequently - 450 votes, 39.6%
I did not like it and prefer the more open-ended style decks that are tied to themes - 321 votes, 28.3%
Question 17: Overall, how satisfied are you with the rules as they currently exist? (1,140 responses)
Show
Extremely satisfied - 379 votes, 33.2%
Moderately satisfied - 557 votes, 48.9%
Somewhat satisfied - 122 votes, 10.7%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied - 33 votes, 2.9%
Somewhat dissatisfied - 26 votes, 2.3%
Moderately dissatisfied - 13 votes, 1.1%
Extremely dissatisfied - 10 votes, 0.9%
Question 18: Overall, how satisfied are you with the addition of the Commander Advisory Group (CAG) the format? (1,136 responses)
Show
Extremely satisfied - 392 votes, 34.5%
Moderately satisfied - 286 votes, 25.2%
Somewhat satisfied - 121 votes, 10.7%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied - 241 votes, 21.2%
Somewhat dissatisfied - 36 votes, 3.2%
Moderately dissatisfied - 28 votes, 2.5%
Extremely dissatisfied - 32 votes, 2.8%
Question 19: What amount of input do you feel Wizards of the Coast should have in managing the format? (1,140 responses)
Show
No input at all - 312 votes, 27.4%
A little input - 512 votes, 44.9%
A decent amount of input - 202 votes, 17.7 votes
A lot of input - 33 votes, 2.9%
Wizards should take full control of the format - 81 votes, 7.1%
Question 20: How well do you feel like your voice is heard by the RC and/or CAG? (1,127 responses)
Show
1 (not at all or I do not attempt to communicate with them) - 233 votes, 20.7%
2 - 44 votes, 3.9%
3 - 108 votes, 9.6%
4 - 81 votes, 7.2%
5 - 137 votes, 12.2%
6 - 116 votes, 10.3%
7 - 144 votes, 12.8%
8 - 160 votes, 14.2%
9 - 54 votes, 4.8%
10 - 50 votes, 4.4%
Question 21: For how long have you been playing Commander? (1,140 responses)
Show
Less than one year - 56 votes, 4.9%
One to three years - 299 votes, 26.2%
Three to five years - 267 votes, 23.4%
Five to eight years - 222 votes, 19.5%
Commander? Don't you mean EDH? - 296 votes, 26%
Question 22: How many decks do you currently have built? (1,138 responses)
Show
0-1 - 28 votes, 2.5%
2-4 - 264 votes, 23.2%
5-7 - 330 votes, 29%
8-10 - 183 votes, 16.1%
11+ - 333 votes, 29.3%
Question 23: What is your average or preferred power level for play? (1,138 responses)
Show
1-2 - 3 votes, 0.3%
3-4 - 35 votes, 3.1%
5-6 - 386 votes, 33.9%
7-8 - 565 votes, 49.6%
9-10 - 149 votes, 13.1%
Question 24: Where is/was your primary place to play Commander (before COVID-19)?(1,139 responses)
Show
At home or a friend's house - 445 votes, 39.1%
At my LGS - 543 votes, 47.7%
At another public location - 111 votes, 9.7%
Paper online with a webcam - 16 votes, 1.4%
Digital online with a client such as MTGO - 24 votes, 2.1%
Question 25: On what continent do you currently live? (1,138 responses)
Show
North America - 842 votes, 74%
South America - 27 votes, 2.4%
Europe - 203 votes, 17.8%
Asia - 20 votes, 1.8%
Africa - 3 votes, 0.3%
Australia/Oceania - 43 votes, 3.8%
Question 26: What is you favorite Magic format besides Commander? (1,136 responses)
Show
Limited (draft or sealed) - 370 votes, 32.6%
Standard - 57 votes, 5%
Modern - 102 votes, 9%
Legacy - 70 votes, 6.2%
Vintage - 13 votes, 1.1%
Brawl - 25 votes, 2.2%
Canlander - 29 votes, 2.6%
Cube - 92 votes, 8.1%
Kitchen Table - 33 votes, 2.9%
Oathbreaker - 23 votes, 2%
Old School 93/94 - 4 votes, 0.4%
Pauper - 65 votes, 5.7%
Pioneer - 20 votes, 1.8%
There are other formats? - 197 votes, 17.3%
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
KitsuLeif
Posts: 144
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by KitsuLeif » 7 months ago

I don't have a strong option about wishes
Shouldn't it be "opinion"?
Expand Signature
Image Image

User avatar
Segrus
Posts: 184
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Segrus » 7 months ago

I do kinda feel like the power level you play at question would be better as a 'select all that apply' instead of choosing the average. I'm pretty much content to play a wide range of levels, so selecting the '5-6' option doesn't really express this. At the remote CommandFest this past weekend I was more or less prepared to play anything from 1 to 7 for example.

if4ko
Posts: 48
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: New England

Post by if4ko » 7 months ago

* I massively approve of the way the format's being run. It's much better than WOTC's mismanagement of one-sided power creep and bans to sell packs. I love the RC and the CAG (Shivam in particular has been a fantastic addition), and am a huge fan of the casual malleability of the format. I can go into my deck box and pull out a deck that can fit any table at any given time, and that's a beautiful thing.

* I approve of the death trigger change, and think it's long overdue. It was a stupid rule anyway. I don't think it would cause any bans like the planeswalkers-as-commanders rule. Other than that, keep the rules the same. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

* I voted to free Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. From my POV, his ban has been a relic of the past that never made it off because of inertia. Power creep in ramp, especially with commanders like Selvala, Heart of the Wilds, Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath, Chulane, Teller of Tales, and Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy has made it safe for him to come off. Even with a strong mana engine in the command zone I think it's safe to play him. The rest I don't particularly feel either way about.

* I'd like to see Thassa's Oracle banned. Non-interactive 'I win" buttons aren't fun. Non-interactive wincons that take 3 mana to win feel even worse. The most common ways I've seen Oracle (even at my LGS, which is around 75% to 90%) are in some degenerate combo-based deck. The other 10% have been me using Praetor's Grasp on an Oracle as my silver bullet. As the most vehement advocate for a Flash ban, I'm starting to realize the card died partially for Oracle's sins.

It's what pushed popular support for the Flash ban. Some in the community are arguing for a ban on things like Demonic Consultation and Tainted Pact, but those decks will shift to Hermit Druid or Dramatic Reversal // Isochron Scepter to draw the library and win with Oracle. I fully realize it's not going to happen and I'm not going to grab my pitchfork if it doesn't, but I'd figure I'd just throw in my two cents.

* I don't think there's enough commanders to unban for a Banned-As-Commander list. Half of the legends are banned for their impact outside of the command zone, and I'm against a Rofellos ban altogether. That leaves Braids and Leovold. Same with Banned-As-Companion, although I wouldn't care if you had Lutri in your command zone or your actual 99.

* It's an interesting change of pace to have the precons tied to worlds. I'm not really sure how I feel about it - I brought Gavi, Nest Warden as a low-powered deck to mess around with friends - but it's fine.

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

Overall I think the commander format is in a good spot. I really enjoy the death trigger change. My only big complaint is I would like how hybrid works changed since how it currently works is unnecessarily restrictive and goes against the intention of hybrid. I guess my small complaint is planeswalkers as commanders, but a lot of this has to do with about a quarter of the planeswalkers as commanders being just obnoxious to play against.

User avatar
Mookie
Posts: 1416
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 19
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: the æthereal plane

Post by Mookie » 7 months ago

Thanks for organizing a second round of this! Always interesting to see what data comes in, and to compare to my past opinions.

Various thoughts....
  • I'm still strongly against changing the color identity rules, especially with respect to hybrid. I would, however, be sort of okay with altering the rules to ignore the color indicators on the back sides of cards, since those are effectively flavor text anyway. (Archangel Avacyn // Avacyn, the Purifier would get nerfed as a result though, so ymmv)
  • Not a ton of things on the banlist that I would be happy to see come off - most of them are obnoxious cards. The one I would be sort of fine with is Panoptic Mirror, mostly because it takes an entire turn to get going (and there are more egregious things at this point in time). I was tempted to throw a vote in for Sundering Titan, but that would be entirely because I want to reanimate it with Sharuum the Hegemon, and not because I believe it would improve the format. :D
  • Re: new bans... as always, Mana Crypt and Mana Drain bug me, largely due to them being virtual autoincludes that are restricted only by price. They feel a bit too pay-to-win for me.
  • I'm fine with commander damage staying as-is, but I put in a vote for it being pooled among commanders (but at a higher total). Partially because I don't feel that the rule is relevant in the current state of affairs, but primarily because tracking it separately for every opponent is a pain, especially when the chance of it being relevant is so low. On the other hand, encouraging incidental beats with small commanders seems like a good addition.
  • I do miss the tuck rule, and would sort of like it to come back (see: the various complaints about Golos and other problematic commanders), but I also understand why it was removed. I do wish that Mindslaver effects were patched to further prevent commander loss though, if only for the sake of ideological consistency.
  • My other opinions are largely unchanged re: rules. Still against wishes and against planeswalkers-as-commander. I do have some yearning towards the days of yesteryear, before all the power creep though. I don't mind gradual power creep - it's a natural thing to happen in an eternal format - but it really feels like it ramped up in the last year or so.

User avatar
Segrus
Posts: 184
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Segrus » 7 months ago

Mookie wrote:
7 months ago
I was tempted to throw a vote in for Sundering Titan, but that would be entirely because I want to reanimate it with Sharuum the Hegemon, and not because I believe it would improve the format. :D
Having played Sundering Titan in a Sharuum deck before Titan got banned...it really was never fun for anybody. There was one game another player unintentionally milled it into my graveyard and the rest of the game became Titan stomps all the fun outta the table--even when I didn't have any purposeful aim/goal to do that. It just kinda took over because there was never a better play while people still had lands out.

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 950
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 7 months ago

KitsuLeif wrote:
7 months ago
I don't have a strong option about wishes
Shouldn't it be "opinion"?
Most likely. I'll make a note to change it for next year, but I'm afraid of messing up the data by making any edits now that it's live.
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 949
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 39
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 7 months ago

Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
That isn't really a Commander only rule but even more annoying would be that I, as the losing player, can't join another pod (or just go home) because you won't give me my card(s) back :pensive:

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 209
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 7 months ago

Thanks for putting this together. Unfortunately, all of the changes I would like to see rest at WotC, not with the RC/CAG. I voted infect for 20, but that's because I believe that all of the life based "things" should have errata to make them match the new template (e.g. Torgaar, Famine Incarnate and Anya, Merciless Angel). Infect, originally meant as "poison counters equal to half your starting life" should be updated to that wording in the CR, which would fix EDH for infect = 20.

By this reasoning, I wouldn't mind seeing Commander damage reworded to "Half of starting life +1" so that EDH variants using 30 or 60 (some 2HG EDH games) would have the commander damage auto-magically scale with the playgroup's interest.

Likewise, I voted a ban for Felidar Sovereign to imply the same reasoning; it should have errata to be "twice starting life" and a ban here might be a way to get WotC to pay attention to the older cards where their life requirements were set for 60-card/20-life magic (Serra Ascendant, Rune-Tail, Kitsune Ascendant // Rune-Tail's Essence, etc.).
Expand Signature
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

WizardMN wrote:
7 months ago
Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
That isn't really a Commander only rule but even more annoying would be that I, as the losing player, can't join another pod (or just go home) because you won't give me my card(s) back :pensive:
Well a simple and easy fix would just use something else to represent those things so you can go on your way. I mean it is not that different really than making a token copy of something and using some random token to represent the copy.

User avatar
TheAmericanSpirit
Human Smokestack
Posts: 262
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Under the chicken coop

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 7 months ago

Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
I'd hate such a change. I already ask people to keep any cards of mine taken with in game effects as close to me as possible and reasonable (never beyond arm reach) when playing outside of my trusted group, so you best believe my cardboard leaves when I do. It would only take one bad time with someone who won't return your legal %$#% property because of their stake in a kids' card game to sour me on that. Man, just imagining such a grubby, hypotehtical jerk has got me hot. "Hey, c'mon man, I'm only gonna need your $400 Gaea's cradle for another 15 minutes..." :fuming: :fuming: :fuming:

As far as I'm concerned, the opportunity cost of playing theft in multiplayer is losing stolen goods when their respective owner is out. Anything else is logistically untenable IMHO.

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
7 months ago
Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
I'd hate such a change. I already ask people to keep any cards of mine taken with in game effects as close to me as possible and reasonable (never beyond arm reach) when playing outside of my trusted group, so you best believe my cardboard leaves when I do. It would only take one bad time with someone who won't return your legal %$#% property because of their stake in a kids' card game to sour me on that. Man, just imagining such a grubby, hypotehtical jerk has got me hot. "Hey, c'mon man, I'm only gonna need your $400 Gaea's cradle for another 15 minutes..." :fuming: :fuming: :fuming:

As far as I'm concerned, the opportunity cost of playing theft in multiplayer is losing stolen goods when their respective owner is out. Anything else is logistically untenable IMHO.
Well like I said above, there is always proxy items for when you leave. If you are playing a theft deck it wouldn't be too much to ask to have some tokens and blank pieces of paper to write on. It doesn't have to be you keeping the physical card the entire game.

User avatar
TheAmericanSpirit
Human Smokestack
Posts: 262
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Under the chicken coop

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 7 months ago

Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
7 months ago
Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
I'd hate such a change. I already ask people to keep any cards of mine taken with in game effects as close to me as possible and reasonable (never beyond arm reach) when playing outside of my trusted group, so you best believe my cardboard leaves when I do. It would only take one bad time with someone who won't return your legal %$#% property because of their stake in a kids' card game to sour me on that. Man, just imagining such a grubby, hypotehtical jerk has got me hot. "Hey, c'mon man, I'm only gonna need your $400 Gaea's cradle for another 15 minutes..." :fuming: :fuming: :fuming:

As far as I'm concerned, the opportunity cost of playing theft in multiplayer is losing stolen goods when their respective owner is out. Anything else is logistically untenable IMHO.
Well like I said above, there is always proxy items for when you leave. If you are playing a theft deck it wouldn't be too much to ask to have some tokens and blank pieces of paper to write on. It doesn't have to be you keeping the physical card the entire game.
But for a lot of players, it would equate to "Gimme your property for an indeterminate amount of time because of rules". Look, I can appreciate that you seem to be considerate enough to bring additional gaming supplies to the table to make this work, but were the ruling formally changed, I doubt players such as yourself would constitute a majority of players with such theft effects.

Furthermore (albeit a rare and extreme example), griefers exist in EDH like they do in any game. Giving people already bent on sowing negativity additional leverage over the property of strangers is a really bad idea, even if it only happens once. (And I mean, I dunno about you, but I live in the American southeast and regularly play/travel accross the region and lemme tell you, one should not want to push the envelope on things like "property rights" in a place like Texas. My cousin's dentist over there goes around everyday with a colt .45, let alone all the mall ninja %$#% I've seen tucked under folds of flab and XL T-shirts in LGS's over the past 14 years. If I wanted a physical hobby, I'd go back to swimming. )

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
7 months ago
Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
7 months ago


I'd hate such a change. I already ask people to keep any cards of mine taken with in game effects as close to me as possible and reasonable (never beyond arm reach) when playing outside of my trusted group, so you best believe my cardboard leaves when I do. It would only take one bad time with someone who won't return your legal %$#% property because of their stake in a kids' card game to sour me on that. Man, just imagining such a grubby, hypotehtical jerk has got me hot. "Hey, c'mon man, I'm only gonna need your $400 Gaea's cradle for another 15 minutes..." :fuming: :fuming: :fuming:

As far as I'm concerned, the opportunity cost of playing theft in multiplayer is losing stolen goods when their respective owner is out. Anything else is logistically untenable IMHO.
Well like I said above, there is always proxy items for when you leave. If you are playing a theft deck it wouldn't be too much to ask to have some tokens and blank pieces of paper to write on. It doesn't have to be you keeping the physical card the entire game.
But for a lot of players, it would equate to "Gimme your property for an indeterminate amount of time because of rules". Look, I can appreciate that you seem to be considerate enough to bring additional gaming supplies to the table to make this work, but were the ruling formally changed, I doubt players such as yourself would constitute a majority of players with such theft effects.

Furthermore (albeit a rare and extreme example), griefers exist in EDH like they do in any game. Giving people already bent on sowing negativity additional leverage over the property of strangers is a really bad idea, even if it only happens once. (And I mean, I dunno about you, but I live in the American southeast and regularly play/travel accross the region and lemme tell you, one should not want to push the envelope on things like "property rights" in a place like Texas. My cousin's dentist over there goes around everyday with a colt .45, let alone all the mall ninja %$#% I've seen tucked under folds of flab and XL T-shirts in LGS's over the past 14 years. If I wanted a physical hobby, I'd go back to swimming. )
I mean I wouldn't be opposed to a rule saying that in case of "stealing" an opponent's permanent, it may be represented by a distinct, agreed upon object in the same manner as an object can be used to represent a token. That would solve a lot of griefing. And this suggestion is irrespective of the "stolen stuff not going away" at when its owner loses stuff I was suggesting. It's something I've done before because the person I was playing didn't want me handling their expensive cards. And it would put the onus on the person stealing to bring stuff to represent the stolen in the same way you better be bringing tokens when playing a token deck.

There will always be assholes who just don't care, but with a rule like this, it would at least give the people playing against them some power.

User avatar
bobthefunny
Resident Plainswalker
Posts: 369
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by bobthefunny » 7 months ago

Wow, I'm surprised that Cyclonic Rift is the highest ban-request card right now. I mean, I personally hate the card from a design standpoint, but I never expected it to beat the calls on Crypt and Sol Ring. I'm really impressed.

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 209
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 7 months ago

bobthefunny wrote:
7 months ago
Wow, I'm surprised that Cyclonic Rift is the highest ban-request card right now. I mean, I personally hate the card from a design standpoint, but I never expected it to beat the calls on Crypt and Sol Ring. I'm really impressed.
I don't find it all that shocking, at least from a casual standpoint. Sure, Crypt and Ring can be strong, if you get them early, and if you have enough generic costs to make them useful. Their usefulness (and annoyingness) tapers significantly as the game goes on. Cyclonic Rift is always annoying.
Expand Signature
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
folding_music
minus 75% EDH
Posts: 739
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 7 months ago

There isn't a "What's the CAG?" response. I kinda use the existence of Commander as a launching point for my own idea of the game and don't necessarily keep up to date with who admins what and haven't memorized names, or anything. maybe I should just not have filled it in?

voted relatively satisfied with everything, clicked please unban Panoptic Mirror and ban the Mirage-era tutors etc.
Expand Signature

User avatar
3drinks
Bust Lands and Shred Hands
Posts: 1742
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Nomad Outpost, Tarkir
Contact:

Post by 3drinks » 7 months ago

Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
Then don't let me die. If you let me die, what I've created should fade as I'm no longer there to maintain the spell energy the object requires. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, no, don't be greedy. If you really need my stolen effects, then spend resources protecting me knowing your own status is greatly diminished without mine.

Or, your other choice is to suffer quietly. Rules should never ever be bent or changed just to appease the arrogant cries and demands of one random internet user.
Expand Signature
Tibalt's #1 Fan & Personal Liaison to Kaalia of the Vast.
MTG: Commander
WBRTrynn & Silvar [WIP Rebel Yell - Multiplayer Conscious]
BRGKorvold, Fae-Cursed King [White Borders Edition]
RKari Zev, Skyship Raider [Secret Torbran Deck]
WBRKaalia of the Vast [THE Definitive Primer]

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 950
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 7 months ago

folding_music wrote:
7 months ago
There isn't a "What's the CAG?" response. I kinda use the existence of Commander as a launching point for my own idea of the game and don't necessarily keep up to date with who admins what and haven't memorized names, or anything. maybe I should just not have filled it in?

voted relatively satisfied with everything, clicked please unban Panoptic Mirror and ban the Mirage-era tutors etc.
Hmmm... yes I suppose that should have been an option as well. I just assumed that it was common knowledge what they were (even if the who they were wasn't as known).
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 558
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 7 months ago

Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
Situations like this are exactly what make control changes in multiplayer so strategically interesting. If you're playing stealing effects as sweet interactive Magic, learn to enjoy the consequences. If you're just trying to play someone else's deck with yours, try Clones instead.
Expand Signature
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

tstorm823 wrote:
7 months ago
Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
Oh, I did think of one other thing I would like changed. If you control another player's permanent and they lose the game, I should be able to keep control of all their permanents I control (as long as it isn't something temporary like Act of Treason). As a person that enjoys playing steal effects this is really annoying.
Situations like this are exactly what make control changes in multiplayer so strategically interesting. If you're playing stealing effects as sweet interactive Magic, learn to enjoy the consequences. If you're just trying to play someone else's deck with yours, try Clones instead.
I do describe my favorite commander deck as "What's my win condition? Yours!"

I've played enough games with theft decks to see that the decision usually isn't as interesting as you think unless you are playing a EDH game with 5+ people. In a standard four person game, unless the one who you are stealing their stuff is really far behind or stumbling, its unusual for a person to be targeted just to remove things I've stolen from them. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it makes up a small portion of the games I've played. It's usually just easier to target me than deal with me and another player. In fact, about half of games just end without anyone losing before one person just wins via going off.

What is much more common is one of the players either has to leave, or if I am playing outside of my play group, a person just rage-quiting because they don't like me casting their spells. For example, I had taken a guy's Nicol Bolas, Dragon-God and then Chaos Wand him hitting his Time Stretch which would've let me win the game by ultimating Nicol Bolas. He then said "You know what. I don't want you winning, so with Time Stretch on the stack I concede." Which not only prevented me from winning, but took out half of my board. That's the most extreme example (which is probably why I remember it so vividly, though this was far from the only time someone conceded to prevent me from winning), but people conceding from me taking their stuff or hitting a lucky flip from their deck with Etali, Primal Storm happens enough that it is my biggest complaint with my deck. A rule like this would would help prevent annoying stuff like this.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 949
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 39
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 7 months ago

Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
For example, I had taken a guy's Nicol Bolas, Dragon-God and then Chaos Wand him hitting his Time Stretch which would've let me win the game by ultimating Nicol Bolas. He then said "You know what. I don't want you winning, so with Time Stretch on the stack I concede." Which not only prevented me from winning, but took out half of my board. That's the most extreme example (which is probably why I remember it so vividly, though this was far from the only time someone conceded to prevent me from winning), but people conceding from me taking their stuff or hitting a lucky flip from their deck with Etali, Primal Storm happens enough that it is my biggest complaint with my deck. A rule like this would would help prevent annoying stuff like this.
To be honest, playing *against* a theft deck is also really annoying. From the idea that someone now has physical access to my cards (my cousin "lost" a card this way) to the idea that I no longer get to use that card in the game. It is not the most annoying deck to play against of course, but it is up there.

If you want to avoid the situation you described above, do what the rest of us do: play your own deck. You said you lost half your board when one person conceded. And, presumably, a large portion of the other half of your board wasn't yours either. As @TheAmericanSpirit said: this is the price you need to pay for playing with other people's cards. You are already reliant on them for what they have in their deck so there shouldn't be any concern with being overly reliant on them remaining in the game so their stuff sticks around.

User avatar
Guardman
A Dog's Dream of Man
Posts: 443
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: In a Turn-Based World

Post by Guardman » 7 months ago

WizardMN wrote:
7 months ago
Guardman wrote:
7 months ago
For example, I had taken a guy's Nicol Bolas, Dragon-God and then Chaos Wand him hitting his Time Stretch which would've let me win the game by ultimating Nicol Bolas. He then said "You know what. I don't want you winning, so with Time Stretch on the stack I concede." Which not only prevented me from winning, but took out half of my board. That's the most extreme example (which is probably why I remember it so vividly, though this was far from the only time someone conceded to prevent me from winning), but people conceding from me taking their stuff or hitting a lucky flip from their deck with Etali, Primal Storm happens enough that it is my biggest complaint with my deck. A rule like this would would help prevent annoying stuff like this.
To be honest, playing *against* a theft deck is also really annoying. From the idea that someone now has physical access to my cards (my cousin "lost" a card this way) to the idea that I no longer get to use that card in the game. It is not the most annoying deck to play against of course, but it is up there.

If you want to avoid the situation you described above, do what the rest of us do: play your own deck. You said you lost half your board when one person conceded. And, presumably, a large portion of the other half of your board wasn't yours either. As TheAmericanSpirit said: this is the price you need to pay for playing with other people's cards. You are already reliant on them for what they have in their deck so there shouldn't be any concern with be overly reliant on them remaining in the game so their stuff sticks around.
I mean, Etali, Primal Storm is my favorite deck to play in EDH by far. I play it around 75% of the time I play EDH. It has everything I want from a deck, chaos, playing other people's spells, chaos, stealing/copying their permanents, no two games are the same, chaos, and winning in fun and unexpected ways. It's my favorite way to play the game. I understand that not everyone likes playing against decks like that, which is why I always make sure to have paper to write on and tokens I can use as proxies for other people's cards so I never have to touch them if they don't want me to. It's also why I don't include cards like Scrambleverse or Warp World, two cards I like to play with, but know others really don't.

In the same vein, as much as I hate them, I do let people play their group hug decks without griefing them (though I might attack them a bit more than needed, but that's politics). I would like the same respect in return, especially in regards to griefing concedes. But I literally have no recourse. One of the people in the game I mentioned above was a judge and he just sort of shrugged after what the guy did and said "It sucks, but he can concede when he wants to."

As for the people needing to leave, I understand, life happens. But it is also annoying to lose board position just because the game was going on longer than expected.

And yes, the griefing concedes and people needing to leave happen only in maybe like 10% of games, but it is enough to be a constant annoyance. Written the right way, it's a rule change that doesn't have much downside (it would make theft effects stronger, but not that much stronger), but has the ability to prevent a form of griefing, whether intentional (conceding) or unintentional (needing to leave). Also when talking about written the right way, I mean it would include language where "stolen" cards can be represented by an agreed upon proxy in a similar manner as you can use a toothpick for a token.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”