Removing the ability to tuck commanders was a fundamental mistake the format has been paying for ever since.
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:05 am
I have long, long felt this way and the years have only ever strengthened my resolve in regards to this issue.
First and foremost, what changed in regards to tucking commanders (this is mostly for the newer players)?
Well back in my day you could cast spells like Hinder or even the printed for Commander Spell Crumple and instead of your opponent's commander magically appearing back in their command zone they would be tucked away in their owner's library.
So why the change? It's mostly one of those "spirit of the format" things. I mean, we can't have a format called Commander if there's a chance that someone may not get to play with their commander, right? *sweeps Drannith Magistrate, Nevermore and the like safely under the rug out of sight*
It was about avoiding the feelbads. People are attracted to this format, at least in part and depending on the person, because building around a specific legendary creature is kind of a cool gimmick. It was definitely part of the attraction to me.
Then why am I so vocal against this now years old change?
Because it's been nothing but bad for the format. It has impacted everything from how people build their decks to the power level of certain commanders going unchecked.
I am a subscriber to the "if your deck completely falls apart without access to your commander then it is a bad deck and you need to fix it" school of thought. That isn't to say I believe you shouldn't build your deck around your commander, oh far from it. What it means is that if your deck is suddenly a useless stack of 99 cards just because you don't have constant access to that special 100th card then you screwed up somewhere along the deck building process and it is time to reevaluate said pile of 99 cards and figure out what you can do to make it function as a deck if one piece happens to be missing.
Put more simply, it has made people into worse, lazier deck builders. It is absolutely possible to build a deck to synergize with a specific legendary creature and it still work as a deck if that creature is no longer on the board. It may not be the most optimal state and some cards may not be as flashy or as good as they could be, but you can still do something with it unless you're on some heavy, all-in gimmick like Ashling + 99 Mountains. Over-reliance on your commander is bad, be better than that. Afterall, there are going to be games where your commander is going to be taxed into oblivion, countered every cast, or maybe *lifts the rug* Drannith Magistrate or Nevermore are going to come out to play.
More importantly is the impact losing the ability to actually, semi-permanently deal with problematic commanders has had on the format.
Look at commanders like Derevi, Yuriko, Golos for example. These are cards that just straight up give the middle finger to commander tax. Hell, in the case of Golos recasting it over and over not only gives the finger to commander tax, it pushes you way ahead of the rest of the board.
Or how about the eminence mechanic? Something I think we can all agree was a bit of a mistake, especially when looking at cards like Edgar Markov. Wouldn't it be great if you could just turn that off? Maybe even make it somewhat balanced?
There are a lot of commanders that are just near busted levels of absurdity, many, most of which came about after we lost the ability to say bye bye to them for a while. I think these powerhouses would cause far fewer headaches if tucking a commander was once again a thing.
As for the "it means only certain colors can still get their commander back after it's tucked" argument. Every color has ways to get creatures from their deck (including colorless options), some may do it better than others, but that goes for any element of the game.
I think bringing back tucking would do far more to improve the health of the format than any supposed good removing it ever did.
First and foremost, what changed in regards to tucking commanders (this is mostly for the newer players)?
Well back in my day you could cast spells like Hinder or even the printed for Commander Spell Crumple and instead of your opponent's commander magically appearing back in their command zone they would be tucked away in their owner's library.
So why the change? It's mostly one of those "spirit of the format" things. I mean, we can't have a format called Commander if there's a chance that someone may not get to play with their commander, right? *sweeps Drannith Magistrate, Nevermore and the like safely under the rug out of sight*
It was about avoiding the feelbads. People are attracted to this format, at least in part and depending on the person, because building around a specific legendary creature is kind of a cool gimmick. It was definitely part of the attraction to me.
Then why am I so vocal against this now years old change?
Because it's been nothing but bad for the format. It has impacted everything from how people build their decks to the power level of certain commanders going unchecked.
I am a subscriber to the "if your deck completely falls apart without access to your commander then it is a bad deck and you need to fix it" school of thought. That isn't to say I believe you shouldn't build your deck around your commander, oh far from it. What it means is that if your deck is suddenly a useless stack of 99 cards just because you don't have constant access to that special 100th card then you screwed up somewhere along the deck building process and it is time to reevaluate said pile of 99 cards and figure out what you can do to make it function as a deck if one piece happens to be missing.
Put more simply, it has made people into worse, lazier deck builders. It is absolutely possible to build a deck to synergize with a specific legendary creature and it still work as a deck if that creature is no longer on the board. It may not be the most optimal state and some cards may not be as flashy or as good as they could be, but you can still do something with it unless you're on some heavy, all-in gimmick like Ashling + 99 Mountains. Over-reliance on your commander is bad, be better than that. Afterall, there are going to be games where your commander is going to be taxed into oblivion, countered every cast, or maybe *lifts the rug* Drannith Magistrate or Nevermore are going to come out to play.
More importantly is the impact losing the ability to actually, semi-permanently deal with problematic commanders has had on the format.
Look at commanders like Derevi, Yuriko, Golos for example. These are cards that just straight up give the middle finger to commander tax. Hell, in the case of Golos recasting it over and over not only gives the finger to commander tax, it pushes you way ahead of the rest of the board.
Or how about the eminence mechanic? Something I think we can all agree was a bit of a mistake, especially when looking at cards like Edgar Markov. Wouldn't it be great if you could just turn that off? Maybe even make it somewhat balanced?
There are a lot of commanders that are just near busted levels of absurdity, many, most of which came about after we lost the ability to say bye bye to them for a while. I think these powerhouses would cause far fewer headaches if tucking a commander was once again a thing.
As for the "it means only certain colors can still get their commander back after it's tucked" argument. Every color has ways to get creatures from their deck (including colorless options), some may do it better than others, but that goes for any element of the game.
I think bringing back tucking would do far more to improve the health of the format than any supposed good removing it ever did.