If I may make a suggestion, onering, at least take a quick look at your posts when you're done to make sure the formatting isn't screwed up.
You seem to have a pretty high frequency of borked posts.
onering wrote: ↑3 years ago
Don't make the mistake of thinking that I don't have reasons behind considering commander tax a fundamental part of the format. Thinking that I oppose these things because its "sacred" is foolish, and ignores the points I've been making.
Tbh I think you prove my point for me later in this post, when you say that they should have been more cautious with their designs, as they were for partner. Doesn't that imply that, while perhaps Derevi was an irresponsible design, that such a design COULD exist?
Off the top of my head, let's talk about
Narfi, Betrayer King. Is he a problem? Does he break the fundamentals of the format? Sure, there are some differences between them, but in practice he's pretty damn close to Derevi. For that matter, we've got cards like
The Scarab God or the
theros gods that are also very hard to get rid of in different ways. I see all these things, and Derevi, as part of a general continuum of limited interactivity. Derevi isn't unique, nor is he impossible to answer - I pack cards like
Imprisoned in the Moon in Phelddagrif for just such a reason. Or you could go with
Pithing Needle.
I think WotC does need to be cautious when making a commander difficult to interact with, but simply being hard to interact with isn't sufficient to make the card a problem. While I think eminence is extremely dangerous design space, I'm not exactly bothered by
Arahbo, Roar of the World. Because it's only really a problem if the ability is too good.
You could argue that Derevi is a combination of too hard to interact with + too strong of an ability. I don't think I agree, but I think that's a reasonable position to take. Saying that command zone tax avoidance could NEVER be done in an acceptable way, though, I think is a bit dogmatic.
BaaC cards being available to run in the 99 matters, because there are people who care about it. You may not personally care, and the RC may not value that highly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
For those who feel that way, I still don't see any reason to take that concern at more than 1/100th the importance of banning a commander.
I don't think that's sufficient justification for having a split banlist. That's just my opinion.
When you dismiss things like this out of hand, rather than just arguing they have less significance than other factors
That's exactly what I've been arguing.
When people keep saying the same thing over and over, eventually I'm going to stop being so precise. Does it matter actual zero? No, fine. I'll give you your 1/100th. Can we move on?
even less significant factors can add up.
Okay, let's add 'em up.
But combine that concern about the 99 with the increased ability to target problem commanders
But it wouldn't do that, though. The thing preventing the RC from banning commanders - as Sheldon says in his article - is that the RC doesn't want to throw out a bunch of peoples' decks. That's just as true with or without BaaC. Even if BaaC existed, how much additional ease do they have in banning a commander? I'd argue, again, 1/100, since that's the fraction of player stress that they avoid by only BaaCing a card (if you wanted to get technical, I guess it'd be 1/100 x [number of decks playing it in the 99]/[number of decks playing it as a commander], with some mitigating factor for people who don't mind modifying instead of destroying...but let's not overcomplicate things, it's still a really small number).
increased consistency and clarity in the ban list by demonstrating clearly that things like Rof are only not acceptable in the CZ (and thus why things like Priest of Titania aren't banned alongside him)
While it's not particularly relevant, I'd say priest is much weaker than Rof regardless, since priest only works in elfball and pushes you into a wide, easy-to-sweep board, whereas Rof is pretty amazing in any mono-green (or even green-heavy with good manabase) deck. Cards with setup costs are not as problematic as cards without setup costs.
If we tried to make a perfectly consistent banlist we'd be here all day. BaaC isn't the thing preventing that from happening. There are so many factors beyond simple power level that determine the banlist. One of the many, of course, is that cards which can be commanders are particularly dangerous. That's not inconsistent, it makes perfect sense. Just because one could circumvent it doesn't mean it's not consistent within a normal banlist.
and the value of a public signal to WotC about what sort of cards are a bad idea to print for commander
Okay, again, the thing preventing the RC from banning commanders isn't the lack of BaaC - it's that they don't want to ban commanders.
If the RC wanted to ban commanders aggressively, they might reinstitute the BaaC list. But reinstituting the BaaC list wouldn't make the RC want to ban commanders aggressively.
If you want commanders banned, just argue for them to be banned. It probably won't happen, but trying to get BaaC reinstituted isn't going to help.
Also if the RC wanted WotC to dial it back with commander design, it'd probably be a lot better to just, y'know, talk to them about it. Rather than trying to communicate via banlist like it's morse code or something.
I could very easily say that the players upset about losing their decks don't matter, because the number who really care is smaller than the number of players who would be happy to never have to play against Tegrid or Golos again, but I would be wrong. No doubt you believe that the harm caused to those players matters more than the harm their decks cause to everyone else. The simple truth is that all of these groups and concerns matter, and we only disagree over how much each one matters.
I agree with that. But it's relatively easy to compare the annoyances of replacing a card with the annoyances of replacing a deck, but it's harder to compare either of those to something as nebulous as "the degree to which these commanders make the format worse for everyone".
However, that group isn't really relevant to whether BaaC should return because the lack of BaaC has little impact on whether these cards are banned. If the RC felt Golos was bad for the format, they could just ban it. The lack of BaaC isn't preventing them from doing that, as Sheldon explicitly said, so reinstituting BaaC would accomplish nothing for those who feel the format is worse with Golos in it.
onering wrote: ↑3 years ago
A signal to WotC to be more cautious with commander designs, and that they are willing to be more liberal with banning legendary creatures than in the past. Not having to ban them outright would enable them to be a bit more liberal in dealing with problem commanders. You disagree, because you personally don't care about BaaC legends being available in the 99, which is a separate part of the discussion. Given that being important, BaaC gives the RC the ability to be more liberal with banning commanders SPECIFICALLY. If you don't buy the argument that these cards being available in the 99 is important, sure, then this doesn't matter and you have to assume that this would only happen in concert with a more liberal ban policy generally. But for those of us to whom still being able to play cards in the 99 is significant (and the very fact that people care about non legendary cards getting banned shows that this group is probably a lot larger than you think), being more liberal with banning cards as commanders does not have to translate into being more liberal with banning cards generally.
It doesn't really matter what I think, or for that matter what you think, what matters is what the RC thinks. If cutting out a card from the 99 was a significant weight that the RC wanted to avoid, to the extent that it was stopping them from banning commanders, then it would matter, but I don't see evidence to that claim. From what I've seen, it seems like their primary concern for banning commanders is that it would destroy a lot of peoples' decks, which remains true with or without BaaC.
If BaaC ever comes back, it means that either the RC believes that it enables them to deal with problem commanders without banning them in the 99
If the RC wants to ban commanders more liberally, then they will reinstitute BaaC.
If we reinstitute BaaC, the RC will want to ban commanders more liberally.
The second does not follow from the first. Your goal is to make the RC want to ban commanders more liberally. So just pressure them to ban those cards.
As a sidebar, having Derevi legal in the 99 only would be hilarious. He'd have text on him that literally does nothing in any format, the new
Steamflogger Boss. Unless there's some sort of insanity you could do with mutate and
Leadership Vacuum, but he can't be in the 99 for any of the mutate commanders. Ah well.
the impact of these problem commanders is much larger today than it was when BaaC was nixed, as is the number of cards that would reasonably fall into this list rather than the regular ban list.
And I think that's why it's becoming less and less likely that the RC will pivot to a liberal banning philosophy. Much like with easy infinite combos, if there was just one or two, then it's easy enough to ban them. But when there's a ton of them, it becomes a lot less desirable and a lot less practical. The RC has always had a light touch with the banlist and trusted people to manage their own fun for the most part. It's not impossible that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Especially if you're expecting them to suddenly ban 10 of the format's most popular commanders.
But it's banned, so I don't. It doesn't really bother me. I just play something else.
Cool. Same can be said for a deck.
Yes, but with 100x the impact.
Some would say 10x the impact.
And where is that number coming from?
Some would say that even IF it is 100x the impact of banning a card in the 99, the impact of getting rid of these commanders on everyone who DOESN'T play them is 100x greater than that, so we're back at "the people who lose decks don't matter."
These are apples and oranges. But see my response somewhat up above, I don't want to repeat myself more than I already am.
Nah, it really wouldn't though. BaaC is extremely easy to understand. Ban list: you can't play these cards. BaaC: you can't use these cards as your commander. To suggest that this is a problem for new players is to severely underestimate the ability of new players to understand basic concepts. It's less difficult to grasp than the color identity rules, and about on par with the idea of having a commander in the first place.
I would weigh the value of a rule by its utility divided by its complexity. The CI rules, and the commander rules, are both complex, sure. But they have enormous utility. They literally define the format. Having BaaC adds comparatively very little utility, by any reasonable standard. So accordingly, I don't weigh it's value very highly.
No, we're talking about a handful of cards that haven't been played in 5 years AND about 10 cards, give or take depending on who is being asked, that are defining the format RIGHT NOW.
Again, we're conflating two different things. If you want cards banned, petition for them to be banned. This BaaC thing is an unnecessary middleman.
pokken wrote: ↑3 years ago
No, but I can imagine how it would impact people if they banned
Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and then everyone had to pull them out of their decks as well in addition to banning the commander.
Yes it would be terrible to add a drop to a bucket.