Legendary Creature — Human Samurai
Bushido 1 (When this blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
If there are exactly two permanents named Brothers Yamazaki in play, the "legend rule" doesn't apply to them.
Each other creature named Brothers Yamazaki gets +2/+2 and has haste.
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
Brothers Yamazaki Discussion
2 weeks ago
In a casual meetup, local groups can house ban certain generals, and to a lesser extent, LGS's can also theoretically house-ban certain problematic generals.
Now all that said...
Decks are like Mechs. It's not the rail gun that kills; it's the pilot that kills. Spike/Johnny players have the capacity to scale their play-style so that they don't go too over the top against newer players.
Any spike/johnny that's worth their weight in cardboard has that capacity. Whether or not they choose to exercise that restraint is a totally different matter.
To use another analogy, decks are like firearms. They are no more of a tool than a shovel is. And both'll bury you 6 feet under just the same, in different contexts.
And I did read the article posted by JWiley129. Here's my take...
With respect to the authority issue, yes Menery did invent the format along with a few others. That said, the environment doesn't revolve around him or his infinite wisdom in LGS's; the rulings are only strictly adhered to in tournament environments, and in casual groups, the infraction of the rule can be mitigated via freecycling and a friendly warning. Sheldon knows (I'm fairly certain at least) that he's not the center of the format and that the format doesn't revolve around him; why else would it be a suggested banlist? Those cards shouldn't be played without prior permission from the rest of the table, at least in a casual setting; for tournaments, you're told to sub those illegal cards out or not play with the deck at all.
Regarding the Oversight on Tucking: Each person is unique and responds differently to adversity. One of the worst losses I ever had was in a 60 card game where a Bazaar Trader donated an Abyssal Persecutor to me, and I couldn't respond to it because my deck wasn't equipped to deal with a threat of that type. I decked out and felt like an idiot. But it taught me something very important: Threat Assessment. By learning of threat assessment, one learns how, over time, how to appropriately respond to a board-state.
In sum, Deterrence without Legitimacy is nothing short of Folly. And with that addressed let's look at his mentioned follies.
Flaw #1 (that tuck has been a vital part of peoples' ability to control abusive opponents): Spot removal, unless it's exile based, most often leads to card attrition. Why else would black, red, and white decks alike typically contain board wipes? (Because they like destroying their own creatures?!)
In a 60 card game, you have access to multiple copies of a particular card; in commander, with the exception of Relentless Rats, Shadowborn Apostle, and the ever rare occasion of Brothers Yamazaki, this is a 100 card singleton format. Card advantage is not calculated the same away in commander as it is in other constructed formats.
In the hand example provided by the author, you'd partial that hand, depending on how your deck was constructed. You'd probably partial away Clone Legion and Insurrection for 2 other cards, knowing that you'd shuffle them back in. Beyond that, tutors exist to make a deck more consistent, regardless of however many are played. Therefore, the argument of dying "before the first bomb is dropped" is a logically implausible assertion.
The author's argument of playing enough "early game interaction" (to include removal) cards is also a bad argument, from both a threat assessment perspective and a political perspective. While killing a mana rock may seem kosher in a 1 vs. 1 situation where that may be necessary to keep a ramp player under control, that doesn't fly in multiplayer; that's the kind of thing that gets you labeled as "that guy" since resource denial is generally frowned upon in Battlecruiser Magic. Additionally, the argument of threat assessment plays a role, such as in the case of countering a tutor, for example (you don't counter the tutor, you counter what's being searched for). This kind of rationale leads to card attrition, as mentioned previously, and puts a target on you in multiplayer games.
Ideally, it would be nice to have a "good, clean fight", but the reality of war is that it's not about who's right, it's about who's left, especially with money/prizes of any sort on the line. (I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to a tournament to waste money.) Therefore, the "getting up and walking away" argument fails here, in part because of the tournament setting itself.
But lets look also at the meta as well, since that has an impact. The meta in question where the "infraction" happens has something to do with the competitive level and nature of the group; some metas that I have been to have been Stax heavy, and I don't generally like playing in a Stax environment since it makes for long boring games. (An hour or so for a game is fine, but 4 to 5 hours is a bit much.)
Flaw #2 ("removing tuck from Commander weakens peoples' ability to handle opponents will lead to uncontrolled waves of obnoxious Skitheryx, Zur, Kaalia, and Derevi decks poised to run their tables"): As evidence, I present French EDH Championship tournament results, circa 2011, where more than 50% of the meta included Edric decks, in both the Philippines and in France. Bear in mind, this was with Spell Crumple and Hinder both being legal in the format.
Now bearing that in mind, imagine if you will where you're in a meta where people may or may not be playing with the most optimal cards. This essentially turns the control player into the answer man because it cannot be assumed, for the sake of politics, that the other players are going to have the answer needed to nullify the problem. In a large enough city, where a diverse meta is available, you cannot take for granted someone's inability or capacity to answer a threat in a timely manner.
After reading Sean McKeown's article, I'm just that more convinced that the banning was detrimental to the format. Thanks again for posting the article, but I'm not convinced that the logic behind supporting the RC is valid.
2 weeks ago
Samurai moose. Love it! I was gonna reccomend Brothers Yamazaki but you need 2 to make it fully work.
1 month ago
1 month ago
Brothers Yamazaki also seems like it could be wicked effective... If one or both die you can just readily play ones you've been holding in hand... Not to mention playing it turn 3 and then 4 is pretty reliable.
1 month ago
2 months ago
2 months ago
Brothers Yamazaki can utilize reds (temporary) copy effects to get his brother.
I'd vote for Chisei, Heart of Oceans because I have one that I've been trying to get rid of since before I played commander...
2 months ago
And honestly, I think rather than forcing them to share a color, I think we could simply make it so that the color total does not exceed three colors or something, so basically Nin, the Pain Artist and Azusa, Lost but Seeking may be the two commanders of a deck, while Oloro, Ageless Ascetic and Damia, Sage of Stone cannot be used together. This way, two mono colored commanders may be used together, and decks don't just fall under good stuff.
On this same note, I think that we could also allow for a bypass in the color limit when it comes to 5 color commanders. One idea for this would be to only allow mono colored commanders to be used with 5 color commanders, so Scion of the Ur-Dragon can be used with Brothers Yamazaki while Reaper King can't be used with Tasigur, the Golden Fang.
Per norm, this is all subject to change.
|Power / Toughness||2/1|
|Avg. draft pick||2.03|
|Avg. cube pick||4.35|
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Champions of Kamigawa||Uncommon|