Ah, the "no it's not" defense. Can't really argue with thatRxPhantom wrote: ↑1 year ago
No it's not and yes it has. If a deck cannot function without the commander, then you should work harder to protect it.
...
Making those choices has been part of the journey for me with that deck. If the rules were changed in the ways discussed here, it would be like having involuntary training wheels. It would cut off lines of play that I think are legitimate, and in my opinion, aren't causing trouble to the format as a whole.
If I cast my commander and it's countered or removed that turn, I should be able to cast it again if I am able. Full stop.
(Updated to be a bit more fair since there was an argument kinda buried in there)
It's a fair point that having it be difficult to deck build and play around effects that permanently remove commanders is good for the format. I disagree largely because it seems to strongly incentivize playing blue and requires a lot of deck boilerplate. I think that dealing with removal is complex enough.
I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on this use. If you like playing Merieke Ri Berit we are just so far apart ideologically.