Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-22 4:01 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 341 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 23  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-12 8:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
VazquezVader wrote:
First thanks for taking the time to explain this again. I actually did head to page 8 and read over your and Willbender's conversation again. You've definitely brought some interesting points of view I hadn't considered before. I am also gonna share some views I have. In no way am I saying mine are better or more right than yours. And definitely not making this an argument for Planeswalkers as Commanders. I tapped out after Papa Funk's last post. Nor can I see any real problems that need fixing in order to make the change to allow Planeswalkers as commanders.

I'm actually finding this quite fun and interesting. The discussing of what flavor fits, and how different people see it feels much less adversarial than other arguments in the rules discussion forum, so it's a nice change to talk about it :)

VazquezVader wrote:
I've always kind of liked looking at it as we team up with them ...

Hadn't thought of it as a team up. Hrm.. I still thing the 'loyalty counters' thing is an issue though (as well as the "how does the commander cast him-/her-/it-self? For me that's a bit of a flavor stumbling block)

VazquezVader wrote:
... because I'm constantly looking at this from the story point of view, I've come to look at it more like the toughness on a creature and that I am in fact rallying them again to my cause. Or maybe even their cause.

For "their cause" ... doesn't make much sense for it to be loyalty counters then does it? Wouldn't it be more like ... confidence counters? trust counters? ...

As for rallying them again, then you'd want something called morale counters I'd think.

As you can see, when looking at the flavor, that they are mechanically called 'loyalty counters' is a stumbling block for me when trying to figure out the flavor of the format :) I have a hard time ignoring the name of them.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-14 6:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Dec-04 3:38 pm
Age: Dragon
Quote:
Hadn't thought of it as a team up. Hrm.. I still thing the 'loyalty counters' thing is an issue though (as well as the "how does the commander cast him-/her-/it-self? For me that's a bit of a flavor stumbling block)


Is not a bigger issue than to explain -flavorfully, in vorthosian terms-, how is possible that Generals always survive after any form of exile or death. What happend when a commander is put in the command zone instead of the graveyard or library or exile zone? Retreat from battle in a more safer zone just a second before the Murder or the Path to Exile is right about to annichilate their lives forever? And how is possible that each legend teleport itself from a death experience to a restoring zone without the help of any spell casted by the player/planeswalker/mage, supreme ultimate owner and lord of these legends? It is everything explainable thanks to the flavor? Or it is just convenient to do so gameplay-wise, like the new legend rule post-M13?


The point is that we don't need to have that flavor and gameplay matches perfectly in everything, also because that's literally impossible. You can Remove Soul on a Soulless One and Vraska Tokens are able to kill an almost omnipotent being as the player with only one damage but not even able to do same against a stupid Utopian Tree (I always tought they should had death touch also). And where's the flavor to have Mikaeus the Lunarch and Mikaeus the Unhallowed in the same side but you're not allowed to have Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker and Sarkhan Unbroken even if they come from completely different futures? Yes, Magic cares about flavor, but it cannot explain every single vorthosian issue, there's no logical argument that can be supported with the lore or flavorwise.


The only thing that really count is Resonance. Which means flavor in basic, universal concepts, without losing ourselves in narrow details. Angels in Magic are a perfect example of flavor based by resonance and not needing to be accurate to any particular lore. For example, why every angel of every plane should be always female? It's ok one time when Serra decide to create only female angel, was ok also in Ravnica because every angel was a clone of Razia, but why the heck this rule should be same in every single plane of the multiverse? Damn, in Tarkir we even have white demons (Buther of the Horde), but with the exception of Malach of Dawn and Gabriel Angelfire all the other angels of every plane must be just female??
Also, not only the Biblical Angels, if we really want to follow the lore, were mostly males (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, etc.) but they were also very different phisically, and were the christians with the heavy influence of the greek culture (see Eros), that we know the angels in the form that are famous now.

Anyway, the point was, why all angel females? Resonance, because the pop culture like to think of them this way than another. Mark Rosewater repeated endlessy in his blog that "resonance is more important than accuracy in a theme". and that in game design is more important " capturing the feel and not the reality". About angels no matter how the lore describes them, the general resonance is how people would expect them as a stereotype without making themselves too many questions. http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/81 ... ning-wheel



Why I made this specific example? Because for Planeswalkers is the same. Their uniqueness that make them hero's just like the legends (see flavor of Hero's Downfall) create a Resonance, a feeling, an immediate perception of how both good they would feel to be the Boss of an army or a magic book, the library or grimoire. Doesn't matter if a planeswalker without loyalty shouldn't be able to help you anymore or if a planeswalker shouldn't be subordinate to the player, because this resonance doesn't care about those subtle issues that only true vorthosian would care of. And would remain without answers, since magic can't fix any flavor fail possible.
The regular player (which means the vast majority of them) just care about the thing that having a pw as commander is a cool and new gameplay and feel completely harmonic, with the uniqueness role deserved only to special people like heroe's, and both legends and planeswalkers feels like true hero's, not an anonymous hero of bladehold but a specific guy with a specific history, personality, name and surname. Somebody which you can identify directly! And is because of that resonance, that WotC allowed the C14 Planeswalkers, to be also generals. And the general feedbacks at least of what I'm reading in this topic, sounds pretty positive to them.




Once again apologize for grammar, for the ones that don't knows me, english is not my first language.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-14 1:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Uriel wrote:
The regular player (which means the vast majority of them) just care about the thing that having a pw as commander is a cool and new gameplay and feel completely harmonic, with the uniqueness role deserved only to special people like heroe's, and both legends and planeswalkers feels like true hero's, not an anonymous hero of bladehold but a specific guy with a specific history, personality, name and surname. Somebody which you can identify directly! And is because of that resonance, that WotC allowed the C14 Planeswalkers, to be also generals. And the general feedbacks at least of what I'm reading in this topic, sounds pretty positive to them.


Well said. Resonance is a word I had forgotten about. I've heard and listened to Mark Rosewater use it often enough, but I forgot.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 12:53 am 

Joined: 2012-Nov-21 3:29 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
Cody wrote:
You guys certainly use different standards for different changes. It seems like a change with all upside. Why does it have to fix a problem?

You know, this is pretty ridiculous.

Usually, when someone wants a change, they just have to put their best arguments forward and generally assume that the RC reads the thread (they usually do for threads here in my experience.)

In this case, you know for sure the RC is reading, and as well they are participating. Not just participating but telling you what you need to do in order for them to consider the change. So while you do try to do this, your arguments are weak and don't meet the requirement threshold, and yet you still just cry and complain and just say "but it's all upside!" (I'm paraphrasing & simplifying, I know that.)

You have an actual target to aim for. The RC has given you that. That's more than most people who want a change! You need to hit that target, because you were told that's what's required! Most people don't eve know what kind of requirements are needed for the RC to consider it.

Yet, you still want those who don't want the change to help you out.

Seems to me, your point isn't actually as strong as you think it is if you're asking those who are opposed to it to help you and to do the arguing for you.


You act overly concerned with what the RC does. I don't care what the RC does; their decisions have no bearing on whether an idea is good or bad. I was merely commenting that I think your logic is faulty, and their logic is faulty by extension. Most ideas are weighed by the positives and negatives they bring. Setting the bar where something has to solve a problem... well, that's a stupid way to set the bar. If making Planeswalkers all able to be used as a Commander is a thematic win, and a gameplay win, there shouldn't be an issue with changing the rules.

It would make more sense to argue about the negatives they bring to gameplay (like pillow forting), whether it's illogical to have a Planeswalker working for you instead of a general, etc. I'm not heavily invested either way. I disagree with the last two major decisions about tuck and the use as General bans, and think the format is becoming dumb. But anyway, I don't think the way this argument is framed is sensible; I think the way it's being framed is "we like the status quo, let's set the bar arbitrarily higher so we can ignore this".


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 1:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Cody wrote:
Setting the bar where something has to solve a problem... well, that's a stupid way to set the bar.

Because they are curators of a global format, playing it a little safe doesn't hurt. There's always risk + some time of confusion as the rules change trickles down to those who play but don't frequent areas where it gets announced.

They want to reduce that. Sure, locally making a change and then saying "oops, that didn't work lets undo that." is easy. But doing that globally 1) takes time, 2) reduces confidence in those who run/guide the format.

As such, they have a simple litmus test to see if a change is worth the above risk. In this case, they've told us that: It has to solve a problem.

Cody wrote:
It would make more sense to argue about the negatives they bring to gameplay (like pillow forting), whether it's illogical to have a Planeswalker working for you instead of a general, etc.

If you look, I've already been doing just that.

It's not like "it has to solve a problem" is the only argument against the change.

Almost seems like you need to read the whole thread instead of just parts of it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 2:32 am 

Joined: 2013-Aug-20 4:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Boston
Carthain wrote:
Sure, locally making a change and then saying "oops, that didn't work lets undo that." is easy. But doing that globally 1) takes time, 2) reduces confidence in those who run/guide the format.

Not to mention that continuously tinkering with the rules of the format is one route to format death. Think about how many folks flipped shit about tuck joining exile and gy removal as sending commanders to the command zone. The inherent risk of any change is one argument for a high bar for change, and avoiding the fragmentation of the player base as different people accept or reject various changes is another.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 2:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
they have a simple litmus test to see if a change is worth the above risk. In this case, they've told us that: It has to solve a problem.

I am sympathetic to this, but only a little. It would be nice to find a "problem" that this fixes, but in a way this is really about changing a wrong call that the RC made back when Planeswalkers were first introduced. At the moment the first planeswalkers came out, the rule should have been updated to allow them as Commanders, but it wasn't.

As time has gone on, the presence of planeswalkers in the story has done nothing but increase and they proved to be incredibly popular among the audience as well. Even WotC was surprised by this and changed their plans of having maybe one new planeswalker a block (or some low number like that) to having at least one in every set and sometimes more per set. Planeswalkers have completely replaced Legendary Creatures as the most important continuing people in the story.

Carthain wrote:
Almost seems like you need to read the whole thread instead of just parts of it.

It is an 18 page thread. Expecting someone to have read the entire thread is a bit much. I've participated in this thread since nearly the beginning and I don't remember everything that has been said.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 2:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
cheethorne wrote:
At the moment the first planeswalkers came out, the rule should have been updated to allow them as Commanders, but it wasn't.

That's a pretty subjective argument that doesn't help your cause. It relies on the assumption that planeswalker commanders is the right choice.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 2:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
cheethorne wrote:
At the moment the first planeswalkers came out, the rule should have been updated to allow them as Commanders, but it wasn't.

That's a pretty subjective argument that doesn't help your cause. It relies on the assumption that planeswalker commanders is the right choice.

It wasn't an argument in favor of changing the rules now, it was an observation that the best time to make that particular change would have been then before inertia takes effect.

However, the fact that it relies on an assumption that it would have been the right thing to do should not be surprising since I think the rule should be changed.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 3:31 am 

Joined: 2013-Oct-09 7:02 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Cody wrote:
Setting the bar where something has to solve a problem... well, that's a stupid way to set the bar.

Because they are curators of a global format, playing it a little safe doesn't hurt. There's always risk + some time of confusion as the rules change trickles down to those who play but don't frequent areas where it gets announced.

They want to reduce that. Sure, locally making a change and then saying "oops, that didn't work lets undo that." is easy. But doing that globally 1) takes time, 2) reduces confidence in those who run/guide the format.

As such, they have a simple litmus test to see if a change is worth the above risk. In this case, they've told us that: It has to solve a problem.

Why should it have to solve a problem in order to make any change? Why can't the inherent risk of a change be seen as a con and weighed appropriately? Essentially the RC has said that this one con outweighs any and all possible pros, which cannot always be the case.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 3:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Dec-04 3:38 pm
Age: Dragon
Quote:
Even WotC was surprised by this and changed their plans of having maybe one new planeswalker a block (or some low number like that) to having at least one in every set and sometimes more per set.


FYI : since Lorwyn Wotc putted exactly (no more and no less) 5 new Planeswalkers each expert block, and also always 5 since M10 for core sets in a mix of new/old planeswalkers, for developmental reasons. This constant will continue also with the new paradigm of only 2 sets for experts block (so for each expert block in the future we will always one of the following combinations of numbers of pw per set : 1-4, 4-1 or 3-2, 2-3. 5-0 or 0-5 are both impossible because Pw are so popular that Wotc guarantee to players to see at least one per set) . Only exception to this was Shadowmoor but simply because of the anomaly of Llorwyn/Shadowmoor both being a connected 2 sets blocks.
To me, seems all already planned from the beginning this, probably because Pw were highly beloved by the players since their introduction as cards in game, and that's why they never change the number of them in each block and core sets.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 4:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
cheethorne wrote:
It wasn't an argument in favor of changing the rules now, it was an observation that the best time to make that particular change would have been then before inertia takes effect.

However, the fact that it relies on an assumption that it would have been the right thing to do should not be surprising since I think the rule should be changed.

It reads more like an argument that it should be "fixed" now. The assumption isn't really surprising, but it's doing nothing for the position. It's effectively arguing "It should have been that way because I want it to be", without any support as to WHY it would have been good to make that change then. And you can't use "look how popular and important they became!" as a retort to that, because no one knew that would be the case back then. So really there was very little reason allowing walker commanders made sense when Llorwyn hit.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 4:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Uriel wrote:
To me, seems all already planned from the beginning this, probably because Pw were highly beloved by the players since their introduction as cards in game, and that's why they never change the number of them in each block and core sets.


Number in Morningtide: 0
Number in Shadowmoor: 0
Number in Eventide: 0
Number in Alara Reborn: 0

Since then every set has had at least one Planeswalker. They didn't plan to release planeswalkers in every set. They also didn't expect to make new versions of them as quickly as they have been doing. They have said this. That's why there were no planeswalkers in Shadowmoor block at all, not because of any connection to Lorwyn.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 4:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
It's effectively arguing "It should have been that way because I want it to be", without any support as to WHY it would have been good to make that change then.

But it wasn't an argument, so the lack of support for it in the post should not be surprising.

Sid the Chicken wrote:
So really there was very little reason allowing walker commanders made sense when Llorwyn hit.

I disagree. All of the resonance that Uriel mentioned above was present at the time they were released. While WotC did not foresee how popular they would be from inside R&D months and at least a year before the set was released to the public, the RC could see it in real time and could easily have something like "we will leave the rules as they are for now and during the next announcement we will decide what to do with them" to give themselves more time before making a decision.

However, the RC looked at them, saw that they weren't legendary creatures, saw that they were mono-coloured at a time when mono-colour decks were not that great in the format, and made a decision that has stood for about 6 years now with all of the inertia that comes with time passing.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Planeswalkers as Commanders
AgePosted: 2015-May-15 4:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Dec-04 3:38 pm
Age: Dragon
Quote:
umber in Morningtide: 0
Number in Shadowmoor: 0
Number in Eventide: 0
Number in Alara Reborn: 0



Read my quote again carefully : "they never change the number of them in each block and core sets."

I said in each block, not in each sets. Yes it's true what you're saying about Alara Reborn and Morningtide, but the total number of PW's in the entire blocks was anyway 5 and not less. I also already explained that the absence in Shadowmor block is because of the anomaly of being a 2 sets block connected directly to Llorwyn. They never could had put more PW in Morningtide because all 5 of them were already putted in Llorwyn (this always for developmental reasons). The numbers are 5 and 5, with a maximum of 15 different Planeswalkers legal in the same Standard. How you see the few exceptions just confirm the general rule.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 341 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 23  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: