Cool, and then you can play Great Whale to protect him, because a 0 mana 5/5? So good sign me up.
And it has protection from Abrupt Decay, the gift that keeps on giving.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
The card is garbage.
Yours truly,
Bertrand Hustle
I think using planeswalkers as commanders is a bad idea.
Wizards proceeds to undermine the game's Basics as if Miracles, Delver and TNN/Judgement weren't enough.
At that cost, it seems like the ultimate should eliminate the once-per-turn restriction too.
It's not viable - as you write, there are better cards to cast at that cost - but the mix and match aspect is interesting. He doesn't seem so terrible if you untap a Candelabra of Tawnos, a Fatestitcher and two Islands.I don't think High Tide wants to spend six mana for a Turnabout.
... another bad card Stasis decks.
I said as much (in so many disjointed words) in my post in the EDH forum, but basically it boils down to one of those rules tweaks that makes you go "wtf why". Power level is not a concern, but that isn't the single-most relevant factor in every conversation about the impact of new Magic cards or rules.
It's just an odd exception to a fundamental rule of the format, and so it looks weird and tacked on (as if the EDH rules aren't precisely that; an abstraction layer on top of regular Magic the Gathering. that doesn't invite or excuse extra complexity just to sell product). For years the rule was "you can build your deck around any Legendary Creature", and it still is - only now one has to append "oh and these five special Planeswalkers" to the end of that. There are cards such as Opal Palace that are clearly setup with the idea that commanders are always creatures - when else does a +1/+1 counter have applications except with creatures? - so it's pretty clear the card was made with the assumption that commanders would always be creatures. It isn't often that they intentionally allow for such a 'useless' interaction as putting +1/+1 counters on a permanent that doesn't typically care if it has them.
I mean really given the less playable nature of walkers in EDH (not unplayable, just LESS playable), it may just be a token gesture at best and the commanders themselves will impact the game very little. So I still say, wtf why? It's flavorful but that's about it; it renders rules about commander damage non-applicable for exactly 5 cards (so far) and just makes them a weird cycle of cards that only appear to exist to sell some pre-cons.
That said, the community response seems to be surprisingly positive/neutral on this, and so I will probably take my own advice and try my damnedest to reserve final judgment until the cards are actually on the table.
A creature that costs 8cc and has the ability "when this ETB, add 8 to your mana pool" (with suitable anti-reanimation clauses) is unplayable in Legacy even though it costs "0 mana". The problem is that generating that much mana in the first place is too much for Legacy to handle. The net cost is irrelevant if the initial investment is too high.
This is the reason average people don't buy million dollar mansions. Sure, you can argue that in 10 years you can flip it for 2 million and make 1 mil profit. In theory it seems like pure profit, but most people can't afford the 1 mil house in the first place so the point is moot.
In Commander though, this card has solid combo potential. I would run it in Bryant's Pile of Broken or similar 100-card pitch long builds (although maybe a tight list would still find 6cc too much even if it untaps Mana Vault and Tolarian Academy). In 5cc superfriends EDH, you can untap Contagion Engine and mana sources and quadruple proliferate all your planeswalkers each turn. Seems good.
Last edited by Jander78; 07-28-2014 at 04:37 PM. Reason: fixed cards tags.
The point is that they created some totally unnecessary exceptions for the Commander rules.
What's next after they broke the basic rule of Legendary creatures as your Commander? Commanders which allow to reduce the number of cards you have to play down to 80? Cards which have a special phrase written on them that you can play them in multiples and ignore the one-off-rule?
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Like the Brothers Yamazaki?
Last edited by Jander78; 07-28-2014 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Fixed spelling
I don't see the big deal. Teferi doesn't even seem that good as a commander and I'm sure overall it won't affect things that greatly. Magic players really do make a big deal out of nothing. I honestly have always thought walkers should be legal as commanders.
I think the next point worth examining is cards created for a casual format being allowed in competitive formats with no testing considerations made whatsoever. This avoids the slippery slope fallacy but addresses what you are getting at. The lack of Eternal format testing in R&D is hurting those formats. This extends beyond EDH products as well, just look at Delver of Secrets
Yes this planeswalker breaks the basic rules of the commander format.
And so what?
Every card does it in some way...
It's a new thing ok. As long as its power level is not too high and dumb i'm fine with it.
Don't forget that it cannot attack for 21 damage. so although it's an harder to deal with general (although creatures can't get rid of it even if you can't block with it), it has a downside compared to other generals. Mono-U decks tend either to win through general damage or combo...
Well. the card is not bonkers if used as a general anyway. In a planeswalker deck, not as a general, I find it better. But there is probably more broken things to play for 6 mana (Consecrated sphinx comes to my mind...).
I like how people keep saying it's fine because it isn't broken, even though most people that dislike the idea do so because it's just not very well executed. It's like arguing your way out of a speeding ticket by saying "it's not like I'm wearing oven mitts, officer."
Maybe it is just adding to my general disdain for planeswalkers, on the basis that they are hands-down the kludgiest aspect of Magic. They are loaded with weird rules just to make them work with regular Magic, and not always like you'd expect. So this is just another weird rule; that it lives on the card as a reminder doesn't amend the rest of the goofiness surrounding them. They are horses-by-committee to start with, I guess I'm not sure why this makes anything about them better.
That said, the more I think about it the less annoying it actually is. And hell, I've had a bunch of dumb cards sitting in wait for me to build something mono-Black anyway, so here's hoping whoever the Black walker is either does not suck or is easily swapped.
I do agree that is seems very forced, especially since the card explicitly say's "Can be used as a commander". I don't really mind walkers though. And like I said, I have always thought it would makes sense to allow them to be generals, so maybe that is why I don't hate these new ones
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)