Unpoular opinion thread: the rules commite should do something to manabases (maybe not now but soon)
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 6, 2016, 5:06 a.m. by nfcnorth
Before I start yes I know that a lot of you are going to be opposed to what I am going to have to say but please try to keep an open mind about what I am trying to say. You are free to disagree with my opinion but please be respectful about it. And before anyone asks yes this thread was at least some what inspired by the banning off-colored fetches thread.
As wizards prints more and more different dual lands mana bases just keep getting better and better for multi-color decks. This is a good thing right and something that should be celebrated right? I for one am not super excited about this when it comes to commander. Mainly because I feel manabases are getting way too consistent for 3 or more color decks as is and I can only see them getting even more consistent with the release of more and more sets.
We are basically guaranteed to have at least one cycle of dual lands per block for the health of the standard format. Add to it the fact we get 2 full blocks per year plus supplemental products like modern masters and new commander decks it becomes quite clear that we are at no shortage of dual lands. Even if most of the lands for a given year suck for competitive play (i.e the new guild gate like lands) one or two really good ones a year still adds up pretty fast when we are talking about a non rotating singleton format.
Don't get me wrong I don't want manabases 3-5 colored manabases to be watered down to the point the become unplayable as that leads to an equally stale environment. I also don't want to discourage players from playing a commander they find cool regardless of how many colors it is. I just don't want commander to become a you must have x or more colors to play format which I am starting to see it becoming already.
Above all other things I want commander to continue to be a diverse format. I don't want mono-colored decks to be rendered obsolete because one day five-colored decks get the perfect manabase (which I think we are pretty close to being there already myself). Quite frankly I feel like that would be one of the worst things to happen to the format as there would be no reason not to run five colors which would get old very fast and would limit your general choices. But I also don't want the opposite to happen as only mono-colored generals would also get boring.
I also don't pretend like I know the proper way to solve this issue fairly. I just can't pretend like it is not an issue or something that should never be addressed. Which is why I am speaking up now in this way. Maybe as a community we could come up with a solution for this issue without going to drastic in either direction.
The preconstructed commander decks have good lands in them? This is news to me, haha
January 6, 2016 6:29 a.m.
I'm not quite sure what you would consider a "perfect" manabase, but I think that very consistent 3 color manabases are already possible. The major barrier to a strong manabase in Commander is monetary, not selection, since buying a good selection of fetches, shock lands, and legacy dual lands, etc., racks up quite a price tag that most people aren't going to care to invest in. As new non-basic lands come out it will just help make better manabases more affordable for people with less spare cash.
Will multi-colour commanders eventually crowd out mono-coloured ones? I would say that multi-coloured decks have been predominant in the format since its first inception. The initial premise was based around using the old Elder Dragon legendary creatures as commanders, so multi-coloured decks were the foundation.
The issue with single colour decks is that when you have almost every card printed in MTG's history open to you, your options for deck building increase substantially with each colour available to you. There are some mono-coloured commanders available whose power compensates you for limiting yourself to one colour, but I find that you often see the same cards pop up in mono-coloured decks because the lack of cross-colour synergy pushes a deck builder more towards the "good stuff" route to help increase a deck's power. As a person who enjoys building decks, I'm already pushed towards building multi-colour decks just so that I have access to some more creative options.
Despite that, I don't see people being inclined to play 5 colour commanders more often just because better manabases mean they can. 5 colours aren't necessary for a lot of strategies, so why go that far? It is more important to pick a Commander that offers the best utility for the strategy you want to build around, since the Commander is a resource that you always know you'll have access to. It would require WotC printing a bunch of very powerful 5 colour legendary creatures to make 5 colour decks a more attractive option in Commander, so until that happens I doubt that we will see a sudden increase in 5 colour decks being played.
As long as there are strong mono-coloured Commanders, mono-coloured decks will still be played. Better manabases for multi-coloured decks won't change that. It would be nice to see a few more competitive level mono-coloured legendary creatures printed though, just to spice things up a bit.
January 6, 2016 6:31 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #5
Can you prove your claim that efficient mana bases push people to just run more colors? 5 color decks had a perfect mana base since Zendikar fetches entered the game. 10 shocks 10 duals and 20 fetches. That's 40 land right there.
Your argument seems like either a strawman or projection unless you can at least prove your claims
January 6, 2016 6:53 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #7
Right Sorry i included the new duals mentally as fetches for some reason. My bad. Still. Even at 30, that's like 80% of your manabase right there.
January 6, 2016 7:17 a.m.
Well, technically there are 15 fetches, if you include the slow fetches like Bad River and Flood Plain.
January 6, 2016 7:42 a.m.
I think it might be worth stating now, one of the big limitations to deck building actually comes down to available card slots. While yes, having access to more colours gives you more options, unless you're following a very strict theme, often times more colours has a tendency to dilute decks. You want to include all of the staples from each colour but end up running way over 100 cards or have to sacrifice deck coherence for it.
How many times have people seen in the forums or decks names people asking for help cutting the list back to 100 cards for even up to a starting point of 170+ (I've seen this personally before). Because at the end of the day, its hard enough culling a list in three colours, let alone five.
It also sounds like if you're having this issue personally within your play group, you might need to have a discussion with the rest of the players about their goals for the group. Because people shouldn't be punished for wanting to make their decks better. But if you have a certain vision for not only the kind of play but the level of play for your group, that's something that needs to be discussed. And hey, you might find that most people share your vision.
January 6, 2016 8:38 a.m.
Being able to play 3-5 color commanders without stressing hard about getting the right opening hand is a boon to the format. As more multi-colored lands become available, it makes more commanders playable in that 3-5 color range, which opens the format up to new and innovative decks to play with. Take for instance the new Ally commander from Oath; 5 years ago if this commander came out you'd have to spend a lot of time and testing, and tweeking to try to get a consistent enough manabase to play a 5 color ally deck. But with so many great 2-3 color land options, it's much easier to put a mana-base together to be able to play a fun 5-color deck that would otherwise be frustrating to pilot without so many good options for consistency.
And no, this accumulation of more mult-colored land options does not push people into multi-colored decks and is not killing off mono-colored decks. It's opening to the doors for those that have wanted to play these decks but just couldn't in the past. Also decks like Krenko will always be top tier or near top tier because a good commander is a good commander.
January 6, 2016 8:39 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #11
More colors = more options. Duh. But is there a drawback to make people actually think if it is worth it or is it the obvious choice? If multi-colored decks is the obvious choice, what can be done to add more variety to the meta? Add more mono-colored commanders? It only dilutes the problem. Making manabases less than perfect (read: 3-3-9) is the only way to bring balance to the force format.
But maybe it just doesn't matter, since some players like keeping their dominance in the game rather than objectively seeing the uneven playing field.
January 6, 2016 9:38 a.m.
Back to Basics, Blood Moon, Magus of the Moon, Quicksilver Fountain, Destructive Flow, Ruination, Dwarven Miner, Dwarven Blastminer, From the Ashes, Pale Moon (+Isochron Scepter), Price of Progress (+Isochron Scepter), Dust Bowl, and a number of other cards exist if 5-color decks are really that much of a problem. Besides, most decks would run Prismatic Omen or Chromatic Lantern to fix mana issues anyways.
January 6, 2016 9:43 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #13
M a g i c a l H a c k e r- i expected more from you considering you claim to be an aficionado of the format.
"Duh"
"But maybe it just doesn't matter, since some players like keeping their dominance in the game rather than objectively seeing the uneven playing field."
Can you get more condescending?
Commander doesn't even have a meta for heavan's sake. If it did, all you'd have to do is check mtggoldfish or what have you to see that though there are plenty of 3 color decks out there, there's still a huge support for mono and two color decks.
In short: git gud, quit your bitching , and quit trying to ruin the format with arbitrary restrictions
January 6, 2016 9:57 a.m.
I'm pretty sure monocolored decks have the most consistent mana-base anyway. Every land they pull can be exactly what they need, whereas a multicolor deck has some variance.
January 6, 2016 10:23 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #15
As someone who does not enjoy Commander as a format, it is my opinion that people play Commander because they want to be able to do "cool stuff" in a social environment without . Your suggestion is in direct conflict with that ideal. It is with this view that I'm deducing that you're having an issue within your local EDH playgroup. Rather than suggest that WotC somehow cater to making EDH manabases fair when they have made it very clear that they design with Standard and Limited in mind, I suggest you perhaps come up with house rules that are agreed upon by your playgroup.
January 6, 2016 10:26 a.m.
Ruination problem sovled.
But seriously, multi color decks being too consistent is only a problem if land destruction is frowned upon in your playgroup
January 6, 2016 10:27 a.m.
griffstick says... #17
I don't see a problem. Every time I see a new legend I get amped up and began a building process in my head I think mono colored generals can be very strong. Two color 3 color. It does not have to be 5 color to be strong. As for me when I see the legend I build a deck around it off of an idea that could be fun. If your running a 5 color deck just so you can have all the good stuff (good stuff deck) your playing for a different reason. With there being tribal and flavorful decks out there, there's always gonna be one or 2 color decks. But you might see more 5 color decks now cause its easier to build them now that I will not need the 50$ and 60$ lands in it to make it work so I love more lands.
January 6, 2016 10:39 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #18
The way I see it, the simple fact of the matter is that a format with bad mana just isn't as much fun. As it was originally concepted, the whole point of Commander/EDH is to have fun with weird multicolored decks. If I can't get the mana for a deck to work properly then I won't be able to have very much fun, and that sucks.
To those who say there isn't a Commander meta: there is, but on the same scale that an LGS' weekly FNM has a meta, or the group of friends you meet with to play casually at someone's house has a meta. Whatever people you play Commander with regularly represent your meta, and you need to build and play to that meta in order to get the most out of your decks. If the OP's issue is really driven by meta conditions, then the solution lies in how you personally build and play your decks.
January 6, 2016 10:50 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #19
Dang that was condescending... Sorry, I didn't mean it! (Sweatdrop) it's so easy to slip into that tone of writing when something is close to your heart, but it's almost never worth it. :C
January 6, 2016 12:14 p.m.
I kind of agree both ways...
M a g i c a l H a c k e r Your gif made my day :)
January 6, 2016 12:59 p.m.
UpperDeckerTaco says... #21
Screw all that nonsense, I wanna see a 4 color legend and a multitude of them. There are some colors I just don't like to play. For example, I want a UBGW general. C'mon R&D! Get with it!
January 6, 2016 2:28 p.m.
The other thing is (and this is mentioned on the commander website) is there is nothing stopping you from introducing house rules for YOUR meta. The issue with adopting a rule like that for everyone is that a lot of people don't agree with banning off colour fetches but once it becomes an official rule it is much harder for every most places to ignore the rule than it is for the few place who want it to add a house rule.
January 6, 2016 4:02 p.m.
I just want to say that this is not a problem I just see in my meta but one I see as widespread. Heck I even see people here politely discouraging people from playing mono-colored decks because of lack of options. Granted they do it in the nicest way possible and usually don't force the issue but still the mentality exists. I cant even tell you how many times I have seen posts on the internet saying the person should pick a general with more colors so they have more options.
I also don't think that just adding a bunch of multicolor hate cards is really a viable solution for the problem. Yes a lot of the hate cards can be very powerful when resolved but they really they eat up slots in your deck. I don't feel like being forced to add even more hate cards to an already limited deck space just to keep up is a satisfactory solution to the problem especially given the disparity in both the quality and quantity in the number of hate cards between colors. Also to be frank a lot of them seem kind of narrow and just temporary solutions to the larger issue here.
So for that reason I feel like the manabases should be attacked in some way. Now I am not asking for a huge nerf or anything that makes any it unfun to play multicolor decks just something that don't make it a given for the 5 color decks to get to all there colors every given time. Yes I know it already doesn't happen but honestly it getting quite scary how consistent they are getting in their mana. And they are only going to get more consistent as time goes on and more and more lands get printed because lets be honest it is basically impossible for wizards to never print a high impact in commander dual land ever again with how many new lands get churned out.
January 6, 2016 8:47 p.m.
The reason most people don't play mono coloured decks is that all the colours fall short in one way or another. But that's the point. If every colour could do everything then there would be no need to splash for a second or third colour and you'd just run into the same consistency issues. As it stands, Azami, Lady of Scrolls is one of the most powerful commanders out there and she's mono blue. But she lacks ramp, which has to be made up almost solely from artifacts. Other than that she is super consistent when built correctly.
The other thing is in regards to bans, WotC dont ban a particular card unless it sticks out in the format. Just because a card is good and aids in deck consistency doesn't mean it should be automatically be given the chop. Because then as well as culling off coloured fetches, you may have to cull Chromatic Lantern because it provides just as much consistency and has become a staple of most 3+ coloured decks. And now you're on a slippery slope. And I know that the RC handles the commander ban list but I don't like talking about the decisions they make ever since they giant logic hole around the time they unbanned metal worker as well as some other counterintuitive stuff.
One more point worth considering is that many mono coloured decks after a certain level also run the off colour fetches. Because why not? It gives them just as much consistency, in some ways more as they will have plenty of targets for them. Combine a fetch with Crucible of Worlds and you won't miss a land drop for the rest of the game. Seems good to me.
As I said, this sounds more like a deck power level issue than a ban XYZ because it's broken thing. If you're playing against decks that are to powerful for your meta then it sounds like you need to have some tough conversations.
But if this is just a "Commander is moving in a direction I don't like" thing, well it's tough to build a format that will appeal to everybody. And while you might not like the fact that other 3+ colour decks are consistent mana wise, I can assure you there are a lot of players that do like the fact that they can be consistent. Remember, commander is a social format, not specifically competitive but not specifically casual. So you will see people from both walks of life playing it.
And as mentioned earlier, house rules are much easier to implement than removing certain mainstream ones.
January 6, 2016 9:45 p.m.
I just honestly don't see why people would start playing mono-coloured decks less, even if better multi-coloured manabases were available. People who play mono-colour generally do so because of the power of a particular commanders like Omnath, Locus of Mana, Azami, Lady of Scrolls, or Krenko, Mob Boss; or because they just happen to like that particular commander. Neither of those reasons are going to disappear as better manabases become available.
January 6, 2016 9:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
Just going to respond to the thread starter for now.
Point 1: Land bases are already "perfect."
Let's begin with the acknowledgement that we already have access to what are essentially "perfect" mana bases (or at least the perfect cores).
Spectrum decks can play 10 each of fetches, shocks, and ABURs. Alternatively, they can play fewer shocks and add in some of the check lands and spectrum lands instead. Add to that foundation some utility lands and some more spectrum lands and you're good to go.
Tricolor decks can play the 3-3-9 for 15 essential lands, and they also have access to plenty of viable spectrum/multi lands, check lands, pain lands, and even filter lands.
The mana bases may get better, but it won't be by leaps and bounds.
If anything, new dual lands just mean more options for the players who aren't playing an optimized land base. Nobody who runs the 3-3-9 is dropping any of those lands to play the tango lands. However, those who are just beginning to improve their decks by adding shocks and fetches can use them as their second set of fetchables.
The scry lands from Theros are in a similar position. They see play in casual and semicompetitive decks (and even in some competitive bicolor decks) because they offer a reasonable effect and can tap for two colors (the shortcoming of entering tapped notwithstanding).
Point 2: Deck strength is not necessarily a function of land bases.
When we're talking about deck strength, mana bases really aren't what we're talking about. If you're considering the group of decks that can be (or are) strong, you're looking at the utility lands only; the color-producing lands are assumed to be optimized if you're taking a high-level view of the best decks. Why? Because it's possible to optimize them. And because they aren't the part of the deck that actually executes the strategy. They just enable it.
Azami, Lady of Scrolls and Arcum Dagsson and Zur the Enchanter and Animar, Soul of Elements are strong because of the nonland cards they use. Lands certainly have a part to play, but we talk about Azami's control and tribal suites or Arcum's artifact lineup or Zur's auras or Animar's combos. Those are what win the game.
Now, land bases certainly contribute greatly to a deck's strength. They affect how consistent a deck can be and how aggressive (risky) its timeline and even its card choices can be. And if you're comparing two particular decks, you are likely to look at the quality of their land bases at some point. But the discussion about the format's best, archetypal decks is not centered on lands. It's centered on the engines and win conditions that define those decks. Lands are a tool, not a strategy.
Point 3: Monocolor decks aren't bad or underrepresented.
And, leveraging the examples from the previous section, we see that monocolor decks are indeed represented in the meta. In fact, a good portion of the format's best decks are monocolor or even bicolor. Omnath, Locus of Mana is a very powerful deck, as is Krenko, Mob Boss or Azusa, Lost but Seeking also exist, to name a few more. The point is that Commander is not a format where you have to play 3 or 5 colors or lose automatically.
Are there limitations to decks that play fewer colors? Certainly. Fewer colors means fewer options. It means access to fewer utilities, making those decks potentially less flexible and less resilient than those that play more colors.
However, many monocolor and bicolor decks are able to capitalize on some synergy or precision focus that enables them to stand their ground against tricolor decks. Tricolor is not the be-all-end-all of the Commander format.
Further, you don't make monocolor decks more popular or more powerful by nerfing tricolor+ decks. Not unless the nerf is monumental. In order to prevent tricolor decks from being consistent (an ignoble goal, as I'll address later on), you would need to ban ABURs and fetches. You would need to make it so that, apart from ramp spells, there's no real way to guarantee access to specific colors. And that would be so utterly damaging to the format that it's beyond serious consideration.
On top of all of this, representation doesn't actually mean a whole lot to begin with because many people build decks based on what they like. It's only once you get to competitive levels that people are basing their decisions primarily on what's "the best" or what can win the most, and even then people take roads less traveled. For example, I prefer my Damia, Sage of Stone deck over a Hermit Druid combo deck, even though the latter is arguably better. Many people just find multicolor commanders more interesting, and the recent support for legends (between sets, Commander, etc.) certainly provides a wealth of options for players.
Point 4: There actually is a downside to 3+ colors: $$$
We can say that there's no logistical downside to playing 3 colors because it's possible to make a very consistent and powerful land base to support myriad costs and color saturations.
But we can talk also about the exponential cost of land base optimization. While my previous point was that land bases are not at the forefront of deck strength comparisons at a high level, they are certainly a consideration when you're talking about the cost to acquire or optimize a deck. Building an optimal monocolor land base is very simple. Building an optimal bicolor land base is relatively easy. Building an optimal tricolor land base will cost you a considerable amount of money (the 3-3-9 isn't budget-friendly no matter what colors you're playing). Building an optimal spectrum land base is beyond the realm of possibility for a large number of players. Optimized land bases get exponentially more expensive with each color you add because of the cycles and redundancy that need to be included.
And this problem isn't going to be alleviated as time goes on. The fetches and ABURs cost quite a bit because they're simply the best at what they do. If you print something better (which is highly unlikely and poses many other problems for the game), those lands will become expensive as well.
Point 5: There's no need to hate consistency.
And this is something I say seemingly every time the RC opens its gob. Consistency is not the enemy of the format. It's not immoral to build a consistent deck or to include consistency-improving cards. Sheldon Menery may not like it. He may kick you out of his personal clubhouse if it suits him. But from a format-level perspective, there is no wrongdoing in making your deck play consistently.
Consistency is a basic characteristic of a strong deck. And while many people think of Commander as this wacky, always-random, never-the-same-thing-twice format, the truth is that you are welcome to play it however you choose. You and your playgroup must determine what it is that you want from a game and then build and play your decks accordingly. And if you feel more like getting your deck to the most powerful and most consistent state it can achieve, then more power to you.
Conclusion
In all, the original post seems more like a mischaracterization of the format than anything else. I don't think the case can seriously be made that the format is not diverse or that monocolor decks are always bad or are drifting into nonexistence or that you have to play 3+ colors to do well.
And the notion that the RC is somehow in a position where (1) it's necessary to regulate land bases, (2) that necessity is either upon us already or will be soon, and (3) they're the competent authority for doing so is, in my opinion, ill-conceived.
To respond directly to your last paragraph, I disagree. I don't think it's an issue at all. I think it's much ado about nothing.
January 6, 2016 10:45 p.m.
I think it is awesome to have more lands available, because I am not able to buy the original duals,because they are just too expensive. In our meta most people still stay with 2 colours. I think the mana base isn't a problem because you might lose consistency by adding new colours and lose the ability (99 cards is a tough limit) to put in all the important cards for the specific colour. I think the most problem is wizards printing unbalanced commanders and the weakness of white and red in EDH (especially Boros decks)
January 7, 2016 7:40 a.m.
I think your concerns are overstated.
Mana bases enable your actual strategies but they are themselves a commitment.
Increased fetches makes it easier to make the commitment towards mana-fixing but you won't necessarily be able to play all the utility lands that don't produce color. Hall of the Bandit Lord may seem like a great addition to a Narset deck but too many similar colorless lands and you can find yourself unable to hit all the colors you want in a turn.
There are other ways to keep mono/dual color decks competitive besides nerfing the color-greedy: The new colorless mana symbol cards will be a easier for mono-color decks to include. Devotion was not a weak mechanic with Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx being a game breaker for mono-green.
January 7, 2016 12:08 p.m.
griffstick says... #29
Just a small note the only thing I hate about fetch lands is that it requires you to search your deck for a land witch in most cases is a dual land witch takes more tome to find. I hate that when im trying to make turn 1-4 go faster and the one guys turn takes forever cause he is always searching. I know the rules commity of EDH hates tutoring. And with all the fetch lands now its getting ridiculous.
January 7, 2016 1:06 p.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #30
griffstick I think that's a problem with the player, not with fetches in general.
Most competent players will search on someone else's turns to make things go faster, and they will know what land they are looking for.
Also, as a quick note, nobody ever decided to play EDH because games end quickly. If you're getting annoyed because people's turns and/or the game is long, unless it's 10 minutes fetching one card, I think you need to reevaluate which format you should be playing.
January 7, 2016 6:29 p.m.
I completely agree with Epochs response. I am surprised this is even a topic.
January 7, 2016 6:40 p.m.
The best lands we already have. All duel and tri lands made now come in tapped which creates slow plays. I don't believe that better lands will be printed. The best lands won't be reprinted.
I don't see this issue.
January 8, 2016 7:16 p.m.
Deckologist says... #33
I see where OP is coming from to an extent. Mono color was how my first few commander decks were and seeing other players constantly getting they mana package going and being on par with me confused me. Then I realized what they had to go through in game (tutoring) and out of game ($$$) to make this possible where I had to spend 3 dollars on 38 islands that I never had to search for and let the seed of doubt and worry fill me head as I realized my draw was off color or something.
MagicalHacker says... #2
January 6, 2016 5:54 a.m.